Not necessarily, but it doesn’t solve the problem - if you calculate MVP on the CPU with double float precision, when you pass the final matrix to the shader, it will be cast down to single float precision, and cause the issue described.
Serious answers (from someone who just raised €10M from European VCs for a pre-revenue, pre-launch company):
1) While US investors can and will invest in Europe, they are more likely to do so at a later stage.
2) Not everybody wants to move to the US on a pipedream, particularly those with family, kids, and roots on this side of the Atlantic. Again, at later stages, when there is more stability to the company, this can change.
3) the lower cost of operations in most of Europe partially makes up for the lower amount you raise - our monthly personnel cost is a fraction of what it would be in the bay area. And again, as you grow, and need to hire really senior experienced talent, this changes.
4) there is early stage money in Europe. Maybe you don’t raise 5M with a PowerPoint, but you can raise. There is also a vibrant startup scene with several hubs (Berlin, London, Barcelona). Though I will admit, it’s not as crazy as Silicon Valley where everyone I meet seems to have a crazy startup idea.
The biggest downside I see is that, as a European founder, you likely have to go through one if not two pre-seed rounds before you can raise ‘decent’ money, which dilutes you and puts you at a disadvantage for when you eventually move to the US (which you probably will do at some point, at least in terms of incorporation).
Yet, despite knowing this, I’m not sure I would have done that much different in my journey so far.
Having raised a (preish) seed round on Europe, I'd like to add that it's even quite common in Europe that they expect you to be able to raise some first money (lead investor) in your home country first. Raising remotely (country wise) is definitely a much bigger challenge, at least in early phases.
Specialized and other major bike brands spend a lot on R&D. The reason that you can buy a reasonable quality open mold carbon frame direct from Taiwan these days (and rebrand it as “my great bike brand” before selling it on at a markup, if you want) is because the big brands have spent a lot of money developing and refining the concept over the years.
Modern bikes, with all their bells and whistles, which are light years better than their counterparts from 20 years ago, simply wouldn’t exist had this R&D not occurred.
That doesn't really explain the prices, a Specialized Turbo Kenevo SL Expert (9.6k EUR) full suspension e-mtb costs more than a Kawasaki or Yamaha 900cc naked motorcycle (~9k EUR). The top of the line S-works e-mtb is in a similar price point as the latest BMW S1000RR. It just doesn't make any sense other than greed.
Freeverse.io | Fullstack, Frontend Developers | Full-time | Barcelona, Spain, but REMOTE ok CET +/- 3hrs
Our mission is to create Living Assets, the NFT 2.0 platform that will power the next generation digital industry, and reach the mainstream user. Our applications are typically developed with React, accessing the GraphQL endpoints provided by our backend services, mostly written in Go.
We are a VC-backed seed-stage company, based out of Barcelona, Spain, but willing to work with remote developers within reasonable time-difference.
> in-game virtual goods. But as certificates layered on top of collectibles... I'm not so sure.
I agree - the problem with most NFTs at the moment is that you can't actually do anything with them, apart from trade them.
There are games coming out now (e.g. Goal Revolution[0]) where your NFTs' properties (and, by extension, value) change based on what you do with them (how you use them). If the NFT thing is going to have any future, it needs to follow this example.
> the problem with most ~NFTs~ art at the moment is that you can't actually do anything with them, apart from trade them.
I dot agree with this statement but perhaps it'll help you expand why you think this way. As the article says, you don't have to own the Mona Lisa to appreciate it's beauty.
Funnily enough, it's precisely this attitude which has led to the creation of the product owner role, and Scrum in general.
Most developers I know are emphatically NOT good product people (despite what they may think).
A good product owner is quite difficult to find, as they need to combine:
i) a user-centric view of what the product needs to be,
ii) a business-centric view of what needs to be released, and when,
iii) a developer-centric view to make the 'best' product, from a programming perspective, and looking towards the long-term.
> That means we are beating the product into submission until its good, even if it means rewriting the thing three times and missing deadlines
This is all well and good until a competitor launches before you (with an inferior product), takes all your market share, and when you eventually launch you're having to play catch-up trying to steal clients. Meanwhile the competitor is reinvesting their initial revenue in making their product better to match yours, which means they keep their clients, keep getting revenue, investment etc.
You may have a better product, but you'll end up going bust.
+1 to your third point especially. I'll even add that Agile development can be a big bonus in any market that has the potential for rapidly changing needs. Even if you don't lose out to your faster competition you may still end up releasing to a market that's no longer looking for the solution that you "perfected". Agile development allowing you to release a functional product as soon as possible, and adding to it as resources allow means you can pivot your development to meet new demands instead of bogging yourself down trying to produce the perfect solution to a problem that continues to evolve.
