@DavidLund6@AuditTheHerd It’s to win high LTV customers, relationships matter more than price. The entire value proposition has to be optimized. Customers need the option to grow into other products. This is why single line insurtechs will have a tough road ahead
Using this as a way to refine my own thesis:
1) The hardest thing about learning a language is doing your lesson everyday. Building an app (or anything) that keeps millions of people coming back everyday is really hard.
2) Users put up with Duolingo reminder notifications because the Owl has become part of the cultural zeitgeist. The Owl knows its annoying but it doesn't care because it just wants you to do your lesson. Users are strangely okay with that. This is the most under appreciated moat of the business because replicating that is next to impossible.
3) Why can't Duolingo create the best AI tutor itself? They have a decade of A/B tested data to build from. They already have video call with Lily. Why is it more likely someone else will come in with a better one?
4) Duolingo is free for 90% of its users. How is someone going to come in and make a better product that's both free and sticky? Even with unlimited money that would be hard.
5) Their founder invented reCAPTCHA. He knows how to fend off bots maybe better than anyone.
@Camp4@shai_wininger this is a pretty interesting model for health insurance. I think CrowdHealth is doing an impressive job trying to tackle this massive problem, but I can't help think Lemonade could do it better with its branding and UX and automated backend
The professor who invented "growth mindset" works at Stanford, and most people have no idea what she actually discovered.
Everyone quotes the phrase. Almost nobody understands what the research behind it really showed.
Her name is Carol Dweck, and the finding that made her famous came from watching how children responded to failure in real time.
She gave kids a series of puzzles, and when the puzzles got hard, two completely different behaviors emerged. Some kids leaned in and tried harder. Others shut down and gave up. The IQ scores between the two groups were nearly identical.
The difference had nothing to do with intelligence. It had everything to do with what each child believed about intelligence itself.
Kids who believed ability was fixed treated every failure as evidence of who they were. Kids who believed ability could grow treated every failure as information about what to do next. Same puzzle. Same difficulty. Completely different outcomes.
Here is what Stanford now officially teaches its students based on her work.
The first tool is deceptively simple: add the word "yet" to any statement of failure. "I don't understand this" becomes "I don't understand this yet."
That single word shifts the brain from a closed verdict to an open investigation, and the research shows it measurably changes how long students persist on hard problems.
The second tool is reframing what effort actually means. Students with a fixed mindset interpret needing to try hard as proof they aren't talented.
Students with a growth mindset interpret effort as the mechanism through which talent is built. The same amount of struggle means two completely different things depending on the story you tell yourself about it.
The third tool is how you process criticism. A fixed mindset treats negative feedback as a personal attack to be avoided. A growth mindset treats it as the most useful data available because it points directly at the gap between where you are and where you want to be.
Dweck spent decades proving that the belief you hold about your own potential is not just a feeling. It is a self-fulfilling operating system that determines almost everything about what you're willing to attempt and how long you're willing to keep going.
The students who thrive at Stanford aren't the ones who never struggle.
They're the ones who decided that struggling means they're learning.
I think you've got the most balanced take on here. I'm with you, I don't understand the delay given the safety level has been reached.
FSD's pickup/dropoff reasoning is maybe 7/10 solved. So while safety is solved they still want to avoid a cybercab mess in streets and parking lots and causing issues for local emergency services.
14.3.4 shows improvement in parking lots but still not 9/10 which I think they are aiming for before deploying robotaxis.
@nymbusjp Why is rollout stalled if theres zero at fault incidents? Only reason I can think of is theyre waiting for Cybercab testing to finalize. But Id rather push Model Y rollout now if its safe. Every day they wait costs more lives on the road
@OverlyTrev He’s gotta say it to appease investors and he’s gotta mention Uber so they’ll keep giving them more money. Also puts pressure on his AI team to deliver. I don’t think he actually believes these timelines at all
@nymbusjp I never considered the delay from actuators. Really furthers the argument for vertical integration. Waymo will never get this closely integrated until they make their own car
@DevinOlsenn These things will matter way less with no driver. When you supervise you have to pay attention to a lot more details and easier to get annoyed with stuff. When you sit as a passenger only, most will just look at their phone until they arrive :)