I work at Featurespace - we stop fraud, scams, money laundering and other financial crimes.
We build software that runs real-time machine learning models at scale, deep in the financial 'rails' that move money around, and we license it to banks and other financial institutions.
A surprisingly large number of my colleagues are here because of similar reasons - we like making a positive societal contribution.
1. The jury should not base their decision on their belief whether either side is lying.
2. The defence is expected to lie, and if the prosecution cannot prove that every single one of the defence's arguments are lies, then the jury cannot convict beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The jury should assume that the prosecution is lying by default, and acquit if the prosecution does not convince them otherwise.
The defence is expressly prohibited from lying. Lawyers have a so called duty of candor [1] outlining this. Defendants testify under oath to make this clear to them. Defence attorneys must disclose to the court if their client lies to the court (and they can't convince their client to voluntarily disclose it instead) [2].
That doesn't mean people are expected to take defendants at their word during trial, juries are allowed to decide they think that someone was lying, but they aren't expected to lie.
I have, it's worth getting, it definitely scratches the same 'must ... optimise ... better ...' itches.
It's early access but very playable and feature complete, but it does feel less polished than factorio (obviously can't compare to an 8 year development effort!)
Satisfactory is another great play for fans of the genre.
Both games are 3D, and both use the additional dimension well. You can play them fine just like factorio (I did the first runthrough) and treat 3D as eye candy, but you'll do better if you 'cut with the grain' and learn how to build 3D factories.
> what is the best calculation to make when trading off code quality vs features?
> do most YC startups write tests and try to write cleanish code in V1 or does none of this matter?
It only matters when bad code hurts your overall business velocity - what that means, only you can answer.
Nobody's writing tests for their purist aethestics, they're there to let you go faster - but there's an up-front cost you have to pay for them. Sometimes that's worth paying, sometimes the land grab is more important.
Tend to agree. Leadership needs to send strong, clear signals about quality and acknowledge existence of potential technical debt well before the team starts feeling crushed by it.
I've been through deals with large financial institutions that have taken 2-3 years from an initial incredibly positive demo and PoC and strong buying signals, through to a signed contract.
IMO going through that successfully is also sending a signal that you have sufficient endurance - there's a large risk for a corporate to sign up for a long contract with a startup, they don't know how long you're going to be in business for. If the startup doesn't have the appetite to spend 2-3 years to get a contract over the line, then they aren't going to be a stable partner for the long term.
You need to also have sufficient numbers of small/medium scale deals so you're not 100% relying on elephant hunting.
Not sure about good on prem products, but if you want to broaden the scope - there are a couple of others including Glip, Flock, and Twist which I have come across in some reviews, including the PC Mag reviews. Have tried out Flock and Twist, specifically- you might want to add these to your consideration set
We build software that runs real-time machine learning models at scale, deep in the financial 'rails' that move money around, and we license it to banks and other financial institutions.
A surprisingly large number of my colleagues are here because of similar reasons - we like making a positive societal contribution.
We're hiring!