←back to thread

Rocketships and Slingshots

(postround.substack.com)
42 points juecd | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
1. pedalpete ◴[] No.45133082[source]
I like to hope we're a slingshot company.

While, everyone is trying to bast off, we're creating a new category and changing the way people think about sleep.

I don't expect to be able to change the world in a day. This is a movement, and it is going to take time.

I compare it to sunglasses, which existed for centuries as medical aids but didn't become part of everyday life and fashion until they were made "cool" by pilots in WWII.

Throwing rocketfuel might help, but we can build momentum market after market as we go from this somewhat strange activity, monitoring your brain during sleep, and directly increasing slow-wave activity through micro-pulsed auditory stimulation.

The industry is still obsessed with measuring sleep time, we're directly influencing what your brain is doing during that time.

The early momentum of a slingshot takes a bit to get up to speed. Building a comfortable EEG headband for consumers is a challenge, realtime analysis and stimulation take time do develop, among other things.

The momentum begets more momentum. At some point the momentum of the slingshot provides enough force to launch the projectile.

BUT, slingshots don't work forever. Once the projectile is out of the slingshot, it's downward trajectory has already begun.

So I'd prefer an analogy which takes that into account.

If you're curious about our work, check out https://affectablesleep.com

replies(1): >>45133460 #
2. dghlsakjg ◴[] No.45133460[source]
> BUT, slingshots don't work forever. Once the projectile is out of the slingshot, it's downward trajectory has already begun.

You should read the article before you comment:

"I don’t mean slingshots in the Dennis the Menace sense. Slingshots in the astrophysical sense."

An object that uses an astrophysical slingshot maneuver will continue on its trajectory at the same speed and vector forever (Newton's first law).

replies(1): >>45136429 #
3. pedalpete ◴[] No.45136429[source]
I read the comment, maybe just not as carefully as you would have liked. Thanks for the clarification.
replies(1): >>45142667 #
4. dghlsakjg ◴[] No.45142667{3}[source]
I would not have called you out except that you used the article to put in a barely related plug for your company.