How to find a technical co-founder - <AUTHOR> http://www.jeffreytalajic.com/2011/02/how-to-find-a-technical-co-founder/

<comment><USER3> Taken from <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2270834>, here are a few previous HN threads about this question:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2073239> Guide to Finding a Technical Co- Founder

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2056630> Can't Find a Technical Co- Founder? Do It Yourself

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018618> Non-programmer founders: learn code first, find tech co-founder(s) after?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1983569> Finding co-founders, where and how

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1882090> How to Find a Technical Co- Founder

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1872960> Finding a Technical Co-Founder

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1866516> Dont look for a co-founder. Find a Right Hand Man

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1823724> Find Co-Founders, Don't Get Screwed

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1820875> Not in the Valley? How do you find co-founders?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1779750> How To REALLY Find A Technical Co-Founder

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1779092> How find co-founder online?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1778191> Ask HN: Finding a Co-Founder at a Hackerspace

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1689751> Can't Find a Technical Co- Founder? Do It Yourself

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1677066> Network Launches to Help Entrepreneurs Find Co-founders

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1576186> Last Call: Pitch to find a Co- Founder at The Founder Conference

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1575105> Does "finding co-founders" ever work?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1567469> Ask HN: Where is the best place to find a co-founder?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1512715> How to find a co-founder

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1511965> Ask HN: How do you find/meet tech co-founders outside of the hotspots?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1509775> Finding the Right Co-Founder for Your Startup

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373858> Strategies for Finding the Co- Founder of Your Dreams

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1367637> FoodSpotting founder on finding co-founder, marketing & female entrepreneurs

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1347723> Ask HN: How do I find the right co-founder?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1307167> Help a Startup Out - <USER2> feedback, find co-founders, find advisors, etc.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1297382> Ask HN: Where To Find Design Founders

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1294713> Vokle founder: how to find great programmers & making the most from events

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1238947> Ask HN: I'd like to find Co- Founder(s) / Developers

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1086852> How to Find the Ideal Co- founder: A Seattle Startup Experiment

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=912667> Find a co-founder with this new MeetUp

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=876010> Finding Your Co-Founders

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=849737> Ask HN: Finding Developer/Engineer Co-Founder?

<comment><USER4> There is no old wisdom, only old people ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Valuable advice, but being technical myself, I'd like to see a post about how to find a business/marketing co-founder.

<comment><USER6> I actually figure that's harder. There are no shortage of people who "talk the talk", but its hard to see who'd be good at raising money, getting customers, and biz dev based on interviews. At least with techies, you can see if they can build things or not.

<comment><USER7> It seems that, whether you're looking for a tech or business cofounder, you need to find someone who can get things done. It's really easy to evaluate marketing cofounders for a web startup: You just need to determine if they have a track record of driving traffic. Get the ones who can drive traffic and convert it into sales. Everyone else is a bullshit artist an isn't worth your time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> About a year ago WePay had an excellent blog entry that discussed this exact problem. Look to item 2 in [http://www.wepay.com/blog/2010/03/11/5-things-i-%E2%80%9Ckne...](http://www.wepay.com/blog/2010/03/11/5-things-i-%E2%80%9Cknew%E2%80%9D-or- should-have-known-before-starting-a-company-but-didnt-fully-understand-until- now/q) to see what it says about finding a technical co-founder.

The biggest takeaway if you're a non-technical person is that you're facing an uphill battle, and it explains why this is.

<comment><USER9> Does that link throw a 404 for anyone else?

<comment><USER10> Yes. This should work: [http://www.wepay.com/blog/2010/03/11/5-things-i-%E2%80%9Ckne...](http://www.wepay.com/blog/2010/03/11/5-things-i-%E2%80%9Cknew%E2%80%9D-or- should-have-known-before-starting-a-company-but-didnt-fully-understand-until- now/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think it different in each city. I live in New York, and this city is in dying need for more engineering talents to feed its fast-growing startup scene.

Being a hacker, the last thing you wanna hear is some finance dude pitching you an idea they had when they were crunching numbers on an excel spreadsheet at their 2nd year analyst job.

You have be product-savvy, you have to have respect for the hacker community/culture, and you have to be super persistent.

<comment><USER12> For those who are real risk-adverse, charging an hourly rate to build out someones idea is a win/win (the business guy keeps his company stake, and you get the capital necessary to work on your own projects once the contract is over). If you're not entirely sold on someone's startup but feel like you could do a good job building out their idea, there's really no better place to be than NYC right now. I split my time 25% NYC/75% Boston, and NYC is orders of magnitude hotter (at least from what I've witnessed).

Watch out though, it's real easy to end up billing 40 hours/week, then spending another 30 on unbilled hours on client management on top of that. More than once I've checked my SCM log, wonder why I haven't made a commit in 3 months and realized at the end of the day I just want to knock a beer or two back and watch some basketball.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is exactly the problem we're trying to solve at Techcofounder.com. We've found that there are a ton of entrepreneurs with great ideas but who might lack a large network of developers. This is especially true for entrepreneurs who don't live in large tech hubs like SF, NYC, Boston, Denver, or Houston.

<comment><USER14> This is like saying that there are also a ton of old, poor, ugly guys who lack a large network of beautiful 18-year-olds to have sex with.

Oddly, self-described "great ideas" are more common than people actually willing to do the work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Three months into my own (exhilarating) journey, I think the best answer may be to become one yourself.

<comment><USER16> You earn a lot more cred with developers if you've started hacking to make your idea come to life.

<comment><USER17> More than just cred. I've learned to simply not trust founders who weren't motivated enough by their own vision to not at least take a shot at it, if only to get some understanding of what building it actually entails.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> At the recent StartAtlanta event, I met the founder of TripLingo and we went from concept to prototype in a weekend. We ended up "winning" that event, and have kept moving forward. The great thing about StartAtlanta or similar events is that you get to feel everyone out and decide if you want to pursue the idea, and conversely, keep team members moving forward. It helped greatly that the TripLingo founder and "business dude", Jesse Maddox, was well prepared. He had mockups of the app, spreadsheets with sample data, and a business plan. He had put in 6 months of effort researching, was tech savvy (though not a programmer), and was organized. The point here is that if you're the non-tech- co-founder, putting effort into the things I just mentioned show, and you'll have no problem attracting top geeks to work on your startup.

-p

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a super common question and there are many events in each city that facilitates this connection. However, Don't go to these events with the sole purpose of 'finding' a technical co-founder. Just build relationships with everyone and anyone. Get involved in non-profit organizations, or just other activities. Heck, even try organizing the events yourself.</comment>


EFF: Online Speech is Only as Strong as the Weakest Intermediary - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong <comment><USER2> This is not a happy situation for the intermediary service providers for a variety of reasons:

1\. They are not in business to be martyrs for a cause or to take unnecessary risks unrelated to their core business goals.

2\. This piece correctly points out that the media cannot be subjected to prior restraints in publishing protectable speech. However, the 1971 _New York Times_ (Pentagon Papers) case left open the obvious possibility that they might be prosecuted criminally after-the-fact and the law is such today that the sort of activity engaged in by WikiLeaks may readily be punishable as a crime (the thorny issues associated with this are nicely discussed in this even-handed piece from Slate: <http://www.slate.com/id/2276592/>).

3\. The furor surrounding WikiLeaks does not begin and end with one senator. The Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the Obama administration generally have indicated that they desire to find a way to punish this conduct if possible and are actively investigating ways to do so. This is not to mention that the overwhelming majority of politicians of all stripes have condemned it. Now, whether they are right or wrong, protectors of the country or boneheads out to suppress civil liberties, this has the _feel_ of a lynching about to happen. And even those who vigorously support WikiLeaks must concur that they are operating in and about the edges of the law. Yes, there may be no violation of the 1917 Espionage Act occurring because the motives of Mr. Assange do not meet the statutory test for a criminal act, and, yes, the Act may not technically apply to the activity here, and, yes, the Act may be unconstitutional if tested all the way up to the Supreme Court in this sort of case, . . . _but_ why would you want your company to be part of the _test case_? (My guess is that many of the principals behind Amazon, PayPal, etc. actually find themselves in sympathy with the spirit of WikiLeaks but that they are not allowing any such sympathies to color their business decisions). I would sum this point up by saying that mainstream companies do _not_ want to find themselves aligned with high-profile situations skirting the edge of the law. Call it "turning tail" but I don't know very many responsible executives who would decide the issue differently (strictly from a _business_ point of view).

4\. Regardless of business factors, it does look bad for these businesses to be caving to political pressure. They can technically justify their actions on grounds that the WikiLeaks activities may violate their terms of service (whether or not they are in fact criminal, if the highest criminal enforcement authorities in the nation are on a concerted campaign to determine that they are, the service provider is in no position to second guess this). In spite of this, the appearance _is_ one of caving on a point where the provider could, if it elected, choose to stand its ground in favor of principle. Thus, whatever the reality, it certainly looks cowardly.

Ergo, a no-win situation for these service providers. I know many in the HN community are outraged over their actions but I think the case is more complex than typically assumed.

<comment><USER3> > _I would sum this point up by saying that mainstream companies do not want > to find themselves aligned with high-profile situations skirting the edge of > the law._

That's what I thought until YouTube was bought by Google. With all the furor over music and movies and Napster and all the rest, I wouldn't have expected YouTube to last 5 minutes considering the massive amount of copyrighted content that they hosted.

Clearly companies have no problem skirting the law, and in fact any number of large companies do that regularly with impunity (e.g. Monsanto and the over 50 Superfund sites it is responsible for contaminating; AT&T and its assistance with warrantless wiretapping; BP and the spill aftermath).

Large corporations skirt the law and/or flip off the government all the time, even in cases of well-settled legislation.

Here we have a situation which is FAR from settled -- the 1917 Espionage Act and its amendments with the 1918 Sedition Act which were upheld at the time would never have passed muster in the face of later recognitions of First Amendment protections. The Pentagon Papers case supposedly "left the question open", but with 9 separate opinions filed, the government (having failed with prior restraint) apparently didn't feel at all confident about pursuing criminal, after-the-fact penalties, despite having decades to do so.

It's quite clear that this has nothing to do with law; it has to do with unofficial pressure -- _extrajudicial_ pressure coming from many quarters. It's as if to say, "Poisoning the hoi polloi is one thing, but you messed with OUR stuff, and now it's _personal_."

I feel for Amazon and even the evil PayPal in this case, because how are you supposed to run a business when the government can send in its bogeymen to make you comply without even bothering with the courts? It makes for an extra set of _unofficial laws_ to bully you with -- bully, because clearly it doesn't actually achieve the purported aim (the horse has left the barn) but is simply a show of force to make everyone kowtow.

Kind of like Mean Girls. The Queen Bee was shown up, and she can't undo it but she can take it out on her clique and make them not talk about it.

<comment><USER4> There's also a question of profit. Monsanto, for example, probably saved millions, if not billions, by skirting the edges of EPA regulations. To use another example, if the Macondo well had come online, BP would have saved hundreds of millions by skimping on safety measures. However, there's not enough profit to justify the risk for Amazon, and they're cutting WikiLeaks off for that reason alone.

In business its not about the law - that's what high priced law firms are for. Its about profit, and no business will fight the good fight if there's no money at the end. Just look at Google and Net Neutrality. As long as network providers were refusing to negotiate, Google was raising holy hell about network neutrality and traffic shaping. However, the moment some started to negotiate, Google dropped its hard line and crafted a joint statement riddled with exceptions and caveats.

Corporations are powerful but fickle allies. Take heart when they're fighting on your side, but don't count on them to do so to the end. They'll drop you and your cause the moment it becomes clear that there are other ways to secure their profit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "a web hosting company isn't the government. It's a private actor and it certainly can choose what to publish and what not to publish. Indeed, Amazon has its own First Amendment right to do so. That makes it all the more unfortunate that Amazon caved to unofficial government pressure to squelch core political speech. Amazon had an opportunity to stand up for its customer's right to free expression. Instead, Amazon ran away with its tail between its legs…."

</comment><comment><USER6> I would say the US government is doing an awesome job of suppressing the information contained in the leaks.

They have successfully steered the conversations regarding Wikileaks towards a battle of ideals. The content of the leaks is almost a footnote in the coverage I've seen and read, that applies doubly to Hacker News.

<comment><USER7> They may like the outcome of this particular discussion a lot less than the worst fall-out from the leaks though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Whilst I agree with the point they are trying to make, they article is argued in a fallacious way that made me feel uncomfortable - they start off by acknowledging that there is no way to know whether Amazon really caved because of the call from Lieberman:

'While it's impossible to know whether or not Amazon's decision was directly caused by the call from the senator's office, we do know that Lieberman has proposed "anti-WikiLeaks legislation" and that he has a history of pushing for online censorship in the name of "security."'

But then for the rest of the piece they make strong statements assuming that it is true:

"That makes it all the more unfortunate that Amazon caved to unofficial government pressure to squelch core political speech. Amazon had an opportunity to stand up for its customer's right to free expression. Instead, Amazon ran away with its tail between its legs."

I wish they'd found a more honest way to make their point than innuendo. They could have at least kept it as a question for the reader to answer in their own mind.

<comment><USER9> I have no doubt that political (and popular?) pressure played a role in Amazon's decision. From a business standpoint it seems like a solid decision. Hosting wikileaks gains little and could be quite costly in lawsuits, ddos, loss of political standing and bad press.

Regardless this is a clear message that if you are going to publish something controversial online, Amazon (and likely similar providers) are not the place to do it.

Unfortunately the scope of what is controversial is quickly expanding and already encompasses what some would consider speech vital to maintaining the rights and freedoms granted to citizens of the US.

<comment><USER10> "Hosting wikileaks gains little and could be quite costly in lawsuits, ddos, loss of political standing and bad press"

The whole point of singling out Amazon as a coward is to rebalance the cost and gain. Some people are expecting business to have morales too (well yes some don't and the topic is quite debatable).

Otherwise it will gradually end up with situations in some country (should be obvious I assume) where any government official with sufficient power can make a phone call to an Internet company to delete unwanted content, and the guy receiving the call would be beaten to death if he dares to say no.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Bah. Amazon didn't cave to political pressure, it made a sound business decision. While it may offend your politics this was about the bottom-line. It isn't Jeff Bezos' job to make polical statements with other peoples money, he has enough of his own for that. This isn't a privately held firm we are talking about folks. I doubt Amazon's PR team had to give this more than 5 minutes thought before calling the board. Whining about Amazon not fighting the fight is to either sorely misunderstand the nature of business OR a veiled attempt to promote anti-capitalism rhetoric. Liberal Capitalism (or however closely we approximated that during the last century) is in its death throes. The revolution is upon us and the bastards are winning. But to whine about Amazon acting in their own self interest? Wake up! As much as I love the Amazonians (as they refer to themselves) and have had the pleasure of gracing their halls on several occasions you need to realize that in the true scheme of things Amazon and the Federal elite are on the same side in this war. And it isn't the side many of you think you are on. But the power structure keeps selling the dream and enough of the poor and down trodden keep buying it up.

If you want to attack Amazon's decision, then you must attack the forces and structure behind it. If this was a game, Amazon made the right move. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Please.

<comment><USER12> What is this "whining" if not an act in our own self-interest? :)

<comment><USER11> Agreed. I don't like the politics of this "scandal" like many in this community, but this IS a serious fight AND I believe the stakes are even higher than many here on my side seem to think. It is how the battle is to be fought that concerns me as victory is my goal. This editorial, with all due respect to the EFF which I mostly support, is ultimately trite, pendantic, and shallow despite casual appearance to the contrary. This isn't just about freedom of speech. It is about putting a roof over our children's heads and food in their bellies. "You've got to get mad. You've gotta say 'I'm a human being God damn it, my life has value!'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> An interesting problem. Despite my objections to their actions (which I spelled out in a different thread) I'm not really upset with Amazon. I will probably not buy from them for a while, but I know that won't really affect their bottom line and I partly just enjoy brick-and-mortar stores most of the time anyway. I can't even necessarily say that I would act any different in their shoes - business is business and a lot of the time that means every person for themselves. In other words, I'm not _entirely_ idealistic and naive. Still, it really sucks that potential government repercussions can affect private businesses enough to circumvent the safeguards which documents like the US Constitution are meant to provide.

</comment><comment><USER14> Somewhere in all this furor, I saw 'demagogued' used as a verb. As in "No, don't say it like that - it'll get demagogued. Frame it like this instead..." That was a first for me.

Initially, it seemed like an ugly development. But then I realized that it was probably a good thing, since it means that a real problem is getting a proper name. That's a critical step towards a viable solution.

<comment><USER15> In English, you can verb anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems to me that Amazon has set a dangerous legal precedence for the hosting industry in general. Except for DMCA takedown notices, ISPs have been able to uphold that they do not own their customers' content (the earliest big case I can think about was when the Scientologists sued Netcom, and everybody else in the world).</comment>


What indie developers should build next - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/user-camp/what-app-to-build-next-23ce2764ed6e <comment><USER2> I agree with #1, look for competition. It is astonishing to me how many customer service saas companies seem to pop up every now and then, but many of them seem to succeed, despite there being already hundreds.

I have another rule for indie devs to make money online: Don't build apps for consumers marketplaces (iStore, Play Store). Build/sell apps on marketplaces for businesses eg. Shopify ([https://apps.shopify.com/](https://apps.shopify.com/)), Salesforce ([https://appexchange.salesforce.com/](https://appexchange.salesforce.com/)), Weebly ([https://www.weebly.com/de/app-center](https://www.weebly.com/de/app- center)), Github ([https://github.com/marketplace](https://github.com/marketplace)), Slack ([https://slack.com/apps](https://slack.com/apps)), Cloudflare ([https://www.cloudflare.com/apps](https://www.cloudflare.com/apps))

<comment><AUTHOR> That's smart - businesses don't expect as much for free, whereas consumer app pricing is cutthroat. Do you face more issues with gatekeepers in B2B stores?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Email Intro / Rejection Etiquette - <AUTHOR>

Much has been written on email etiquette. Great stuff like blog.42floors.com/email-introduction-protocol/.
But everyone assumes:
1. The introducer wants the two parties to meet.
2. Both parties want to meet. But what if this isn't the case.
Let's say a fried of mine (Jim) asks for an intro with my mentor. And either (a)My mentor says he doesn't want to meet Jim. Or (b) I think it's a waste of time for my mentor to meet Jim.
What do I say to Jim? Tell Jim my mentor is busy? Say "I'll check with my mentor," and not. Is it my job to play gatekeeper for my mentor? Or to repay Jim for the intros he's given me (by asking mentor if he has time for Jim)? <comment><USER2> Depending on the situation and the relationship you have with Jim, saying "I'm not in a position to ask for that right now. Happy to help in other ways." might work.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why not actually tell Jim the truth? Why not be open and honest? Anything else is being a bit of a douche, no?

I assume you would have a reason for declining the opportunity to make the introduction - help Jim to understand that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes. If honest was the following, then it would be easy: "Hey Jim, I happy to make the intro. But I don't think it makes sense now. My mentor is really busy and this project is still too young for him to be interested." But what if being honest was this: "Hey Jim, I have a ton of huge doubts about your project. To be honest, the idea seems silly and I don't know if you have the skills to execute it. If I suggested that my mentor spend time coaching you, it would reflect poorly on me. It would appear that I was wasting his time. That said, I know little about your project and industry. And I don't have the time required (right now) to intimately understand you and your startup." Is something like that too harsh?

<comment><USER3> I'd be a little more diplomatic about the exact phrasing, but if that's how you feel, then Jim can seriously benefit from time with you. If the project has merit then a serious discussion with him about it will convince you, and then you can help him frame his approach to your mentor.

If it doesn't have merit, and you're right to be concerned, then you should be able to convince him of that. If you can't, then at least you can honestly say that you've got serious reservations about his project, and you're worried that introducing him to your mentor would reflect badly on you.

In effect, if that's how you feel then you should be the first phase mentor/advisor. If you really don't know much about his project and industry then you need either to (a) learn about it through him, allowing him to coach you, or (b) say that you don't know enough to know if Jim is a good fit with your mentor.

And if you really don't have time, then say all the above, and then say that your lack of time is the block to understanding his position well enough to make the introduction in all faith.

Is Jim really a friend? How can you best help him? Is that your aim, or are you just looking to brush him off as a bit of a distraction? If he is a friend, and you want to help him, and you really don't have time, look for a _quid pro quo_ \- see if there's something he can do for you to help you make the time to do something for him.</comment></comment></comment>


Who's hacking iOS game leaderboards, and why do they do it? - <AUTHOR> http://www.edge-online.com/features/gamed-center-whos-responsible-for-hacking-ios-game-leaderboards-and-why-do-they-do-it/

<comment><AUTHOR> What I find most interesting is that they allege that a third of the people involved in this are between 11 and 14 years old. While I feel sympathy for the developers who have to deal with the script kiddies, I'm happy to think that the iPad generation hasn't been completely deprived of the formative experience of messing with software that wasn't designed to be messed with.</comment>


Vitamin E Acetate in Bronchoalveolar-Lavage Fluid Associated with Vaping - <AUTHOR> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1916433?query=RP <comment><AUTHOR> >Evidence mounts that vitamin E acetate is to blame for vaping-related illnesses, deaths

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/12/20/evidence- mo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/12/20/evidence-mounts-that- vitamin-e-acetate-is-blame-vaping-related-illnesses-deaths/)

>The findings were released in the New England Journal of Medicine, in one of four reports Friday by the CDC. The findings about vitamin E acetate reinforce the link between that oil and the vaping-related lung disease, and they represent the first time health officials have compared results from patients' damaged lungs with those of healthy people.

>At the same time, health officials warned of a disturbing development: Dozens of patients with vaping-related lung illness were rehospitalized shortly after discharge, and seven died after being discharged, suggesting that the illness must be closely monitored and may worsen in older patients with chronic conditions.</comment>


Microsoft Employee Pens the Worst/Best Corporate Blog Post of All Time - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/17/microsoft-employee-pens-the-worstbest-corporate-blog-post-of-all-time/

<comment><USER2> "To be fair, I don't think that the people behind the post were trying to be anything but funny, and sincere. Little did they know that that combination is fraught with other shipwrecked bits of writing."

Wonderfully put. (same goes for speaking in public, too)

</comment><comment><USER3> Give this guy props on trolling on offices blog</comment>


Happy Pi day. - <AUTHOR> http://www.piday.org/

<comment><USER2> See also the attempt at the world's biggest mathematical magic trick, happening on Pi day:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1189470></comment>


Mapping 35 Million Credit Cards On Top of Census Data With R - <AUTHOR> https://www.braintreepayments.com/braintrust/vaulted-credit-card-maps-with-R <comment><USER2> I really appreciate that they included some sample R code. So many of these cool visualization posts skip the code!</comment>


"For security reasons, please do not use the following words" - <AUTHOR> http://bluetouff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/sfrbusinessteamfail.jpg

<comment><USER2> Translation in english : "For security reasons, thanks to abstain from using the following characters or words in the comment field: SELECT FROM, UNION SELECT, -, <, >, ="

SFR is one of the three big mobile phone networks in France.</comment>


Once Nearly Invisible To Search Engines, Flash Files Can Now Be Found And Indexed - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/30/once-nearly-invisible-to-search-engines-flash-files-can-now-be-found-and-indexed/ <comment><USER2> _I've been waiting about 10 years for this!_

Not really, I would never make a site in flash. It's not 1998 anymore and I don't plan on selling cars or clothes, so this is a little late.

Good for whats left online, but I really hope this doesn't cause people to revive all-out flash sites.

<comment><USER3> Indexing of SWF/FLA files opens up some interesting searches of the now-not- so-deep web:

Flash + game (mostly silly Flash games): [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Aswf+OR+f...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Aswf+OR+filetype%3Afla+%2B+game&btnG=Search)

Flash + algorithm (finds some interesting CS and _non-CS_ presentations): [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Aswf+OR+f...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Aswf+OR+filetype%3Afla+%2B+algorithm&btnG=Search)

> Not really, I would never make a site in flash.

There are a lot of photography portfolios online that use Flash (presumably to protect the photos and for presentation - e.g. first impressions for potential wedding clients). It would be nice if Yahoo/Flickr or Google image search could auto-tag (caption proximity) and index their photos. Though not specific to this announcement, it would be nice to have Flash-wrapped video screencasts/vlogs indexed by their audio content.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So they only provide that technology to Google and Yahoo!? That really sucks, should be available for everyone.

<comment><USER5> Considering Adobe's track record with open standards I'm not really surprised.

Their purpose isn't to foster innovation, it is to remove an obstacle from the decision path of people buying Adobe's products.

<comment><USER6> I completely agree. Their reason for releasing this isn't to allow people to look into their SWFs, but for the two largest search engines to be able index them.

This is an attempt to bump up the number of flash sites because now "not indexable by Google" is not an issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting that the Techcrunch article hit the front page here and the Google blog article [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/google-learns-to- craw...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/google-learns-to-crawl- flash.html) hit the front page of Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER8> I never understood why they didn't just use `/usr/bin/strings` to pull out ascii, and keep the pronounceable text. This of course wouldn't help with data that's being pulled in such as XML and things, but it would have been a start...

<comment><USER9> That doesn't work even in the simplest cases. I know because it's the first thing I tried when I needed to find child Flash files and external references in Flash files. This is actually a tricky problem to solve. It's easy enough to find external references if the entire URL is in a string or assigned to a variable. These go in the constant pool and it's trivial to pull everything from there and try to identify URLs. When URLs are built up using concatenation they are much more difficult to find. If/else logic is even more difficult. At this point you need to implement your own little Flash player. The problem here is that it's not enough to only implement the few instructions you're interested in. The Flash Player is a stack-based VM and if you don't implement all the instructions your stack will get hosed.

The Flash files that pull in their content from XML are easy once you find the external references. You simply crawl the references like you would any other page. Text embedded in Flash is another story...

If you're curious to see how this works Describe SWF is a great little tool and there's some good documentation on SWF at the Flasm site.

<http://www.flagstonesoftware.com/describe/index.html> <http://flasm.sourceforge.net/>

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I realize it's not a trivial problem to solve, but I can't imagine that many of the swf files on the web today are nothing more than some keyframes and a bit of embedded text. I would think in this case strings would be suitable enough.

Also, since you can't really specify which spot in the swf to load (assuming you're going to display the swf in it's original context), I can't imagine why it would matter if you took into play conditionals. I mean, obviously you have to interpret everything, but aren't you really just after all the blobs of text so you can do, for all intents and purposes, does this document contain this text?

Thanks for the links!

<comment><USER9> Strings does not work at all. It spits out nothing but junk. There's not a single chuck of legible content.

If you want something quick and easy you can just look for instances of 'getURL' objects. These will always have the index of a string in the constant pool as an argument. From there you simply grab the value at that index and you have the URL.

Something even more primitive would only look for interesting strings in the constant pool. The constant pool is found at the top of an action block and you don't need to implement any instructions to get to it. By the way, the constant pool is the only place where you will find any "blobs of text".

If a variable or concatenated strings are passed to a getURL function in ActionScript then it's different. This is a 'getURL2' object. In this case you get an index to a table that contains variable names. From there you would have to look up the value of the variable, but you only have that if you've actually implemented all the instructions and you've been keeping track.

Text is... complicated... It's not just chunks of text or even character arrays. It's arrays of objects that contain all sorts of information, the most interesting bit being the particular glyph in a given font that should be displayed.

You can find a surprising number of external references just by looking in the constants pool of for instances of getURL without actually implementing a VM, but anything beyond that is a lot of work.

The JavaDocs for TransformSWF (which Describe SWF is built using) have quite a bit of useful information too.

Anyway, your original point that there's a simple solution that's at the very least a good start is still valid because a high number of external references in Flash can be found with minimal effort. For whatever reason, the major search engines chose to ignore Flash. Maybe they were waiting for a good solution instead of a good enough solution, but my guess is no one cares except Adobe.

[http://www.flagstonesoftware.com/transform/datasheets/index....](http://www.flagstonesoftware.com/transform/datasheets/index.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hmm this reminds me of another tool I found on YC News just a few weeks ago... <http://www.flashprobe.com>

They probably used the same methods.</comment>


Unlearning toxic behaviors in a code review culture - <AUTHOR> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/unlearning-toxic-behaviors-in-a-code-review-culture-b7c295452a3c <comment><USER2> Previously posted under a different URL: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16190648](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16190648)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's one that always has me stare at the screen, quietly, in disbelief.

1\. Carefully read and grok a small-to-medium sized module. 2\. Notice that although the style is not the "official" style of that language, that it is very consistent and legible. 3\. Contribute a small change in that exact same style, such that no one would know that it was a different author if they did not look at the git blame. 4\. Get a condescending comment from the first author asking that you, "read and follow the official _BLANK_ style guide".

<comment><USER4> Well, this makes sense somewhat. Files will be edited incrementally to the point that nothing remains from the original. If you follow your strategy, the original style remains there until a large rewrite. If you make a point to always follow the official style, then at some point you'll automagically have a consistent codebase.

<comment><USER5> I disagree that incrementally converting style is helpful. It's best to be consistent in a given file or module. Convert wholesale if so desired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a potentially controversial opinion on code reviews - that they have a low enough signal-to-noise ratio that they provide minimal value, unless they are conducted using a formal but living checklist/process. I strongly believe that code reviews have to be goal-oriented or they become vectors for excessive opinion airing (read: bikeshedding and holy wars).

I've spent way too much time getting feedback that I either disagree with and end up arguing over, or feels completely pedantic or time-inconsiderate (e.g. loosely-specified comments about code style during a tight deadline), that could be eliminated by a few things:

1\. identifying and documenting the value that the code review is intended to provide.

2\. constraining criticism to those that actively provide the intended value.

3\. where a decision point arises based on reviewer/author disagreement, create a consensus decision within the team and document it in a standards doc so that the debate never needs to be had again.

In my experience, when this process is followed well it leads to a feedback loop that accomplishes the following:

1\. Generating a consensus-driven standards document based on the primary values of the team.

2\. Creating a code review process that is exclusively aimed at "linting" new code against the standard, and raising exceptions where the standard does not provide a "correct" approach.

3\. Ensuring minimal discrepancy between code reviews coming from different devs.

The process doesn't even need to be that formal - just 2 github wiki pages, one for the standards and one for the code review process.

<comment><USER7> Totally agree that they should be goal oriented and checklist driven (as should most processes in a company). Investing in tools like linters and formatters can cut into a lot of the noise too.

<comment><USER6> agreed, anything from the standards doc that can be automated (e.g. "use airbnb style guide where possible") should be, to optimise review speed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Agree with all of this except 4. "asking judgmental questions".

While it's true that not all opinion is fact (uh oh -- 5. sarcasm) there is nothing out of line in asking "Why didn't you just do ___ here?" How you approach this question has a lot to do with your own perspective. If you are feeling defensive, it can seem like the code reviewer is calling you out. But if you have experienced people reviewing your code, this is a question that you will get a lot.

"Why didn't you just do ___ here?" often simply means "I don't see why you couldn't have done it this simpler way, can you explain"? It's often for everyone's benefit that things are done in the simplest, most obvious way possible, and it's not productive to take offense at being asked to reconsider how you accomplished something.

<comment><USER9> The problem with the question form "why didnt you just do ___ here?" is it's loaded with the assumption that the other party should have known to do this other thing instead.

A better approach is to use the less loaded "have you considered doing X here?".

If you find yourself needing to demand others not take offense at your questions, you might wish to try a different approach.

<comment><USER10> A "Have you considered..." question asks for a "yes" or "no".

A "Why[...]" question asks for why.

Assuming that "Why didn't you just do X?" isn't really just a disingenuous way to say, "you're an idiot; do it this way instead", then you should ask for what you want and ask the why question, not the yes-or-no question. In the case that it _is_ a disingenuous question, then that's something that's covered adequately by #5. Suggesting the avoidance of sarcasm is already broadly applicable enough to cover using questions when you really mean to make a statement. (Which is not specific to code reviews—it's as obnoxious in real life.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Code reviews are hard. It takes a lot of time to really review something and understand it. I think it's much better to discuss plans up front and get buy in from other people before and while you write the code. Obviously that requires an open and respectful culture.

<comment><USER12> It's good to discuss things upfront but I almost always realize stuff while I'm implementing that I hadn't completely forseen.

<comment><USER11> Let's just say having some continuous dialog while developing is preferable over review after everything is done. I have that kind of relationship with a few people and it works great.

<comment><USER13> In a healthy environment, sure. In an unhealthily micromanaged one, you may want to push the review to the end so that you can document that the review process with this person took an extraordinary amount of time and delayed rollout of a feature.

<comment><USER11> You are an evil genius :-). and sadly that happens quite a bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Code review should be informal and conversational, these guidelines are the opposite of that. I'd say the real problem here is people not having the rapport neccesary for a real conversation.

<comment><USER14> PLEASE READ THE POST. "informal and conversational" are EXACTLY what this poster posits. The problem is that WHAT is considered "conversational" is subjective without exact and precise examples to guide by. The poster provider these examples in extreme detail both for Negative and positive examples. PLEASE READ THE POST.

<comment><USER15> I hope your code reviews are more humane and less condescending than this comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> disagree with unhelpful #1. it is understood that "facts" are opinions. the reviewer doesn't need to write an essay _unless_ he gets pushback from the author. the author needs to understand that the presentation style is just a shorthand.

agree with #2 in theory but in practice some authors are crazy sloppy. i usu. write "here and elsewhere" the first 2 times for a given author and after that i break out the copy paste bazooka.

his example for #2 is also terrible. "trailing whitespace" is perfectly sufficient review comment. you don't need to write a novel and both parties have to understand it isn't rude, it's shorthand because life doesn't need to be spent in code review.

likewise, disagree with unhelpful #7. as reviewer, if a comment wasn't replied i get it. fine. move on. I'll track authors and learn which ones ignore because there's no value in arguing, or those that ignore because of not getting it in general or not getting that a specific comment was incorrectly thought trivial (and ou also have to consider if you played a part). jesus, you can't take it personally if your comments are ignored. it's shorthand. i don't want to go through and read tons of "yes ok" it's a waste of both parties' time.

i agree with all the rest!!

although, some of the behaviors he talks about are indicative of toxic _culture_ and it's just expressed in code review. more important to fix that (or leave) if that's the case.

<comment><USER17> Mostly I think this is a mix of (1) "good advice for dealing with junior devs" and (2) "good advice for dealing with people new to a technology."

For #1 don't hurt their feelings, for #2 teach them instead of expecting them to know.

Going through the points in the article with these lenses:

 _" This component should be stateless"_ is reasonable feedback to give to someone familiar with React. Maybe they had a good reason for not making it stateless, maybe they made a mistake, but giving an impromptu lesson and providing references probably isn't appropriate -- it's condescending. Again, fine for someone new to the technology. Audience is important.

The "Avalanche of Comments"... As someone who doesn't really do it, and as someone who has been on the receiving end of it, I always appreciated the thoroughness. It's not judgmental, it's a checklist, and it's helpful.

"Spew emojis" hit this taxonomy too. If my code is ugly enough to warrant one (and it sometimes is), I want to know it has crossed a line, and someone telling me that I am a terrible person who has ruined their day (or given them cancer) is a perfectly reasonable, light-hearted way to do so. Constructive feedback is useful too, but for a senior dev they probably knew it was ugly and just need telling that it was _too_ ugly and that they should try harder. Obviously not appropriate feedback for junior devs, though.

My disagreement with #3 doesn't fit that taxonomy though, mostly I just hate process. Most refactors are super fast, fairly mechanical jobs. Both you and the reviewer have that code in your cache, and it will likely never be a priority again. Take some initiative and rewrite the thing, it'll only take 20-30 minutes. Making a ticket increases debt instead of paying it down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Do companies usually have guidelines and maybe even training on how to do peer/code review? With some emphasis on the empathy and the way you communicate your thoughts? I've noticed a broad range of peer/code review in my little career and in hindsight it was probably due to the fact that no one really knew how to give a peer/code review.

</comment><comment><USER19> Great post. I would add a caveat that personal relationships can change the rules a bit. When working with developers that I know very well, and that know me (that's important too) super brief comments, and even sarcasm, can be helpful. A friend and I were working on a nasty piece of code and we used the barf emoji as a way of commiserating :-)

</comment><comment><USER20> This kind of article dances around it's point in the unproductive way typical of the topic. Here's a condensed version of issue, rather than talking about symptoms:

The topic at hand is harshness of language used providing feedback on another person's work. In addition to being a developer, I've also worked in garages where people swore like sailors and ball-busting was common. Calibrating my voice for the context starts with understanding every critique has: the harshness intended, the harshness communicated, and the harshness received.

This article focuses on the 2nd, leaves out the fact the internet makes it notoriously difficult to communicate voice through text, and assess using the common buzzword "toxic." Which, as far as I can tell based on context clues, is intended to mean "anything harsher than my personal preference threshold."

Just as important are parts 1 and 3. The feedback "pull your head out of your ass" can be run of the mill, or beyond the pale. It all depends on the context and participants. Note: This is very much NOT a point about "having thick skin," it's about understanding how sharp the comment is in the first place.

Each critique also has: the amount of ego hit to the recipient intended, and the amount of ego hit perceived. This one is about "having a thick skin," and where we might ask, "How harsh is too harsh, depending on [bucket of other factors provided by the context]?"

I'm not looking for a dissertation, but I expect people speaking on the topic to show an understanding of the complexity at hand. Otherwise it looks like a pack of schoolmarms trying to enforce I-know-best standards.

A piece of career advice I received can be paraphrased as: "Software development in Silicon Valley is full of people from the participation trophy generation that have only ever held back-office jobs. And it's San Francisco." \-- That's all that needs to be said. From that we can derive what the standards for behavior in code reviews are.

And if it sounds like I'm implying that the hegemony in software development demands we treat each other with kids gloves, it's because I am.

</comment><comment><USER21> One thing that I ask people on my team to do is only have one set of review comments. What I hate is when you address a bunch of code reviews, and then the same reviewer comes and finds more things to change. Then it's a never- ending cycle of fix and change, fix and change, which wastes everyone's time.

Go through your code review thoroughly, and only make one set of comments. Of course, if you happen to find a huge bug then that necessitates more reviews. However, I think that reflects poorly on the reviewer, she should have spent more time reviewer more carefully the first time.

<comment><USER22> I found this only to be a problem if the person who wrote the code being reviewed is slow at writing/changing code. It shouldn't be a big deal: Checkout, fix, re-run tests, commit, push, tick off task.

However, if the above process on the developer's side is not quick, then no matter if the comments are batched together, the whole thing will take a long time. This is usually a sign that the wrong person is doing this specific module, or that they need more mentoring/training/firing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Another I've noticed is not reading the ticket. I've seen a lot of reviewers not take the time to look any deeper than the code at face value so the feedback they provide is low hanging fruit stuff. My favorite feedback is when someone helps me understand the ticket better, or spots potential risks that I hadn't seen.

</comment><comment><USER21> One other thing the code reviewee needs to do is develop a thick skin. Reviewers never be assholes, because it's unproductive and makes your coworkers not want to work with you.

But reviewees should also learn how to take criticism well, and develop the thick skin to shrug off when the reviewer actually is being an asshole. You can't go through life never expecting to encounter an asshole or someone who likes to bully people. Better to know how to shrug off shitty behavior rather than become obsessed with how your feelings were hurt.

<comment><USER24> "Grow a thicker skin" is, usually, identical to "let's just let people be assholes to you and say it's your fault if you complain about it".

So here's a thought: if you see someone being an asshole, and you're thinking about blaming anyone _other_ than the asshole, don't. Instead, work on making it untenable to be an asshole.

<comment><USER21> It's never okay to be an asshole. End of story.

But you will also encounter hundreds of assholes in every aspect of your life. If every time you encounter an asshole, you break down and cry and can't go on with your day, the only one that suffers is you, not the asshole.

Also, fearing hurting someone's feelings becomes the lowest common denominator, and leads to everyone walking on eggshells.

Case in point, a fresh grad had her code reviewed by the team, and it was completely professional and non-judgemental. She burst into tears at her desk because she had never gone through this and took the criticism personally.

Were we too harsh, or was she too sensitive? If people burst into tears because of professional code reviews, do we lower the bar as a team to account for her sensitivity, or does she raise her bar and thicken her skin? And who determines what that line is?

<comment><USER24> _you will also encounter hundreds of assholes in every aspect of your life_

Which is the same as "I'm not going to do anything about this asshole, because there'll always be assholes".

Given that approach on your part, one wonders what it really was that caused the "too sensitive" new member of your team to react.

(hint: your new team member wasn't "too sensitive", you've probably just been tolerating assholes on your team -- because "what can you do?" \-- for so long you've forgotten what assholes they are)

<comment><USER21> No it's not the same.

And hint, the reviews were perfectly fine and professional.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Engineer's View of Venture Capitalists (2001) - <AUTHOR> http://ycombinator.com/tredennick.html <comment><USER2> I've talked with Nick (the author) on several occasions, he was regular contributor at Microprocessor Forum. He is a really awesome guy.

That said, he's also got a lot of scars from the dot com era (many of us do) and I suspect if he rewrote this piece today, he might see it differently (or not). I've been told that it is easier to accumulate a lot of money if you are soulless. That allows you to take advantage of things that cause emotional stress and financial harm to others who are unable or unwilling to prevent you from taking their money in a "perfectly legal"[1] way. So when select randomly from the population of people who are very wealthy, your chance of picking someone who has your interests second to theirs is better than 50/50\. It may by 3:1 (if you believe Vinod's comments at TechCrunch). To survive you have to not take it personally, and expect it to occur. Generally even the 'nice' VCs understand that it makes sense to take this position. You always have to compartmentalize dealing with people in "business" and dealing with them "socially."

[1] This phrase was often code for taking money from someone that may or may not have wanted to give you that money, and yet did not involve fraud or violating any laws. In the 90's it was "perfectly legal" to create a company and take it public to 'retail investors' where the first round cashes out the founders and VCs to the tune of several million while knowing the people reading the prospectus didn't "get it."

<comment><USER3> "it is easier to accumulate a lot of money if you are soulless"

Interesting point. I believe it to be true, but haven't found any proof or good evidence. Any help?

<comment><USER2> It is an interesting debate, mostly centered around the chicken and the egg, which is do evil people become rich? or do rich people become evil? And its an area I've wondered about as well as I've personally known lots of people who have gone from 'not rich' to 'rich' and was able to observe some before and after studies.

This was a recent PBS NewsHour report on the Psychology of Wealth ([http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan- june13/makingsen...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan- june13/makingsense_06-21.html)) which included this comment:

 _" One of the things that wealth and money does is it comes with a set of values, and if you want a deeper ideology, and one of them is, generosity is for suckers and greed is good. But it turns out, there are a lot of new data that show, if you're generous, and charitable, and altruistic, you will live longer, you will feel more fulfilled, you will feel more expressive of who you are as a person. You probably will feel more control and freedom in your life."_

My observation over the years watching people become millionares and billionares is that there is a switch that people do when they go from 'not rich' to 'rich' where they have to somehow rationalize their wealth relative to their friends who are still not wealthy. My first exposure was at Sun (I joined on the Monday after they had gone public) and a number of people were thinking they were better off than before, but by the time I left nearly 10 years later many knew they were _much_ better off.

One of the more common rationalizations was they 'deserved' it, there was something special about what they had done, or what they brought to the company that made the company (and them) successful. Lots of things to point too and remember to give some meat to that belief. I met people who were fired at Sun for being incompetent, got jobs in start ups that went public during the dot-com boom, became multi-millionares and got fired _again_ and _still_ believed it was their "specialness" that made them rich, not random chance.

My best guess is that when you are rich you become a target for people who want to be rich but aren't. This is a common fate of lottery winners who often lose all their winnings in a relatively short time for reasons that are not altruistic or fulfilling. Makes me wonder what divorce rates are for lottery winners compared to the general population. Being so targeted can make you cynical, and perhaps push you toward being evil.

There is lots of research into the topic, lately its been a bit trendy because the disparity between wealth and non-wealth in the Bay Area and elsewhere makes for good page views (and discussion).

From the perspective of VC's, which are a self selected group of people with money, they are often people who are rich and trying to get richer still, and it perhaps that trait which selects for soullessness. People who get rich, stop work, and spend the rest of their days doing things that make them happy are not in that group so the results skew.

<comment><USER4> To be fair, there are lots of poor and middle-class people who get constantly fired yet think they're special, too.

(But the point you're making is interesting and makes a lot of sense)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Paul Graham has said that any company that hires you is, economically, acting as a proxy for the customer. The rate at which they value you (salary + equity + bonus) is an attempt to estimate your value to their customers. As an engineer starting your own company, you're appealing their judgement and opting to be valued directly by users.

But wait! The venture capitalist that invests in you is also acting as a proxy, only for the limited partners. Can you appeal the venture capitalist's judgement and opt to be valued directly by investors, angels or otherwise?

<comment><USER6> > Can you appeal the venture capitalist's judgement and opt to be valued > directly by investors, angels or otherwise?

This is what IPOs were supposed to be for, until Sarbanes-Oxley. They were like Kickstarters where the backer-rewards were equity! ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article is interesting. More interesting is that it was written 12 years ago and about a period of time starting in 1987. It could have been (and probably a clone was) written this year.

Despite pretty much everything about how a startup is financed changing, the dynamic between the founders and funders has not. I think that means that it is more than an educational issue, it must be a structural one.

<comment><USER8> The structural and core part of the issue gets muddled due to poor education/know-how among engineers (partly due to excellent marketing by VCs). See below an excerpt from Alex Payne's article at [https://al3x.net/2013/05/23/letter-to-a-young- programmer.htm...](https://al3x.net/2013/05/23/letter-to-a-young- programmer.html)

" ... As a VC at a top-tier Sand Hill Road firm told me during a pitch several years ago when describing a conceptual feature in Simple that would let users easily and regularly donate a portion of their savings to charity, "let's not waste time on that stuff; we're here to make money" ... ".

There are a breed of VC's who project themselves as if their sole purpose in life is to help entrepreneurs realize their dreams and that there is a higher purpose for their VC avatar. Some believe it and mean it, and some pretend (It is important to keep up the pretenses in this business lest you get shunned by all starry-eyed entrepreneurs who come to valley to change the world). VC's exist to help their investors make money. They have a fiduciary duty to do so. When you are giving away a good part of your life (sleep, money) in pursuit of a dream, and getting into a financial transaction with VCs to do so; It is vital for you to understand how they operate, how they make decisions, are incentivized to behave, and also be cognizant of their true (ulterior?) motives. VC's are a vital part of the startup eco-system. I am not against them or how they operate. They are smart enough to be politically right and make themselves desirable to entrepreneurs. All I am trying to say there is usually information/knowledge/expectation asymmetry (as pointed out in the article) when engineers are getting into financial transactions with VCs, and that they need to be cognizant and work on ways to mitigate this. [Edits for typos/grammer. Added two sentences at the end]

<comment><USER7> Well, funny you used that example because I was the first venture investor in Simple. I invested because of the founders' passion to change the world and rid us of the evil banks. But I knew that if they even made the slightest progress towards this worthy goal we would all make money. Making money and making customers' lives better go hand-in-hand, in the long run.

Anyway, that digression aside, I am not sure if the information asymmetry is the whole story here. These articles (and books and talks and etc.) meant to educate founders so that VCs don't screw another generation of them have been written since, at least, the 70s. Either nobody reads them or it just doesn't matter when they do. If the latter, maybe we need a better understanding of the problem so we can solve it.

<comment><USER9> The underlying cause isn't attention deficit or information asymmetry. It's opportunity asymmetry.

That could be disproved if it turned out serial entrepreneurs have bad experiences at similar rates to rookies.

<comment><USER7> I buy that. How do you fix it?

<comment><USER8> I think the situation has started to get better with software start-up infrastructure costs going significantly down, angels and incubators eating traditional VC's lunches (to a point where firms like Sequoia had to initiate stealth scouts program so they could get in early into potential killer startups), founders getting better terms, a healthy founder friendly eco- system nurtured (carefully?) by newly minted successful entrepreneur turned angles. I am optimistically hoping that "Shark VCs" are a dying breed. Not sure how long have you been a VC; You probably have a better handle on this, and privy to a lot more than what keeps getting written. Not to put too much pressure on you but frankly I was hoping you would have a thesis on how to make it even better for engineers/budding-entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER7> My thesis is to try not to be an asshole and to hope that somehow not being an asshole leads to returns good enough that I can keep investing.

I don't think that's enough of a manifesto to inspire systemic change, though.

<comment><USER8> Thank you for making the valley a better place (and hope you make a good return on your investment in the process)

<comment><USER7> I'm in NYC (which also means that my definition of not being an asshole might be a bit more lenient.)

I've worked with plenty of seed and A-stage investors in SV, though, and found most of them to be focused on being helpful to founders--you have to be, and have more opportunity to be, when you're working with people starting their first company. In my experience it's the later stage firms that are harder on founders. Their attitude--not to be an apologist--is that everyone at the table is an adult and can look out for themselves. The best thing you can do as a founder or startup exec when you start talking to Series B and later firms is

(a) Have a seed or angel investor who can give you good advice (and who, since they were early investors, has an economic situation closer to the Common than to the Series B Preferred) and ask them for advice; and

(b) Have options, including: other Series B firms, the potential to get a bridge or extension round from your seed and A folk, possibly being acquired, and extending your runway by cutting burn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There is a treasure trove of wisdom in this article for all starry-eyed engineers coming to valley with dreams to eventually start a company someday. I realize that starting a company by itself is a poor goal and slightly narcissistic but I am intentionally using it as I have heard many engineers say, "I want to start a company one day" instead of saying "I want to solve a problem because I am passionate about it, and my solution will solve a real- problem in the world today or make the world a slightly better place or makes it suck less"

</comment><comment><USER10> So what happened with the idea to use programmable logic for firewalls? That idea still seems really doable. Has anything happened with that?

<comment><USER11> Another thing I don't understand is why didn't they just slap a microprocessor and a simple interface on it and call it a day. Seems like that would be an easy value-add.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This engineer's view of venture capitalists (2013): They are a valid source of protein.

<comment><USER13> Oh, what a charmingly naive view. VCs will still chew up your dreams when you're not looking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> _It 's financial; it's not technical or personal. To the VC, the engineer and the ideas are commodities._

I believe this is the key. I'm not sure what the alternative might be. If engineers joined forces to raise a venture fund, I don't see why this fund would be any different. The engineer-managers would be subject to the same pressures that other VCs are - pretty soon they would operate just the same. (Why wouldn't they?)

</comment><comment><USER15> > The VC connects wealthy investors to nerds. There are few alternatives. You > can self-fund by consulting and by setting aside money for your venture. > That doesn't work.

Not to blow the bootstrap whistle, but 2001 was a different time for starting companies. I'm seeing a lot of nerds just making money and self-funding, and I think the costs of starting have come dramatically down. It's an interesting change.

<comment><USER16> The costs have come down in many ways but one, labor, which is now going up.

For the last 5 years or so, we've seen a proliferation of startups that provide SaaS, PaaS and IaaS services to startups and other small businesses. However this ease of creating a startup has greatly increased the amount of competition in the market. As a result, you will end up paying more per engineer per year and you will probably end up needing more roles than 2 founders can fill on their own.

Gone are the days when a hacker and a hustler were all that were needed. Today, for many types of startups, you are also expected to have a solid designer, who either needs to be one of the founders or you need to hire.

<comment><USER15> Good point. I remember being told as a kid to not become a programmer. That was before kids out of college were pulling $120k building apps :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What an amazingly true piece! I speak as one who has been an executive in several startups, and have seen the VC animal up close and personal.

I think if you are doing software (web or mobile apps - even enterprise if you do it carefully) today, and are reasonably smart, you have more leverage over the VC than ever before. Take the Google guys or Zuck - or any number of founders who understand how to win at that game. Smart founders take money on their terms, deal with VCs who respect them and stay in control of their destiny. Old school VC firms are falling away (albeit slowly) on Sand Hill, while the new breed (YC, AH, etc.) are dominating deal flow and results. Things have changed for the better.

</comment><comment><USER18> My impression is that some of this has changed. The VCs I know are either domain experts or ex-engineers. Some are both. There also isn't a dearth of angel funding any more. Many angels are ex-entrepreneurs.

This doesn't solve some of the principal-agent problems, but it's not as dire as the dot-bomb bust.

</comment><comment><USER19> This whole essay is from a pre-incubator era. Going through YC/Angelpad, etc and having the benefit of the structure and demo day dynamics changes the early part of the investor/founder dynamics greatly, where things aren't 'so' bad.

</comment><comment><USER20> As an engineer, founder and now a VC I can see his side, especially from the lens of 2001. My hope though is that most see that some of the worst things he has to say are just not true anymore in the industry.

</comment><comment><USER21> Crowdfunding will replace venture capital, and investing itself to a large extent. You don't need investment, you make the case to customers directly and they prepay you.

<comment><USER22> A _good_ VC brings a lot more to the table than just money. Crowdfunding cannot replace that.

<comment><USER23> > A good VC brings a lot more to the table than just money. Crowdfunding > cannot replace that.

Crowdfunding replaces the money piece. The other bits are knowledge which the startup might need to purchase separately. Whether that will be more or less efficient than purchasing them together for startups that need both is, perhaps, unclear, but at least some startups will really only need the money (which, obviously, won't necessarily be the same ones that _think_ they only need the money, but that's life.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> > You can self-fund by consulting and by setting aside money for your venture. > That doesn't work.

Why does this not work?

<comment><USER24> I think he is speaking of the opportunity cost. it is the conservative way to generate funds, but not the most efficient in the end.

<comment><USER25> It probably also depends on what you are trying to build. His initial example of building chips would probably be nearly impossible without a pretty big up front investment.

If you are building something with software, it is a lot more likely that you could self fund.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> VCs are like the house in Las Vegas - they try to make lots of bets and take a disproportionate share of equity, so they usually make money (but not always). Most just follow the lead of VCs who do know what they are doing (in picking good companies).

</comment><comment><USER27> Everyone wanting to start a company should read this book. Then proceed. [http://www.slicingpie.com/](http://www.slicingpie.com/)

</comment><comment><USER28> Prospective starlets used to go to Hollywood and get literally screwed. Engineers now go to the Valley and only get metaphorically screwed. I guess that's progress.

<comment><USER29> What on earth makes you think prospective starlets have stopped getting literally screwed?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> in summary, these people are sharks.

watch out.

if possible, fund yourself. why should anyone else believe in you, if you don't believe in yourself?

</comment><comment><USER31> I've viewed the Angel/VC infrastructure as the modern form of slavery once I understood the details.

</comment><comment><USER32> That kind of nonsense is why I left VC-istan. Amazing how little has changed (in terms of VC behavior) over the past 12 years.

VC is in danger of becoming a second-tier avenue. As soon as a credible, scalable alternative comes in, no one's going to deal with that nonsense. The collusion, aggressive management, age discrimination (in a field where you don't know what you're doing until 10-15 years in at least), insistence on locating in an extremely expensive place, and disproportionate reward for degenerate risk-seeking (with others' money and careers) are going to doom them eventually-- although I have no idea when "eventually" will be.

Whatever happened to passive investors who were happy to let smart people work magic? I feel like most of the world is people injecting noise into already- working processes just to have it be _their_ noise.

<comment><USER33> I hope you also have read [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6369626](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6369626)</comment></comment>


Skiing Robot Not Very Useful But Totally Fun To Watch - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/10/21/skiing-robot-not-very-useful-but-totally-fun-to-watch/

<comment><USER2> Not as fun as the "Robot Cop" in Wallace and Groomit "A Grand Day Out". I tried to find a bit of the movie but no luck.</comment>


Show HN: cofoja-like's contracts for Javascript - my weekend project. - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/wbecker/jsContract/blob/master/README

<comment><AUTHOR> I saw cofoja (<http://code.google.com/p/cofoja/>) yesterday, and realised it would be good to be able to code like that, but since I spend my days doing mostly Javascript I wouldn't get to use it. So I've basically just ported it across. It's just an afternoon's work so it's probably incredibly bug ridden - don't even consider thinking about using it for real production code!

There are some other libraries that do the same thing for Javascript, (<http://www.cerny-online.com/cerny.js/> <http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/weirdal/archives/016921.html> and one also called jsContract (oops - - looks like I might have to change my name...) <http://kinsey.no/projects/jsContract/>)

The difference with these is they all expect you to call a special library within your functions. My library takes the cofoja approach, where you keep your function the same, but wrap it up with annotations that specify the contracts. You can even turn contracts off completely, by setting a variable.

It has some tests there, but they aren't in jsUnit - I'll do that tomorrow. My next step is to put contracts on each of its own functions, just to prove it works.</comment>


Wattvision: Understanding your electricity meter with Wolfram Alpha - <AUTHOR> http://wattvision.posterous.com/understanding-your-electricity-meter-with-wol

<comment><USER2> This does not actually showcase the power of Wolfram Alpha. For instance, Google will do unit conversions aw well.

Now, if you wanted to _integrate_ that...

<comment><USER3> Really? "7.2 watt-hours in 15 seconds in watts" doesn't "just work" in google. Can you post a one-liner that does the same calculation in google or other site?

<comment><USER4> [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=7.2+wa...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=7.2+watt%2Fhours+*+15+seconds+in+watts&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

Works fine, used it all the time in my Physics class.

<comment><USER3> That calculation is not the same one I'm asking for. It's not watts per hour as you've written -- it's actually watt-hours (watt * hour). The answer is also incorrect -- it's not 0.03 watts -- it's 1730 watts. So my request still stands -- show me a one-liner for my original calculation. It's not as simple as you think. ;)

Ok I did some more experimentation and discovered this: [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=ePsUSs_lJ6HqtQP7l8...](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=ePsUSs_lJ6HqtQP7l8WqCQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=7.2+watt+hours+per+15+seconds+in+watts&spell=1)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Of course, many other tools can do this almost-trivial unit conversion for you. Unless you have forgotten how many seconds are in a minute or how many foos are in a kilofoo, you should be able to do this in your head...</comment>


The thin skin of Apple fans - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/22/business/22online.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

<comment><USER2> So very true. I try to keep my opinions about Apple to myself, for all of the same reasons.

mS</comment>


The Scam of Heartburn and Indigestion. We've All Been Fooled - <AUTHOR> http://livingtraditionally.com/the-scam-of-heartburn-and-indigestion-weve-all-been-fooled/

<comment><AUTHOR> "heartburn, acid reflux, and indigestion are due to a lack of stomach acid (HCl), not too much"

Crazy but make sense for it becoming more of an issue as you get older.

</comment><comment><USER2> "citation needed", as they say over at that Other Place.</comment>


DoD Funding for wearable Covid detection tech - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/policy/defense/496149-army-looking-for-wearable-early-covid-19-detector <comment><AUTHOR> Direct link to the proposal pdf : [https://www.mtec-sc.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/20-12-COV...](https://www.mtec-sc.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/20-12-COVID19_Diagnostics-RPP-1.pdf)</comment>


Meeting Sleep Guidelines Is Associated With Lower Premature All-Cause Mortality - <AUTHOR> https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0890117116687459?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed <comment><AUTHOR> Full text at the link. Results:

> After adjusting for age, gender, race–ethnicity, body mass index, education, > smoking, white blood cell level, iron level, red blood cell distribution > width, mean platelet volume, blood pressure, diabetes, coronary artery > disease, physical activity, and depression, those meeting sleep guidelines > had an 19% reduced risk of premature all-cause mortality (hazard ratio = > 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.99; P = .04).

> After adjustments, those meeting sleep guidelines had better health-related > quality of life (HRQOL) (β = −0.30; 95% CI: −0.38 to −0.21; P < .001).</comment>


What This Here Compound Needs Is Some Hydrogen Peroxide - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/09/27/what-this-here-compound-needs-is-some-hydrogen-peroxide <comment><USER2> Lowe's articles have the delightful quality of bringing in people who don't understand the chemistry, and making them feel like they're part of something.

I never got into o-chem, and I certainly don't know anything about excited groups that want to blow off some steam and relax. But I can read Lowe's posts and feel like I'm in on the joke, and that's pretty rewarding in and of itself.

<comment><USER3> To be honest, the talking about explosions turned me off.

Surely there are more interesting topics to get somebody excited about chemistry?

<comment><USER4> This concept of "more interesting than explosions" confuses me greatly.

<comment><USER3> It's like trying to make somebody enthusiastic about computer science by having a long monologue about the wonders of the "rm -rf" command.

:)

<comment><USER5> It sometimes depresses me a little that on the best ways I know to 'impress' (but only barely) friends of mine with my line of work is to do a 3D css transform/transition on whatever website they're currently looking at...

Thankfully there's been the occasional friend who got really excited at the thought of being able to use their browser's devtools to change things on the page through css or javascript.

<comment><USER4> Maybe you could impress them by showing how you can use devtools to forge a tweet or bank balance or boarding pass.

<comment><USER6> That's also a great way of teaching people how websites/servers/browsers work. They're not looking at "the actual" webpage on their computer, just an instance of it that their browser downloaded onto their own computer.

They can mess with it all they want, they're not really changing anything.

<comment><USER7> Teaching people this is also a great lesson in "screenshots of a webpage do not prove anything was actually written". More than once, I've found myself explaining that yes, that picture looks very convincing and has the right background image, but it's still totally fake text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a grad student I somehow turned my experiment under the hood into an evacuation of the entire building, by reducing DMSO to DMS and discovering that Dimethyl Sulfide makes a great building emptier, especially since the hood system sucked (or rather did not). Two Nobel winners and a host of professors and students abandoned the building post haste and they made me go back in to look up whether it was dangerous or not (this was before mobile devices). Thankfully it stinks something fierce but is not fatal likes its cousin, Hydrogen Sulfide.

No wonder I decided programming was safer, code might blow up but it doesn't Blow Up. I also worked in the lab with a guy who worked with ether and smoked in the lab.

<comment><USER9> At least until said code controls something that involves massive amounts of energy (mechanical or otherwise).

Edit: Btw, stinky chemistry sounds like something right out of Max Gergel's memoirs. A book that Lowe mentioned:

[http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/05/27/max...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/05/27/max_gergels_memoirs)

And that i have been meaning to finish reading.

<comment><USER7> If you've been enjoying Gergel, _definitely_ give Ignition! a read, also a Lowe recommendation. It's a first-hand account of early rocket fuel research, and it is hair-raising like no chemistry I have ever heard of.

[http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf](http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf)

<comment><USER9> Already have, and loved every page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice! This is the first "Things I Won't Work With" in a couple years! If you haven't read Lowe's other posts in that category you're in for a treat:

[http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/thing...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/things- i-wont-work-with)

<comment><USER11> This is an absolutely wonderful series, one I find myself re-reading in their entirety every time a link is posted. I should set up a script to automatically book off an afternoon at work if I open one of the links at lunch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If any of you would like to experience something like that article but at book length here's a link to a PDF of "IGNITION ! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants".

[http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf](http://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf)

<comment><USER13> Oh yes, I can thoroughly recommend that book. The author's dry descriptions of things going horribly, _horribly_ wrong are extremely amusing. I found the second half to be a lot more chemistry and a lot less accidents than the first half (which is definitely the more amusing one). It's long out of print, sadly, and used copies go for obscene amounts (there's one on Amazon for $2099, and no I didn't forget the decimal point), and it seems to be in the public domain anyway (at least the science madness library claims so), so you probably don't have to feel bad for just grabbing the pdf.

Here's a nice teaser quote from Chapter 3, "The Hunting of the Hypergol":

 _Came the day of the first trial. The propellants were hydrazine and WFNA. We were all gathered around waiting for the balloon to go up, when Uncle Milty warned, "Hold it—the acid valve is leaking!" "Go ahead—fire anyway!" Paul ordered.

I looked around and signaled to my own gang, and we started back- ing gently away, like so many cats with wet feet. Howard Streim opened his mouth to protest, but as he said later, "I saw that dogeating grin on Doc's face and shut it again," and somebody pushed the button. There was a little flicker of yellow flame, and then a brilliant blue-white flash and an ear-splitting crack. The lid to the chamber went through the ceiling (we found it in the attic some weeks later), the viewports vanished, and some forty pounds of high-grade optical glass was reduced to a fine powder before I could blink.

I clasped both hands over my mouth and staggered out of the lab, to collapse on the lawn and laugh myself sick, and Paul stalked out in a huff. When I tottered weakly back into the lab some hours later I found that my gang had sawed out, carried away, and carefully lost, some four feet from the middle of the table on which the gadget had rested, so that Paul's STIDA could never, never, never be reassembled, in _our _lab._

<comment><USER9> The book came up in what is likely the most shared article in the series.

[http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/02/26/san...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time)

You know you are in for a interesting day when you are working with something that digests asbestos...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Lowe's writing is, as always, phenomenal, just the right mixture of hard facts and tongue-in-check humour.

The part about grinding the second compound down for X-ray though - I second his thoughts: in just what state of mind you have to be to even _consider_ that? Did they have to draw straws?

<comment><USER7> My favorite bit of most of these articles his horrified read-through of the characterization. The list of drop tests and reaction descriptions that these lunatics are willing to try is always truly impressive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15>
        It expands your horizons while
        it expands your fume hood

LOL! Derek Lowe's posts about crazy chemistry are always a joy to read.

<comment><USER16> > _But I have to admit, I'd never thought much about the next analog of > hydrogen peroxide. Instead of having two oxygens in there, why not three: > HOOOH? Indeed, why not? This is a general principle that can be extended to > many other similar situations. Instead of being locked in a self-storage > unit with two rabid wolverines, why not three? Instead of having two liters > of pyridine poured down your trousers, why not three? And so on – it's a > liberating thought. It's true that adding more oxygen-oxygen bonds to a > compound will eventually liberate the tiles from your floor and your windows > from their frames, but that comes with the territory._

From [http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/10/10/thi...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/10/10/things_i_wont_work_with_peroxide_peroxides)

<comment><USER9> I could have sworn he has one about long chains of nitrogen as well.

An eyeopener for me, as even though i grew up on a farm i never considered nitrogen to be so "lively".

Edit: Ah, found it.

[http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/10/14/who...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2010/10/14/whoa_time_to_clean_the_fishtank_uh_root_canal_appointment_look_at_the_time)

<comment><USER17> You grew up on a farm and never decided to make a bit of ANFO?

<comment><USER9> Didn't have the right friends or reading material i suspect.

<comment><USER17> Yeah - I was just ribbin' ya a little.

:)

To someone who didn't know, the idea of those two common "farm items" being mixed to produce an explosive material wouldn't be expected or thought about (unless your dad or relative you lived with was into "stump removal" or such and too cheap to purchase the real stuff).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Could anyone confirm for me my suspicion that the phrase _repeat this paper_ (he said "if I had to repeat this paper") is standard jargon for a lab following the procedures described in a paper to replicate the results?

<comment><USER19> I believe so, yes.

</comment></comment><comment> dao- "What This Here Compound Needs Is..."

I'm having a hard time reading this. Is this proper English? Serious question from a non-native speaker.

<comment><USER20> It means "What this compound needs is..."

"this here" is a colloquialism in some places in (I think) the US.

<comment><USER21> It's from Southern American English.

<comment><USER22> It's really part of a sort of a generalized redneck/rural argot, at this point. I'm from the farthest northern stretch of the Appalachians, a stone's throw from Canada, and quite often flummox people when I tell them I'm not from West Virginia or Kentucky.

<comment><USER23> That's because it didn't originate on this side of the pond. You can also find it in the West Country dialect(s); think Hagrid, Samwise Gamgee or Robert Newton's prototypical movie pirate captains (Long John Silver and Blackbeard). Poke around England a little more, and you'll probably find it elsewhere as well. Standard English really is a much smaller and lesser-used dialect than most literate people think it is.

<comment><USER24> Strictly Sam wise should probably have used black country dialect given where JRRT grew up - its the Rural version of a Birmingham (UK) accent.

But I suspect they would have had to subtitled it :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Always happy when a Things I Won't Work With pops up on HN.

Lowe's writing is a delight.

<comment><USER26> It has all the morbid fascination of watching someone intentionally light themselves on fire, but without the guilt and horror of the certain death.

"Wait, did you say _azido_ azide? Let me (very carefully) fetch my popcorn."

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I envy Shreeve's and Matzger's groups. Not that I want to do what they're doing, but man I would love waking up to an article written about me like this. I can guarantee that their teams have a getting a huge kick out of this.

</comment><comment><USER28> Serious question: why on Earth would someone want to produce such compounds? Are there any actual applications of this work?

<comment><USER29> Cave Cohnson puts it nicely, but to add some more detail, I think a lot of that research was motivated by rocket science (the actual one).

Suppose you want to increase the vertical speed of your rocket. If you just put in bigger engines and a larger fuel tank, you wouldn't have won anything: Sure the engines will provide more force, but you also increased the mass that the force has to move.

What you actually want is a more efficient fuel that gives you more power for the (approximately) same mass - you quite literally want more bang for your buck.

Because the required forces and mass constraints are so extreme, the number of possible fuels that are efficient enough for your purposes are quite limited - they are commonly known as "explosives".

As rockets with more cargo space are needed, so grows the need for even more efficient fuels - driving the development of compounds that are even more hellishly explosive than their predecessors.

<comment><USER7> Many of Lowe's 'Things I Won't Work With' entries (or the explosive ones at least) show up in _Ignition!_ as rocket fuel attempts. Even the ones that are utterly idiotic like ClF3, which will happily light asbestos on fire.

A lot of the things people make turn out to be useless, but the dream of a quality rocket fuel (high energy, dense, hard to trigger) keeps things going.

<comment><USER30> From what I can tell there are all sorts of ways to produce highly energetic, unstable compounds, which are mostly curiosities. But if you can find a highly energetic _stable_ compound it has all sorts of industrial and scientific uses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> That was quite hard to read because commas look very similar to periods with that font, at least on my screen.

Note to future self: Never use Benton Sans for a website.

<comment><USER32> Firefox at least has an option to force pages to use your selected fonts, which I highly recommend.

<comment><USER31> Do you mean reader view (which removes all styling, background images etc.) or something else?

<comment><USER32> Options → Content → Advanced (under Fonts & Colors) → Uncheck 'Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above'.

This does break icon fonts, but icon fonts are IMO a bad idea and should use SVG instead.

<comment><USER31> Thanks, found it. Actually, I like the possibilities of web fonts quite much, but there are always people who just do it badly. Also, icon fonts are great to get somewhere quickly, even though not really best practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't quite understand that aversion to handling concentrated hydrogen peroxide.

Another opinion is here - [http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/peroxide.html](http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/peroxide.html) .

<comment><USER34> His H2O2 link is to this: [http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/10/10/thi...](http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/10/10/things_i_wont_work_with_peroxide_peroxides) which talks about some more exciting peroxides.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> What the people who designed this website need is a job at McDonald's.</comment>


Ask HN: Tracking 'bad' decisions - <AUTHOR> Assume the role of CTO for a start up. One must advise the company on "the Way". Sometimes (many?) a decisision is made that is not in alignment with this path.
There is desire to say/show "I told you so" or perhaps "Your good idea sounds like the one I described four months ago, its about time"
How do you track these decision points that you dont agree with?
Digging through email or chat or code takes a long time.
Any tips for tracking, logging, or some kind of capture?
Is there any real gain? <comment><USER2> Questions:

1\. why isn't your opinion respected?

2\. are you proposing something (as an advisor) or leading as a CTO?

3\. do you have internal credibility?

It sounds like you are not really the CTO in spite of the job title - if you have to go back and say "see I told you so".

Much deeper issues happening here.

<comment><AUTHOR> #1 is what we seek the answer to.

#2 CTO

#3 Apparently not, its what we are currently evaluating

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Been exactly there. Started using Loomio[0] Open source, Selfhosted, Collaborative Decision-Making and surprise many issue resolved.

When you and involved people voice the opinion, cast the vote in open and in written - was like a miracle. It's also very easy to go back and review the reasons / arguments.

Wish you good luck, not easy situation.

[0] [https://www.loomio.org/](https://www.loomio.org/)</comment>


Delib – A simple Ethereum framework - <AUTHOR> Over the last couple of months I created an Ethereum framework called Delib for DApps and contract management that's simple and fun to use.
https://www.npmjs.com/package/delib
https://github.com/DeStore/delib
It was created while developing a decentralized file storage platform on top of Ethereum and IPFS. Because I was new to Ethereum, I was able to relate to people inexperienced and design it to be extremely easy to use.   The framework contains a promise based library that provides the core abstractions needed for building DApps on Ethereum.
It sets apart from other frameworks due to its wide range of customization. One of its most novel features is its ability to let you automatically estimate your transaction gas costs for contract deployment and methods.
It contains a command line tool that allows you compile, build, deploy, execute methods, get, and watch for events. You can write smart contracts and then instantly test to see if its methods work. This lets you write contracts really fast. <comment><USER2> Nice job on this. Been looking for something like it for a while. I've experimented with a few other Ethereum frameworks, namely Truffle, but none integrate so smoothly with Node.js.

Also, the command line tool is probably the most helpful portion of Delib...you mind giving more details as to how you built it?</comment>


BFG9000 in distraction-free writing - <AUTHOR> https://typwrittr.com/ <comment><USER2> File encryption and Statictics bar ?!

Is encryption a way to prevent anyone from reading my text? Then how is it possible to calculate statistics?

I wouldn't use it as a password manager...

</comment><comment><USER3> Platform? Download Link or Get Started or..?

Seems like the site author could've done with being a touch less distracted...</comment>