As someone else mentioned just looking Fund+Number doesn't exclude non-VC funds. However, the 2024 NVCA report supports the OP's thesis: see page 17: https://nvca.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-NVCA-Yearbo...

That graph doesn't perfectly match the OP's but is definitely close enough to be worrying if you were raising or looking to join a startup

The only reason I'm not downloading it is because 3 days not enough for me to evaluate it and I don't really want to have to add another reminder to cancel yet another subscription.

I never set reminders. I just cancel right away. 99.9% of the time, it will just end when the trial is over, or if I just want to pay for a month, when that period is over.

Yes, a safe mode would be great. I think it's a "nice to have" for a lot of early adopter (type of people who read HN), but it will be a "must have" more corporate types (a much bigger market).

Agreed. However, I think you're being overly charitable in calling it a "pet peeve", it's more like a pathological misunderstanding of stats that leads to a lot of bad outcomes especially in popular wellness media.

As an example, read just about any health or nutrition research article referenced in popular media and there's very often a pretty weak effect size even though they've achieved "statistical significance." People then end up making big changes to their lifestyles and habits based on research that really does not justify those changes.

I support full legalization of cannabis and I agree that those are valid concerns.

Yes, the harm done to addicts will probably increase. There's always trade offs. I think people on the pro-legalization side are not doing enough to address this.

One of the problems with public discourse is that each side doesn't want to give an inch to the other side. I think a lot of people who support legalization of cannabis kinda know that harms to addicts might increase, but they're afraid that if they mention that then that will just give a talking point to the prohibitionists.

Both sides are guilty of misusing or ignoring facts and concerns that don't benefit their preferred take on the issue. However, it seems to me the prohibitionists are far more egregious when it comes making bad arguments.

This pretty much sums it up. There's about ten other things that are self-evidently more important in a job search than this.

Just chiming in to confirm this anecdote - the only difference is that the machine I gave my partner was a macbook air, not pro. Still works fine for almost all normal person use cases.

Agreed. But I think you're referring to "AI innovation" and the author (and others) are referring to "AI product innovation," i.e. how AI is actually showing up in people's everyday life - and that pace is absolutely overwhelming.

Yes please, this is a legitimate course of government action. I personally am very reluctant to sign up for new subscription from smaller companies because I don't want the hassle of unsubscribing.

Tough-to-cancel subscriptions actually make it harder for small businesses to succeed because potential customers like me are reluctant to sign up for subscriptions thanks to a few bad apples polluting the market.

I agree with your basic idea, but I don't think there's really any way around this - at some point these systems will have to be tested in a real world environment.

I guess the question is: how much higher should the bar be set? And if we set it substantially higher then how much longer will it take to improve the performance and safety of these systems?