The solution to this problem is very complex and occurs once you scale. The companies facing this problem are big and have the resources to solve it. The solution is non-trivial and requires a lot of smart engineers and AI. All the huge companies have actually solved this problem in reasonable ways. It's what "the AI revolution" is all about. It's kind of a solved problem + heavily in the making. To try and approach this problem as a startup is just the wrong approach from a "sequence of events" and also "logical" perspective: You have to build something else successful first and then adjust/expand into multiple markets. Silicon Valley is not about targeting niche markets. It's about capturing one, ideally big market (typically "the us market") first and then expanding into others (typically all the countries in the world). The market for black people content (~12% of the us population) is "one of those" "subsequent" markets.
It seems to make no sense the way they do it and he is pointing that out.
I am an Airbnb host and once rented to a black couple for a month.
After that I had a lot of "black" content (people) suggested on my youtube.
It's a difficult(AI), but especially solved problem that only big companies have and they are obviously doing (approaching - as a small startup) it wrong...
... which is kind of a surprise, because YC is such a renowned VC/incubator.
Looking at the other startups they support lately it is sad to see what they have become: Supporting minoritie's interests for the sake of it (statistics).
"Looking at the other startups they support lately it is sad to see what they have become: Supporting minoritie's interests for the sake of it (statistics)."
They're investing for the most part in startups that have opportunities for significant growth, besides a small number of charitable ventures. Here, streaming is a big deal and starting in the US but pushing into Africa is a potential opportunity. Other recent startups have been financial plays in India or South America or similar - proven plans in new, broadly populated areas. Are they supposed to wait on PayPal or whoever to tailor their service to suit a particular country?
Do you personally read your local newspaper waiting for them to add tech commentary or do you visit and post on Hacker News?
If YC are wrong and there's little interest, they've thrown away a tiny amount of money. On the whole, they've been right, however. It doesn't cost you or I anything.
I'd rather see them try this than all of us support a streaming monoculture.
Who? Everyone knows Steve Jobs. And after small, portable music players (iPods) and smart phones (iPhones), cars and space are just the next big things ripe for disruption. Also the other things Elon does (Powerwall, Solar Roof) are just timed very well. He has a sense for such things. Just like Steve. He also informs and educates us (the public) just like Steve did, creating the famous distortion field. I am happy we have a new Steve Jobs.
They work 24/7. 12 hour shifts "day" and "night" with 3 and 4 days off each other week. They also distribute the work properly in parallel and have the perfect visionary (Elon) and capable leadership / lead engineers, fixing on mistakes and iterating. Probably it's forbidden to work like that in a lot of other developed countries, which basically only allow for 8 hours of work Monday to Friday. And also lack the proper leadership.
I think it's pretty normal in most developed countries to have operations happening 24/7, in some there's rules requring extra pay for saturdays and sundays, and a lot have weekly per-worker limits on the number of hours worked and/or numbers of hours where extra pay is required, but it's certainly not impossible.
The originator of the (generic) concept "alpha" (please let us know who this is / who you think this is) has discontinued the term "alpha" (quite an alpha-decision from him, I would say) due to new insights discovered when observing wolves. Alpha does not exist for wolves (presumably)... and in general. To extend just further (why not) the concept gets fully discontinued, due to public pressure, because everything is equal anyway.
You had me until your last sentence. What do you mean that the term is being discontinued due to public pressure? Isn't it natural for concepts to go away if they're found to be inaccurate (ex: phlogiston)? I also don't understand "everything is equal anyway". Could you elaborate?
Since you mention the term in relationship to the public, I actually think that "alpha" as a term to describe someone who is dominant has been doing just fine as a societal meme, despite it being used less among biologists/whomever. In this sense it doesn't seem to be going away at all.
I am being ironic (which is not allowed here, actually) and I am mocking the SJW an PC pressure, which very few but loud proponents shout out on the internet, mainly social media, today. Wishing away things, like not only the concepts, but also the words. But that won't happen and we see an alpha leader / beneficent dictator (for life) rise again (because it just works so well): Elon Musk.
The guys weren't cutting it any more. They were not delivering on the expectations of the group (growing it). Life became too harsh and stressful for them, they are not even mating any more, since the offspring couldn't be fed, so they stop breading with the females. Still: Everyone is disappointed and the males know it, too... affecting their behavior which gets less dominant/aggressive. The females are now in focus, since they procreated more reliably (on average, the old alpha, that had a lot of offspring, is likely dead by now). The shift to a female leader means the population is in trouble and in decline. A crisis manager(female) gets installed.
Note that typically older males mate with (much) younger females: It's no coincidence, that she is that much younger than her male counter parts: She is angry about her mating partners that they have stopped mating (with her). Older females have offspring. The old alpha male, which is dead, has a lot of offspring. The external life conditions just became too harsh, this is not a happy setup. There are 2 strategies, but one is to react on external circumstances (stop procreating), instead of blindly going ahead and having to stem the bill later (starving babies). Apes are intelligent enough for the first, but there are furious women now (including "her").
Ridiculous statement: "It just goes to show, it's never about gender, just about choices, ambition and how brave you choose to be."
Followed by: "Fuck yeah!"
--> Ironic in my world, but "the other side ("feminists") seem to have adapted to also address / talk to (deceive/decept) 'more conservative' people with their speech. We try to include/reach each other.
Wow I love how you say that's a ridiculous statement.. to me that's completely true about the world. for you to think that's a ridiculous statement means to me that you are just giving away your power to everyone else letting everyone else set the terms of everything pretending that your choices don't matter and then it doesn't matter your ambition on how brave you out. To me sounds like you just want to start from this disempowered position. By choice no less. But if you take the other path and take personal responsibility? That's empowering. Fuck yeah!
I'm clear on it. I'm against people saying gender matters because it makes me weak and a victim and I can't do anything and therefore people should give to me because of my gender rather than me having to create for myself. so people forget that it's about choices and ambition and bravery just like I said in the monkey comment. I'm for people saying gender matters where it's like whatever qualities you want to associate with your gender as something that you draw strength from. I'm against the sort of self-hating insecurity about gender that seem to come out of Western American culture.
Let's be honest and address the implicitly given analogy to our modern human world. What are the different motivations males and females have in general and why did she end up in this alpha-position, while still lacking a lot of the advantages a male would have (mating and procreating with a lot of females)? It's because "the other gender" also carries all these (particularly very desirable in one gender) traits in them. I always think of men, which have very attractive daughters, like Billy Ray Cyrus (Miley Cyrus) or Rob Schneider (Elle King), but they themselves can't profit that much from the interesting looks (nose) and rather even look like a bum, themselves.
So "the other sex" also inevitably carries around all these (attractive) traits (kind of "reciprocally"), typically: They are there, but don't matter, really. They were inherited and can be passed on, though.
And in this very rare case like this: A female became an alpha. Her masculinity traits, which should rather only exist reciprocally within her (as a female), were coming out so strong, that she beat all the males. Though: No mass-mating (offspring) for her, rather likely: No offspring at all.
