Okay so imagine this:
The United States and Canada both dissolve into their internal divisions.
So instead of 2 countries, we now have:
Which means North America suddenly becomes:
69 countries.
California? Country.
Texas? Country.
Ontario? Country.
Puerto Rico? Country.
Yukon? Country.
BUT — all 69 countries immediately join a new supranational organization called the North American Union (NAU), basically our version of the European Union.
So you'd still have:
But every state/province now has way more autonomy and identity.
Idaho would literally have an embassy in Florida.
You'd carry an Idaho passport instead of a U.S. passport.
Quebec and Texas would both act like semi-independent nations while still being tied into the NAU economy.
And before people say “isn’t that already basically how the U.S. works?” — not even close.
U.S. states are not sovereign countries.
Texas cannot negotiate treaties with France.
Florida cannot open embassies in California.
Washington state cannot join military alliances with British Columbia.
New York cannot issue internationally recognized passports or directly negotiate trade agreements with Ontario.
This would basically turn every state/province into an actual nation-state while still keeping most of the economic/practical benefits of staying unified.
In both the US and Canada, there are several states/provinces/territories that want to become independent:
Imagine if the entire EU become one country, Portugal and Poland having to share a country? They are so vasty different. Thomas Jefferson himself assumed that the West Coast would be it's own country.
For the NAU capital, I think we should do what South Africa does and split it between multiple cities instead of trying to force one “true” capital.
My proposal:
That way neither the U.S. nor Canada fully dominates the union politically, and the power centers are geographically spread out across the continent instead of everything being concentrated on the East Coast.
We could also open up NAU membership to maybe any carribean countries that want to join.
99% of your SaaS are bullshit AI slop.
Vibe coded quickly.
Not solving a painful problem.
Bad pricing.
Bad web design.
Bad marketing.
"Oh hey guys, I made an app to manage your paper towels and it emails you when to buy more". Do you really think someone would pay for that?? Would someone even use that for free?? Probably not. Add in a TERRIBLE vibe coded website, and yeah that's most SaaS on here.
Disclaimer: Thinking long-term like ST4 or even ST5.
One thing I think Seattle transit discussions miss is that everyone here focuses almost entirely on urban rail (Link Light Rail), while a lot of the biggest metro areas in the Northeast + Chicago also have extensive regional/commuter rail networks layered on top.
NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, DC, etc. aren’t just subway/light rail systems. They also have large regional rail networks designed for longer-distance travel across the metro area.
Seattle has the beginnings of this with Sounder, but imagine if we fully leaned into it.
Imagine:
Then integrate it into one regional rail network.
Potential branches/spurs:
And then there’s Kitsap County, which honestly could have something really unique:
a Staten Island Railway-style system.
Not physically connected by track to the rest of the rail network, but connected operationally through ferries.
Imagine:
All connected by a north-south regional rail spine feeding directly into ferry terminals.
You’d basically have:
It sounds weird until you realize Staten Island already effectively operates this way:
A Kitsap rail line paired with fast ferries could honestly be more useful than trying to force massive highway expansion across the peninsula.
At that point it stops being “commuter rail” and starts becoming actual regional rail.
Honestly, some of the planned/proposed Link extensions are also getting so comically far from Seattle that they almost feel like they’d function better as regional rail anyway.
Urban light rail is amazing for:
But once you start pushing extremely long suburban corridors, regional rail starts making more sense:
A train from Everett or Tacoma into Seattle/Bellevue starts becoming a fundamentally different type of trip than Capitol Hill → Westlake.
I think Link is absolutely the correct backbone for urban transit, but regional rail solves a different set of problems:
A lot of Seattle transit conversations feel very “light rail only,” when historically most major US transit metros evolved into a combination of:
And honestly, the Seattle region already has more rail ROWs than people realize. The challenge is mostly politics, freight coordination, and willingness to prioritize passenger rail.
Vibe coding is fine, aslong as it doesn't LOOK vibe coded.
If you're gonna vibe code, do it good. Refine it. Improve the design. Pick a font that isn't the same 3 fonts AI uses.
Your landing page should not look like it was generated in 10 minutes with Claude Code "hey claude create the landing page, make it look SaaS".
I think a lot of SaaS founders think people won't notice. We do. Yes we notice your AI generated logo. Yes we notice your AI generated text content. Yes we notice your lack of substance.
If I see any of these I am not spending a single dollar on your SaaS as a customer.
Emojis. Dead giveaway of vibe coding. Professional sites use high quality icons.
Tons of em-dashes.
Same basic font as all other vibe coded SaaS
AI generated logo
Landing page just lacks "substance". No demo videos, no screenshots from the SaaS platform. It just looks like you barely put an effort into it.
WAYY TOO MUCH text. AI loves to make sections have way too much text. Eyebrow labels. Sub-headers. Sub-sub-headers. Professional websites have simple sections.
Lack of "company info". no address, team, LinkedIn.
If anything is broken on the production website (i.e. what im using) I will assume you have no idea what you're doing, or your quality control just sucks.
Generic metrics (“10x growth”, “boost productivity”) with zero specifics
Unpopular opinion, but I think a lot of people are chasing startups for the wrong reason.
If your goal is to get rich, a tech startup is honestly one of the worst bets you can make. Most fail, the ones that don’t fail take YEARS, and even “successful” founders often end up with less than people imagine after dilution, taxes, and time.
People focus on the like 0.01% rare outliers (huge exits) and ignore the base rate.
Something like 99% of tech startups fail. And the few that make money, usually don't make eye watering amounts of money. Like the founder MAYBE breaks $100K annual income.
People have it in their head that this magical group of successful tech startup founders are pulling in 7 figures annually.
Most rich people pretty much took one of these 2 paths (outside of like inheriting the money):
- High income job + smart investing
- Owning a boring, profitable business. Laundromat, Roofing, Franchises (McDonald's etc), Landscaping, HVAC, etc.
Most rich people are not "doctors" or "lawyers" or the founder of some "AI b2b SaaS". They are like the gas station owner, or the owner of the local roofing repair business. People pay/hire for stuff they don't wanna do themselves.
Curious if people here agree or if I’m missing something.
Unpopular opinion, but I think a lot of people are chasing startups for the wrong reason.
If your goal is to get rich, a tech startup is honestly one of the worst bets you can make. Most fail, the ones that don’t fail take YEARS, and even “successful” founders often end up with less than people imagine after dilution, taxes, and time.
People focus on the like 0.01% rare outliers (huge exits) and ignore the base rate.
Something like 99% of tech startups fail. And the few that make money, usually don't make eye watering amounts of money. Like the founder MAYBE breaks $100K annual income.
People have it in their head that this magical group of successful tech startup founders are pulling in 7 figures annually.
Most rich people pretty much took one of these 2 paths (outside of like inheriting the money):
- High income job + smart investing
- Owning a boring, profitable business. Laundromat, Roofing, Franchises (McDonald's etc), Landscaping, HVAC, etc.
Most rich people are not "doctors" or "lawyers" or the founder of some "AI b2b SaaS". They are like the gas station owner, or the owner of the local roofing repair business. People pay/hire for stuff they don't wanna do themselves.
Curious if people here agree or if I’m missing something.
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post
This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post