I can't comment on the manufacturing process, but in terms of durability -- would probably just put this in between two panes of glass in a double pane window?
Doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose of this new glass letting in more light than new glass? Or would the outside panes be made of the new glass without the nano structure?
The new material is an extremely thin film that sits on top of a traditional glass substrate: it doesn’t replace the window, and it doesn’t dim light or reduce the spectrum in the same way that frosted glass normally would.
SmarterDx | 180 - 230K + equity + benefits | Remote first (but U.S. only due to data confidentiality) | Full time
We are an early stage health tech company using AI to improve hospital revenue cycle (making healthcare costs lower and allowing doctors to focus on patient care). The team is small but high functioning (MD + data scientist combos, former ASF board member, Google and Amazon engineers, Stanford LLM researchers, etc.) and initially scaled the company to $1MM+ in contracted revenue without raising capital.
We have been backed by top investors including Floodgate (Lyft, Twitch, Twitter), Bessemer, and are currently on pace to 30X in revenue over a two-year time period.
SmarterDx | 180 - 230K + equity + benefits | Remote first (but U.S. only due to data confidentiality) | Full time
We are an early stage health tech company using AI to improve hospital revenue cycle (making healthcare costs lower and allowing doctors to focus on patient care). The team is small but high functioning (MD + data scientist combos, former ASF board member, Google and Amazon engineers, Stanford LLM researchers, etc.) and initially scaled the company to $1MM+ in contracted revenue without raising capital.
We have been backed by top investors including Floodgate (Lyft, Twitch, Twitter), Bessemer, and are currently on pace to 30X in revenue over a two-year time period.
SmarterDx | 180 - 230K + equity + benefits | Remote first (but U.S. only due to data confidentiality) | Full time
We are an early stage health tech company using AI to improve hospital revenue cycle (making healthcare costs lower and allowing doctors to focus on patient care). The team is small but high functioning (MD + data scientist combos, former ASF board member, Google and Amazon engineers, Stanford LLM researchers, etc.) and initially scaled the company to $1MM+ in contracted revenue without raising capital.
We have been backed by top investors including Floodgate (Lyft, Twitch, Twitter), Bessemer, and are currently on pace to 30X in revenue over a two-year time period.
Who we are looking for:
- Data scientists
- ML Ops
- FS Eng (Senior and Staff)
- Product designer
- Technical PM (not listed yet on careers but we are hiring for this!)
I see you're looking for a lead product designer, any chance you guys'll be hiring for a senior product designer in the near future? Would love to apply (have exp in all the areas you're touching on), but am considered a senior rather than a lead.
Applied by email for the Technical PM role, I'm looking to expand from my information security background. Cheers for the heads-up that this was a role available.
There's two axes. One axis of the matrix is what the founder wants. The other axis is what the business needs.
The business needs axis is continuous:
- Some businesses obviously don't require outside capital (e.g. founder is equipped to get a sellable product built by themselves).
- Some businesses require tons of outside capital and cannot be bootstrapped; self-driving cars is an obvious example.
- Some are in between; e.g. many b2b products require a baseline level of features / complexity with active competitors that's hard to achieve by bootstrapping.
If a business requires a significant amount of capital AND the maximum outcome is e.g. $500K a year, then it shouldn't exist. This is why VCs ask what the market size is.
Some founders think raising outside capital is a "win". They want that external validation and then convince themselves and/or VCs that there's a big outcome on the other side (or, in the ZIRP 2021 era, get convinced by VCs). This is a mistake -- the only external validation that matters is market validation.
Instead, founders should think of outside capital as a necessary evil, and make a clear-headed decision as to whether the benefits of capital for their businesses is worth the cost (in the form of preference and control -- or at least influence). And it should be worth the cost by some significant margin, because outside capital is often optimizing arithmetic mean outcome whereas the founder is often optimizing something closer to geometric mean outcome.
I'm fairly certain most independently run american crop farms require many multiples of that in capital for around that much revenue if not less and NEED to exist. Of course they aren't good candidates for venture investment capital. But saying they shouldn't exist is probably a bit too far.
You're right, and there's other things like restaurants that require capital and have a cap on earnings.
I should have phrased it as venture capital, which is structured to look for unicorns.
There are other forms of capital that are appropriate for businesses with a high chance of returning a moderate gains instead of a low chance of extraordinary gains.
SmarterDx | 180 - 230K + equity + benefits | Remote first (but U.S. only due to data confidentiality) | Full time
We are an early stage health tech company using AI to improve hospital revenue cycle (making healthcare costs lower and allowing doctors to focus on patient care). The team is small but high functioning (MD + data scientist combos, former ASF board member, Google and Amazon engineers, Stanford LLM researchers, etc.) and initially scaled the company to $1MM+ in contracted revenue without raising capital.
We have been backed by top investors including Floodgate (Lyft, Twitch, Twitter), Bessemer, and are currently on pace to 30X in revenue over a two-year time period.
To somebody working in security, you're more or less asking for a combination IT helpdesk, system administrator, network engineer, and compliance specialist.
I've worked at a number of startups and understand that the nature of the job requires folks to wear a lot of hats, but security engineers are in high demand and you'll likely have more luck if you can focus the job req a bit more on the work you need.
If the work really is that diverse, you may have better luck hiring a reputable security consultancy that has all of those specialists on hand.
We appreciate your feedback! We will experimentally see what type of candidates we can attract and update our process from there. I may be overly optimistic, but am hopeful this will attract the "T-shaped" candidate who's great at one area but is willing to roll up their sleeves in others.
This reads like your standard issue security-team-in-a-box JD. You might find the T-shaped candidate of your dreams, but anyone capable of delivering the combination of cloud admin/netadmin/IT/SOC II/HIPAA/software arch/devops is going to know they're a substitute for a team. They'll expect to be paid significantly above what you're offering because they're going to be doing the job of a director and a team of six on an engineer's authority. This doesn't even touch on policy or IR, but they'll inevitably wind up in there too.
Speaking as a security professional who is the T-shaped person you want, this JD is bad news. It reads less as the expression of a hopeful young company and more of a giant red flag warning that this company does not understand security or take it seriously enough. You may want to rethink it if you wish your company to have a reputation as taking the security of your customers' data seriously.
The advice to consider a consultancy is sound and well worth careful consideration.
This is an early stage startup, and they are very clear in describing that. I also like the clarity in their business model. And the conciseness. In 2 sentences they've told me everything I need to know. The founding team is also exceptionally on point. What I read into all this is that they are good to great at execution, at communication, and very well versed in the problem space. There aren't all that many medical doctor, strong compsci, startup founders.
The money on offer is very much on par with this kind of position at this size of company. I have to believe that the equity will also be respectable. Surely, they will find out soon enough.
I also think it's admirable that a company of this size isn't just winging it with security. I don't work in the space, but having been adjacent I can tell you that even in the healthcare startup space, few are treating security properly. (Hence the HIPAA in a box startups! Some occasionally advertised here on HN. I see far more ads for such startups than actual medical data processors hiring for security internally.)
I very much understand where the cynical take is coming from, but I think it's unfair. Security should be a core competency of such a company and they are trying to make it so. That's to be applauded not scorned.
I have a dear friend who was the T-shaped person responsible for security at a early stage health care startup with medical doctor founders. This friend ranked as a VP (required for the kind of tooling spend needed and authority required internally) and got a chunk of equity measured in multiple whole percentage points. Their story is an excellent illustration of what a company making security one of their early core competencies looks like.
This company is possessed of the rare and wonderful opportunity to take feedback to heart and show that they do indeed understand the importance of security. They can do that by doing something different from the security-team-in-one-person JDs that we security specialists see a dozen times a month. They all want netadmin, cloud admin, compliance, policy, governance, patching, software architecture, and IR in a single engineer's role, authority, and paycheck. Fortunately, a company with four years of runway can afford to take a better approach!
Thank you for bringing optimism and hope to HN. It's often in short supply. That's to be applauded.
I agree with you 100% that the position as advertised is critically under-leveled. `Senior` amounts to a joke posting. But it's just an ad, like a car for-sale ad. The candidate that can fill this role properly will negotiate upwards. Far upwards.
The 4 years runway feels like a lie to me. Certainly they mean, if we don't grow and don't hire. Startups should be running out of money as fast as they can, not slowly eroding. I am not faulting them for that statement though. It is what it is. A well versed candidate will understand that.
I do believe that a single person can fill the role, at this stage of a company. That person is obviously (?) going to outsource some of the work, not handle it directly. Their job is to see that the task is done, not necessarily to do it.
Did your friend's startup did make it to an exit? Or to the next round of financing even?
That's a laugh. Any cost cutting in billing function will absolutely not translate to lower patient costs. It's highly attractive for hospital and group provider profits of course!
I won't debate that no 'human' creativity is involved, but human brains are a purely mechanical process, and that's where human creativity originates (unless one invokes the supernatural).
LLMs are typically implemented in a way that makes them non-deterministic (i.e. temperature > 0).
SmarterDx | 180 - 230K + equity + benefits | Remote first (but U.S. only due to data confidentiality) | Full time
We are an early stage health tech company using AI to improve hospital revenue cycle (making healthcare costs lower and allowing doctors to focus on patient care). The team is small but high functioning (MD + data scientist combos, former ASF board member, Google and Amazon engineers, Stanford LLM researchers, etc.) and initially scaled the company to $1MM+ in contracted revenue without raising capital.
We have been backed by top investors including Floodgate (Lyft, Twitch, Twitter), Bessemer, and are currently on pace to 30X in revenue over a two-year time period.
SmarterDx | 180 - 230K + equity + benefits | Remote first (but U.S. only due to data confidentiality) | Full time
We are an early stage health tech company using AI to improve hospital revenue cycle (making healthcare costs lower and allowing doctors to focus on patient care). The team is small but high functioning (MD + data scientist combos, former ASF board member, Google and Amazon engineers, Stanford LLM researchers, etc.) and initially scaled the company to $1MM+ in contracted revenue without raising capital.
We have been backed by top investors including Floodgate (Lyft, Twitch, Twitter), Bessemer, and are currently on pace to 30X in revenue over a two-year time period.
Thank you for the feedback. We're a small team and are experiencing growing pains (on account of keeping up with revenue growth), but that doesn't make it less frustrating when something like this happens.
We do try to get back to all candidates within a short timeframe but I know that some have slipped through the cracks. We've recently brought on a talent person who will help us improve the interview experience.
Please accept my apologies and best wishes to your continued search.
SmarterDx | 180 - 230K + equity + benefits | Remote first (but U.S. only due to data confidentiality) | Full time
We are an early stage health tech company using AI to improve hospital revenue cycle (making healthcare costs lower and allowing doctors to focus on patient care). The team is small but high functioning (MD + data scientist combos, former ASF board member, Google and Amazon engineers, Stanford LLM researchers, etc.) and initially scaled the company to $1MM+ in contracted revenue without raising capital.
We have been backed by top investors including Floodgate (Lyft, Twitch, Twitter), deployed successfully, and are currently on pace to 30X in revenue over a two-year time period.
Plus we have 3 full years of runway.
Who we are looking for:
- Full stack engineers
- Data engineers
- Data scientists
