Here's chart I made for myself that I think about. Basically the only time period of US history where we've gone this long without a president winning with 75%+ of electoral college was post-civil war period
Lots of ways to interpret this.
One would be to think about what are plausible paths of someone getting those numbers in today's age. If we expect reversion to mean, than it's very interesting to understand what paths someone will cut through it.
Another interpretation of course would be to be bearish. A third
is to think party system has gotten more "efficient" at being roughly evenly split.
You might be wondering what is that datapoint of someone winning with less than 50%. Is that even possible?!?!
Well for those who haven't taken AP US history, I introduce you to the wonders of the 1824 election
Where one party had multiple top contenders. Nobody got a majority. And the House decided to just ignore the popular vote haha
We're at odd ground right now where there's not really any medium for mid/long form discussion on blog posts anymore
Blog post replies not really a thing. Twitter used to be but less a place for discussion. Private email and group chat sort of the place, but issues with both
Email or spinning up something like a discourse seems like the temporary solution I'm increasingly tempted by
Latter is tempting after seeing some successes in it on protocol forums for long form. But has whole list of other reasons high activation energy
but it is very odd that there are essays I read where literally do not know where one discusses them
Most I read wouldn't be hacker news fodder anyways. But fwiw I think hacker news is not this either.
2. is the reliance on exit as the safeguard a temporary or long term solution. Which implies views on the long term stability of individual crypto projects vs constant churn due to the incentives towards defection we've seen market give today
subpoint buried within the 2nd point is that I think there's probably a better understanding of some kind of meta-project players where you should see exit into new tokens not as churn but as capture of a more informed / capitalized elite in crypto. And I suspect the data would
Really great for Waymo. Dmitri Dolgov is perfect person to run Waymo
When I was at greylock & investing in AV companies I talked to many people in the industry. And he was consistently in the top of everyone’s dream list of people to recruit from Google
I was skeptical on signal risk being big issue. Its impact on potential new vcs is still overweighted imo
But recent convos with founder friends has flipped my view
The real issue is how it changes openness on fundraising strategy between founders & *current* investor
Because now they are player in the next round too. So founders become a lot more sensitive about what to share and being able to talk it through with them
Not only bc have to still be marketing to them (which I personally think people underweight degree you always must do that)
but also because now conversations with them affect the dynamics of upcoming round, like double slit experiment
I don't view that as insurmountable. And all of private markets is the essence of conflict of interest (which has huge positives too)