The flaw in this is that our mobility and density is unprecedented, so things that were not feasible for a startup plague in the past may now be feasible.
The reason given was leeching. Neutral is not good enough for that sometimes; you need slightly basic. Some things will corrode at pH 7, but not higher.
Distilled water being very low in dissolved ions will be more prone to picking up metal ions from pipes than water that already has a natural/normal level of dissolved ions. So in that way it is more "corrosive" than ordinary tap water.
I don't get it. The author rails through the whole essay that there are no A players and B players, but the conclusion concedes that some people are stronger and smarter, and some people are going to fit into your company better, which from the perspective of the employer, is fully equivalent to the A/B thing. The only difference is in what you think they might accomplish elsewhere, and vague notions of their value as a human being.
More interesting is the point that a given person may thrive in one environment and falter in another. This is totally true, and very important to keep in mind when evaluating what to do with people who are faltering, but it's not a dichotomy between that and the "fully general robust innate talent" theory. Both are true. Some people are simply stronger and smarter, but on top of that, environment plays a large role. Act accordingly.
It looks like it uses linear interpolation between the different glyphs, which makes it look a bit jerky. The author might want to try a sinusoidal interpolation so that velocity reaches zero at the key frames and the whole thing thus spends more time dwelling on the legible parts of the animation and looks smoother.
One trick I've noticed to make animations/transitions "snappier" and more natural is to use quadratic/square (power of 2) scaling. For fun I did it on this clock just saving it locally - you can do it by modifying line 140 of `bezier_clock.pde` to square the ratio instead of simply assign it:
animationRatio = ratio * ratio; // can also replace with sqrt(ratio)
Again, just makes it a little bit 'snappier' (remember you have to hit spacebar to turn on continual animation), and scales it so you can determine the numbers a bit more clear earlier in the cycle because of the scaling on (0.0, 1.0]. This is certainly a fun piece of code to play with.
I've updated it with quad, cubic and sinusoidal modes. They all look good. Only problem is that because it's no longer linear, the various points can change at different rates and thus create 'kinks' in the curve. When it's linear, the 'line points' and the associated 'control points' are always in a line locally tangential to the curve (don't know the proper terminology but hopefully you understand).
That shouldn't happen if you do the motion transform uniformly on all axes. It should just be equivalent to changing the speed of time, rather than actually changing the trajectories.
I would also add that YC investment boosts nuclear stuff as a legitimate thing. Could lead to copycat investment (which we dearly need in the nuclear field).
This is true but the english expression of it is prone to misunderstanding. See the no free lunch theorem for the technical version of the problem of induction:
