Microsoft Docs – Unified technical documentation - <AUTHOR> https://docs.microsoft.com/ <comment> stable-point The new content looks a lot better, but I think it is a shame that this is not using the "MSDN" branding. One of the nicest things about Microsoft documentation is that I can add the term "MSDN" to any random web search and usually get the page I'm after.

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

Thanks for the feedback, we are working across-the-board to make our content easy to discover both through external and internal search indexes.

<comment> stable-point Fantastic. Maybe hide the word "MSDN" somewhere in the page, just for search engines. Old habits die hard. :)

Slightly off-topic, but would it be possible to reinstate the code samples on the IIS Native Module section[0]? It seemed to go walkies about a year ago and no amount of "Is this page helpful?" feedback seems to get it back. It's quite important because there is little documentation elsewhere on the internet.

[0] [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms693629(v=vs.90).a...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/ms693629\(v=vs.90\).aspx)

<comment><USER2> I'll direct that feedback to the team :)

Can't say anything specific to these samples, but we can figure something out to make sure that legacy content is available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Introduction, circa June 2016:

[https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/teamblog/introducing- docs-m...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/teamblog/introducing-docs- microsoft-com)

 _All documentation on docs.microsoft.com is open sourced and designed to allow community contributions._

Maybe that was the soft launch? (0 blog comments)

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

We have recently moved the blog to our own publishing system, so some of the comments got lost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not a fan of the UI, too nested. Compare two ways to get to the "Welcome back to C++" article.

MSDN: [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/default.aspx](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx) Click Library -> find the "Visual C++ in Visual Studio 2013" link (ctrl+f for 'c++' or just by looking, maybe get distracted by "oh I didn't know they had doc for that...") -> click it -> click third link in general info [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/hh279654.aspx](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/hh279654.aspx)

Docs: Click Visual Studio tile (or top level tab?) -> Click "Languages" tab -> Click "Visual C++" -> Click "Languages and Libraries" -> Click "Standard C++ Languages and Libraries" -> Click "Welcome back to C++" [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/welcome-back-to- cpp...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/cpp/welcome-back-to-cpp-modern- cpp) (Or if what you're looking for isn't there, notice the expandable table of contents on the left. Compare MSDN which automatically expands the first layer for the context and has easy links to other things.)

The URLs on Docs are nicer. But as someone involved with such stuff at my day job I think the SEO benefits are overblown. ;)

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

Thanks for the feedback. Just want to say that in terms of content architecture, we are working on ensuring that all our content is discoverable - the concerns above are valid and I will direct this feedback to our IA people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great that they finally start thinking about documentation which has been a shambolic experience with Azure. However it seems that they are still missing ARM template resources documentation, they provide REST API documentation which kind of sort of helps with the ARM templates but still has a lot of things that are subtly different. So it still means hunting REST API docs to get the idea and then going to the ARM examples repo to find out how it differs.

<comment><USER6> There's a whole bunch of ARM documentation here: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource- manage...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource- manager/resource-group-overview)

And the schemas for practically anything you want to add with ARM are here: [https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource- manage...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource- manager/resource-manager-supported-services) (some even have quickstart versions for you)

And finally I noticed there's a template visualizer now (it was linked off of one of the ARM template pages): [http://armviz.io/](http://armviz.io/)

<comment><USER5> Thanks, the second link looked a little promising but then it just does a GitHub search.

A proper documentation would list all possible resources and their descriptions with valid values. There is still nothing for ARM Resources. How CloudFormation can have an excellent documentation and ARM has bits and pieces is a bit weird.

Their QuickStart templates repo is comprehensive but it has no real documentation of the parameters.

<comment><USER6> You can use the schema to figure out the valid values and descriptions for some of the values, so that might help. I agree that a technical reference would probably help since reading the schema isn't fun.

Doesn't shock me that it's mostly GitHub search since most of our docs are hosted on GH:

[https://github.com/aspnet/Docs](https://github.com/aspnet/Docs)

[https://github.com/dotnet/docs](https://github.com/dotnet/docs)

You can always add a request to the docs UserVoice: [https://msdocs.uservoice.com/forums/364242-general-site- feed...](https://msdocs.uservoice.com/forums/364242-general-site-feedback)

Azure also has its own docs UserVoice: [https://feedback.azure.com/forums/217534-documentation](https://feedback.azure.com/forums/217534-documentation)

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

Thanks for the feedback, we point to the schema that is pulled directly from the product, but I agree that we can do a better job at documenting it. Will forward it to our Azure content people.

PS: UserVoice is the best way to channel site feedback to us - I check it daily and open bugs based on suggestions there :)

<comment><USER6> +1 on UserVoice. My team (Application Insights) actively reads UserVoice and the MSDN forum, and I know other teams are just as proactive about reaching out to users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note that Microsoft Docs at docs.com is fully different and has nothing to do with docs.microsoft.com...

</comment><comment><USER7> Great UI...not only do they have the 11 immediately-noticeable centered divs with icons, but the unnecessary and redundant links above them. That's the Microsoft we know and love.

<comment><USER8> They aren't redundant after you click one. They are just pre-pinned popular topics. No great UX sin

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What is it unifying if TechNet and MSDN are still around?

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

We are moving content off of TechNet and MSDN and to Docs. Eventually, docs.microsoft.com will become the single central location for all technical documentation shipped by Microsoft.

<comment><USER10> And thousands of broken links would be born... Are you planning to redirect deep links of msdn pages to the page's new home?

<comment><USER2> Absolutely. All content that is being migrated will have proper redirects set up, so whenever you are using an old MSDN/TechNet link, you will land on the docs page.

<comment><USER11> I'll believe it when I see it.

<comment><USER12> Check it out:

[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/apps/window...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/apps/windows.ui.xaml.controls.checkbox.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For .NET a lot of information (eg. Remarks) are now gone which contained vital information. Any plans on adding those back? Examples as well?

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

It's on my personal TODO list :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is a wonderful development. And a great example of how DocFX can work in the real world. Even just having memorable URLs is a boon. Thanks!

I am curious how DocFX handles generation of documentation from C++ projects and other things not built-in. Internal plugins?

<comment><USER2> Yes, we have a number of internal extensions that we use for content generation, since we have a relatively large language & tech spread (e.g. REST, Python, C++, C#, etc.).

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Will this be integrated with Visual Studio? Right now, F1 from within the code editor still goes to msdn.microsoft.com.

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

Yes, that is in the works. As we move more of the dev documentation to docs, F1 will point to the new site.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Will there be a way to download documentation from Docs for offline use?

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

There is a way to do that today! One of the features that we shipped is PDF downloads, that enables you to get the entire documentation set for an area in a small PDF file. As an example, take a look under the table of contents on [https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/articles/core/tutori...](https://docs.microsoft.com/en- us/dotnet/articles/core/tutorials/)

<comment><AUTHOR> oh thanks! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Will Visual Studio Code docs end up here eventually, as well?

<comment><USER2> Docs PM here.

Our goal is to put all technical documentation in one place, so we're working with all technical teams across the board to migrate to docs.

<comment><USER16> Sweet. I like the direction you're going with this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> oh wow [https://docs.ubuntu.com/](https://docs.ubuntu.com/)</comment>


Ask HN: Have you ever ran or worked for a creative agency? - <AUTHOR> I was wondering if anyone has experience running or working for an agency. <comment><USER2> I co-founded, and was the Principal/ Creative Director of one for the better part of the last 10 years. I can probably give you a pretty good answer for any questions about the business. What do you want to know?

Edit: www.macleodasare.com</comment>


Ask HN: Two co-founders, USA and EU. Where should we incorporate? - <AUTHOR> It seems this project of ours is about to make its first Euro! So we need to incorporate, quick.
Given that we wish to both hire and sell globally-- where should we register our online business?
I am having trouble finding good information on the nuances, especially when it comes to paying foreign employees. Services like Gust and Stripe Atlas look really enticing, as does the Delaware corporate tax rate-- but our initial customers are in the EU and I fear I am overlooking something.
In short, we offer a web platform that makes it easy to run crowd-sourced mapping campaigns. Our initial target market is municipalities, planning departments, and people working in public participation and civic engagement. (if you find these topics interesting in any way, let's connect! email@example.com)
I'd love to hear from anyone whose considered both options, what you ended up deciding on, and any difficulties or regrets you've had! <comment><USER2> I'm from Poland and have Delaware C-Corp registered through Atlas Stripe. There was no other easy option for me to accept recurring online payments (Stripe is not available in Poland). I have one-person company registered in Poland that is invoicing Delaware C-Corp for consulting and development work. I think it is good option if you would like to sell globally.

<comment><USER3> Do you pay 7-10% taxes in Delaware C-Corp and then pay taxes on the income you earn as the Polish company?

<comment><USER2> Yes, I'm paying in US and in Poland.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How and where you establish your first legal entity (be it a corporation, limited liability company, etc.) in order to do business is not necessarily such an important decision.

Of course, there will be tax, accounting and administrative implications. Also, in some structures and some legal systems, giving equity as compensation to employees is not that easy or could have unexpected consequences.

Unless you have investors lined up, or expect to grow exceptionally fast, you usually have plenty of time to change the legal entity under which you operate. Furthermore, as you grow, it is not unlikely that you will have legal entities in multiple countries, using different legal structures. For example, a Delaware Corporation in the US, if you are doing a lot of business in California, you will need a California legal entity as well (iirc), maybe an Ltd in the UK and one in another EU country. Basically, you should probably have a local legal entity in every country where you will have employees.

It's probably a good idea to get a lawyer to help you out. You should be able to find one wherever you wish to start your business who specializes in doing just that.

I hope this helps.

</comment><comment><USER5> You definitely are overlooking something. Corporate (tax) law and doing business with governments in the EU.

I would suggest consulting a good accountant / corporate tax advisor before doing anything.

</comment><comment><USER6> You should incorporate where yo have a _strong_ market.

Be careful with having a US corporation with low income, and EU subsidiaries with high income:you will be taxed when you move the money to the US to keep the US corp alive.

It is much better to have a US subsidiary of a EU corp. Some people say for corporations the US is a tax heaven (compared to the EU).

Second option: Luxemburg, Lichestein, Cyprus.</comment>


See where your friends are with Google Latitude - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/see-where-your-friends-are-with-google.html <comment><USER2> While this may sound scary at first, I suspect it could mature, with people finding the appropriate social norms around this new technology, and slowly integrating into their daily lives. In this sense it could resemble the social network or the mobile phone, where even luddites eventually cave in, as it eventually becomes a no-brainer, benefits greatly outweighing drawbacks.

That said, there is still a long way to go and this technology still has not found a compelling application. The only reason I would consider using it is to be one of the first people to actually figure it out on the ground and potentially find those compelling uses, if they exist.

<comment><USER3> I think there's a pretty solid trail of startups who have tried and failed to make a compelling use case for it so far.

<comment><USER4> Sharing your location is, at least right now, more of a feature than a product in users minds. If you have a google maps client on your phone already, you'll probably try it. Users probably won't download an app that does just that as readily.

Google has the classic big company/large install base edge in this area.

<comment><USER5> If sharing the location is not the neat feature - perhaps it's visualizing/mining that information accrued over your daily life/time. Here's some concepts from MIT

<http://web.media.mit.edu/~orkan/projects/portraits/main.html>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like google has done a good job on privacy. From Mashable "When it comes to privacy, Google seems to have done it right, since absolutely everything about Latitude is opt-in...you can set it up so that your wife always sees you at work. Why you'd want to do that, we leave to your imagination." <http://mashable.com/2009/02/04/google-latitude/>

</comment><comment><USER7> Already posted:

Here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=465458>

Here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=465359>

Oddly, they're both by the same person.

<comment><USER8> and here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=465494>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oh well, there goes Bright Kite.

<comment><USER10> And Loopt.

Which makes me wonder, how does everyone deal with the prospect of competition from Google?

I had an awesome idea for a startup, worked on it for a few months during graduate school...and then Google announced they were getting into the space. I just about crapped myself.

<comment><USER8> I seriously wouldn't worry about it too much. They either do or they don't it's a bit like the weather, it will influence you but since you can't control it you might as well simply adapt to it.

If it wouldn't be for that then you could never do anything at all for fear of some 'force of nature' coming along and destroying it.

And who knows, maybe you'll be better at it than they ever will be simply because you are focusing on just one thing instead of on 50.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only one who started reading and was confused as to what the use was of only knowing someones lattitude? (other them perhaps getting a feel for the expected climate to aid in small talk about the weather).

</comment><comment><USER12> I think this is direct competitor to Twitter; as it includes not only location but a spot for 'Im at starbucks' too; you can also have followers etc...

\- just seems to be a competitor; and not many people are seeing that I think.

<comment><USER13> BrightKite does this too, including photo updates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This kind of stuff makes me a little uncomfortable. I can imagine someone being in a situation (abusive relationship maybe?) where they are compelled to share this information. Even under normal circumstances it seems a little creepy, but maybe that's just me.

Not saying it's wrong to provide the service or anything like that, just wondering about how it could effect things.

<comment><USER15> _I can imagine someone being in a situation (abusive relationship maybe?) where they are compelled to share this information._

Did you see this part?:

 _Instead of having your approximate location detected and shared automatically, you can manually set your location for elsewhere_

<comment><USER14> No, I didn't. And that kind of eliminates those concerns a bit.

Apologies for my lack of reading-all-the-way-throughness

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Loopt needs to look to be acquired or abandon the idea of a mobile only social network and focus on leveraging services like Facebook connect. Although there level of funding might make it difficult, I also think they're a great target for Facebook.

In any case, this will be a large space and there is room for multiple players.

<comment><USER17> "large space and there is room for multiple players"

apart from that being true, I believe Google's approach to location leaves open other opportunities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> With Google's Latitude, I might finally learn where on earth Carmen Sandiego is.

This might make <http://www.wherethehellismatt.com/> redundant, if you know where he is all the time.

Mixed feelings about this Google, mixed feelings indeed.

</comment><comment><USER19> Surprising that Ireland where their European headquarters are located is not among countries where latitude can be used, though it is the same way with twitter. I don't suppose anyone knows the reason?

</comment><comment><USER20> It's interesting that Google chose to build this out on their own instead of acquiring Loopt (or someone else). Was Loopt even open to an acquisition?</comment>


How To Do A Startup On The Side And Not Lose Your Family - <AUTHOR> http://ericfarkas.com/posts/how-to-do-a-startup-on-the-side-and-not-lose-your-family/ <comment><USER2> Make that N=2. This post is very, very similar to my own experience after launching my "startup on the side" last year (<http://www.limelightapp.com/>) and the advice closely parallels what I'd give to others as well.

>> Get your spouse or SO's buy-in. Until that happens, I'd suggest not going forward.

Agree completely. I think one key to gaining my wife's incredible support was the understanding we both had that Limelight came after her and the kids. Once we had that discussion, she _made_ time for me to work on it once the kids were in bed.

>> Something has to give, and it's usually your hobbies.

I miss Japanese. :-(

<comment><USER3> Do either you or the poster have advice regarding single parenting + full time job + nights/weekends-style startup? Possible? Was unclear if you were saying that spouse + support = okay, or just if spouse, then support = okay. Do you rely on the presence of a spouse who happens to be supporting to be able to even get the part time priority on the list below the rung to family?

<comment><USER4> I'm a single parent (full & sole custody). You said "single parenting + full time job + nights/weekends-style startup"... I mean I'm really, really not a helicopter parent; I have a life apart from raising my kid. That being said I think a single parent who's working full-time AND doing a "nights/weekends startup" would wind up short-changing SOMETHING.

I can't imagine there would be any satisfaction to be had in that kind of stretching.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been doing side-projects while supporting a family for over 8 years now and I share a lot of your experiences. One of them led to being acquihired at a funded startup in the same area. It was a lot easier when there was one kid. Now with 3, like yourself, I find it's near impossible to get any kind of consistent focus. However, I know the hours are usually there, so that's my problem more than anything.

However, I will say this. If you're thinking about starting a startup on the side, don't. That's my advice, don't do it. If you're a young hacker without kids, make a full-time go at it. If you've already got kids, save until you can. While I admire the poster's ability to juggle so many things, this cannot be maintained for more than a year, maybe two before you will come to resent one or more of your job, your family, your partners.

If you do go ahead, make office hours and stick to them. That's the only thing I've ever found to be effective in terms of relieving the need to work on it.

Of course will I take my own advice? Probably not, once you start, it's hard to stop, the allure is too tempting to scratch an itch, solve a problem, or learn a new technology. But, don't say I didn't warn you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Everyone's different, but I've been doing this particular startup for 2 1/2 years and don't resent anyone yet. I've had times where I felt like burnout was coming, and when that happens I just take a few days "off" from working on the startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The most important lesson I learned the hard way was not prioritizing things correctly. At one point in my relationship I was working obscene hours to get a project done by a certain deadline. The timeline was completely unreasonable - and my employer just as much. Sadly, I take my work seriously and will do anything I can to get things launched on time and this sadly involved plenty of late nights in the office just to come home and continue to work after dinner and even pulling an all nighter. This had serious repercussions on my health, my literal sanity and worst of all on my relationship. I have since left that job and have learned that prioritizing your life like this article states is extremely important, and you will be happier staying organized.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been doing the same thing for about 5 years now. I think I've somewhat nailed splitting time between family, friends, employment obligations and having a life. I get by on 6 hours sleep a night (my body is used to that amount now, any more and I feel like crap). I stay up late working on my ideas, get up early working on my ideas, use my laptop on the train commute to work (35 minutes), use any spare time I can during my lunch break to work on my projects.

Support of your spouse is a must, no doubt about that. If your spouse see's all of your time spent on the computer as just that, "being on the computer" forget about having a startup the support isn't there. I'm fortunate enough to have a supportive spouse who understands I want to succeed not only for us, but because I'm tired of making other people money and have untamed entrepreneurial spirit.

Great article.

</comment><comment><USER8> Eric: Thanks for sharing, and great tips. As someone who is in the same boat, I'm always curious as to how others handle the situation. I'm assuming your goal is to leverage the success of your startup so that you can leave your day job? If so, how do you keep focused on your day job, when the excitement of your startup keeps pulling more at you, especially if you are as you start to see success? I'm in a day job that I hate (its soul crushing), but that gives me the flexibility to work on my startup. The allure of my startup is always calling, but its going to be a while before we see profit, and I've got a wife and bills waiting for me at home so I do what I can to stay sane. All the best.

<comment><AUTHOR> Growing the startup to the point where I can do it full-time is my ultimate goal. I'll admit, it's not easy to stay focused at my day-job. It's not easy to stay focused anywhere for that matter. But I've had to learn to ignore the voice in my head when it's work/family time. Again, not easy, just one of those things you have to do. Learn to live with the excitement eating away at you. My situation is probably similar to yours; my day job, while not in software development, which I'd prefer, nevertheless gives me a lot of time to work on my startup, since I work close to home and have basically no commute, meaning I get home around 5pm everyday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As Eric's co-founder, I'm encouraged he put this out there. We have regular conversations about staying focused and not letting the "what if" scenarios rule the tasks at hand. I think there is huge value in constrained resources early in the life of your startup and certainly one of the most scarce is time. This external time constraint has to focus our efforts for maximum ROI. Of course this constraint also keeps us agile as we don't have the luxury of excess anything.

An old, wise chicken restaurant founder (Truett Cathy) said in his book, Eat More Chicken, Inspire More People, (paraphrasing terribly) "Growing slowly allows you to grow into your success and your mistakes.". We still dream about success, about trend lines that go up (and they are), but focusing on the resources at hand to make that dream a reality has been our key to date. I'd love for everything to move faster from a growth perspective of course but keeping priorities straight means speed is exchanged for quality of life, agile and lean growth, and the unsung hero in the startup world, sanity.

</comment><comment><USER10> Good to see I'm not alone! I'm 33 with 2 kids, working on <http://www.koonsolo.com> in my spare time. I have the advantage that my hobby is my startup: creating games. It's still hard to find the time though. My advice: get plenty of sleep to stay productive. But with a small baby, even this is sometimes hard to get.

Best of success to every spare time entrepreneur daddy! :)

<comment><USER11> ...and mommies too!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Nice writeup, but I would think watching Chelsea win the Champions League is the exact opposite of "an emotionally traumatic experience".

<comment><AUTHOR> I was on the edge of my seat for the entire 2nd leg vs. Barcelona, and the final was draining. It's "how" they won it that was traumatic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great post. Here's the bit I'd like to emphasise:

> When you're with your family or friends, "be there" mentally

You know those ads for laptops with the perfect family plus dog on the beach or at the park, with one of the parents using a laptop? What a horrible lie. Never do that.

It says to your kids/spouse that even when you're _there_ you're _not_ there.

</comment><comment><USER14> Talk about hitting home. This was me a year ago, except my girlfriend (who I then planned to marry) broke up with me.

> "By far the biggest win in my situation is the support of my wife. She not > only tolerates my involvement in a startup, she actively supports me and > roots for me. She wants to see us succeed."

Truer words have never been spoken. You don't lose your family by equal parts self-discipline but ALSO having a spouse that supports and tolerates that kind of craziness. It makes sense why doctors marry doctors, lawyers marry lawyers, PhDs marry PhDs...cause someone working the 9 to 5 cannot appreciate, nor empathize, with the other person's extended (and often erratic) working schedule. They'll feel neglected since they have more free time, and it will be tough to relate and feel appreciated. This I know first hand.

</comment><comment><USER15> The one thing you mentioned in your post but, in my opinion, didn't emphasize enough, is the fact that you have a co-founder helping you with this.

I've found that it's a much easier sell a side project to the family when you have a team mate believing in this idea and willing to work at it with you. That early "validation" goes a long way in justifying time away from the family to spend hacking/coding/selling.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Where do friends fit in? You seem to think that they are expendable since you don't see those Saturday soccer mornings as particularly important.

<comment><AUTHOR> Friends are certainly not expendable but the reality is, there's just not a lot of time for them during the week. But I don't think this is a "startup on the side" thing; most of my friends who are married with kids don't hang out much anyway. In my particular situation, Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons and evenings are usually when we'll hang out with other families. But again, I think that's more a function of having young kids than of doing a startup.

<comment><USER16> Yeah I hear ya.

Funny thing is as I get older and most my friends start having families, I end up losing friends. Being single sucks because they rather also hang out with other families too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _Get your spouse or SO's buy-in._

The challenge here is does SO really understand a priori what [s]he is buying into.

<comment><USER18> I agree-- the ways it affects your SO's life is impossible to understand.

I started a bootstrap startup on the side while married (but before kids) which I eventually sold. Not a huge exit, but we don't have to worry about money anymore.

Here's what I can tell a spouse:

\- Prepare for your startup spouse (SS) to be mentally distracted pretty much all the time (even when they're just hanging out with the kids).

\- Expect your SS to be really tired. They'll probably try to steal time for their startup by sacrificing sleep. They'll need understanding and kindness when they drag their ass out of bed on under 5 hrs of sleep.

\- Expect your SS to be more excited about taking a stay-cation to code than traveling thousands of miles to go on vacation with the in-laws.

\- Once your SS has customers or employees, you probably will not have a true "no devices" vacation for 7-10 years.

\- Don't pressure SS to get a partner; if they don't already have a partner, recruiting one likely will NOT relieve their workload and allow them to focus on you more. Also, don't expect SS to see value in partnering, since the other person may or may not be good, and could very well create more stress and pressure (not to mention dilute your upside and introduce conflicts over vision/direction).

\- Expect NOT to go bed at the same time as your SS.

\- Expect NOT to watch the same TV shows (if any) as your SS; once the kids are down, SS will be coding.

\- Expect your SS to be really bad remembering details about what's going on with the kids, house, pets, etc. Just remember, they aren't that way because they don't care, they just can't keep those details in their head. You'll need to be the czar of that stuff (or have VERY clear delineation of responsibility).

\- Expect to need to plan date nights. I'd recommend buying a bottle of wine and not feeling bad about have a few glasses if that's what it takes to get SS to relax and forget about their project. In general, plan activities that don't let SS get bored-- otherwise you'll be hanging out with someone whose mind has drifted off in thought.

\- If all goes well, SS may be able to quit their job, be master of his/her own destiny, and maybe even sell the business and walk away finally independent.

\- Understand the upside will most likely be some payout between $1 and $10M which really won't change your lifestyle, but will make you very wealthy with time and options, which honestly, f---ing rocks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My 2 cents: I just spend 7 hours working each day (5 off 7). The remaining time I just live! Having fun with my 2 kids: reading, playing, practising martial arts. To sum up: enjoying the life, it's too wonderful to spend it working :-)

</comment><comment><USER20> Thanks for sharing. I appreciate the part about providing for family. It's never easy when you have other people who depend on you and so it's comforting to hear of others who are in a similar situation.

</comment><comment><USER21> These are things everybody here knows. It just helps to read, and reread it, to keep us focused, and get the support from the community, knowing we all have to squeeze 37 hour days into a measly 24.

</comment><comment><USER22> It seems amazing what you can find time for, I'm inspired. I'd be very curious to see it quantified in a schedule of your typical (or any) week, to see how it all fits together.

<comment><AUTHOR> There's no typical week; I try to be as flexible as possible. Maybe in a future post I can just detail the last week. Great idea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Great Post!

To me, the toughest part is to focus on an idea, because the internet is full of inspiration.

</comment><comment><USER24> It feels good to know my situation is not unique. Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER25> Thanks for sharing. There is more than one path.

</comment><comment><USER26> What's an "elder?"

<comment><USER27> In the context he used it in, an lay office of a Protestant church. They typically serve as advisors/leaders/mentors.

Usually they seem to be middle-aged or older, IME.

<comment><USER28> Elder has different meanings in different denominations, and isn't unique to Protestants (it is, however, mostly Christian). Specifically, in the Mormon church, it's quite different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Up-vote, purely for not misspelling "Lose".

</comment><comment><USER30> someone on HN believes in God? No judgments, I just thought hacker and atheist were deeply intertwined. Perhaps I just picked up the wrong impression from Reddit.

<comment><USER31> Usually hackers are very good at logic, which precludes believing the self- contradictory bible and religious dogma, but some people are very good at compartmentalizing their brains and avoiding applying logic to some parts of their lives, apparently.

<comment><USER32> Belief in a higher power is not completely illogical. I build/design things, and take apart and analyze other people's designs. Looking at the universe, from the smallest particles to the largest galaxies, I see a beautifully complex system of interdependent cogs that mesh together perfectly to enable life to exist.

I have yet to come across an intricate system that did not have a designer, and it would be illogical for me to believe the universe _just exists_.

<comment><USER31> There's a huge difference between a tentative belief in a vaguely defined "higher power", and a confident belief in a well defined organized religious dogma or bible full of self-contradictions and logical impossibilities. Faith in beliefs that are provably wrong is illogical (but EXTREMELY common), and that's the basis of organized religion, which presumes to provide you with all the answers to questions that don't even make sense to ask. Organized religions are afraid to say "I don't know" and simply lie instead.

Most programmers should be smart and logical enough to reject that kind of bullshit, but my point is that some have their minds so compartmentalized that they fall for it hook line and sinker.

Everyone was shocked that Brendan Eich turned out to be a religiously motivated homophobe. He may be able to think logically about algorithms and programming language design, but his thought process about ethics and human rights is so illogical, severely flawed and compartmentalized that he's afraid to discuss it in public. That kind of religiously motivated irrationality is detrimental to a start-up, high tech company or open source project that needs to attract the best people regardless of their sexual preference, race, sex, etc.

<comment><USER33> As an atheist, I just don't see the point in picking a religious fight and insulting people for their religious beliefs in a thread about managing a personal life while also creating a startup.

<comment><USER25> Well said crusso, I'm not sure of the point of militant secularism either. How the hell does it have to do with startups?

Bringing it back to discussion and finding relevance..

It's fine and wonderful to have different points of view to be able to discuss and learn from... but when one brings a "you are a _____ so i think everything you say is ____", it seems as presumptuous and blind as the blindness being pointed out.

It just reeks of the kind of closemindedness no one likes to see or put anyone through, and is frankly kind of embarrassing to have to read through. Respect as a currency gets so much further, no matter what the subject is.

<comment><USER21> Militant secularism is it's own belief system. They're as pushy about their beliefs as the well-dressed folks who knock on my door with "information" pamphlets...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


My experience at a YC startup - <AUTHOR> http://techiedudeblog.tumblr.com/ <comment><USER2> _Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you._

Seems like you thought the same about YC: that they'd do the vetting for you. And yet you're set on making the same mistake again by relying on someone else to do the vetting.

Almost every start-up is a huge gamble. Naturally, the later stage you join it, the lower the general risk. In that case, why stop at Series A? If risk is all you care about(and it sure sounds like it from your post), why not just join profitable companies that are no longer startups? Much lower risk, promise.

<comment><USER3> _why not just join profitable companies that are no longer startups?_

This is important, as people seem to forget that startup is a subset of small business and not vice versa. There are a lot of incredibly profitable businesses with head counts less than two dozen that don't optimize for growth. These are generally companies that have been around for longer than the majority of startups, which means you sacrifice youth for maturity.

(A lot of them aren't in Silicon Valley.)

<comment><USER4> Although companies that aren't growing fast aren't hiring much, so those opportunities are harder to find.

<comment><USER5> Hit the nail on the head

A big way those companies stay profitable is by NOT hiring people.

<comment><USER6> Depends on the company? We hire tens of thousands of people a year, and are ridiculously profitable.

<comment><USER7> Companies which hire tens of thousands of people a year do not, in general, have less than two dozen employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It sounds like the only thing that YC has to do with this post is that it framed the author's initial perceptions of the company, perhaps in a way that blinded him/her to the truth: every pre-product market fit startup is a mess on the inside.

It's a bit counterintuitive, but that's why I actually do the opposite from most founders who are trying to hire: I tell potential hires everything that's horrible about our company--all the reasons why we suck, why we'll fail, etc.

It turns out that the candidate that's a good fit really values having that conversation and relishes the opportunity to think through what the problems are and how they can help. It's also extremely differentiating from how most companies hire. I say, if you suck, embrace it.

<comment><USER9> I have to ask: do you find you have a lot of applicants who turn away after this conversation?

In other words, other factors aside, does this negatively impact your hire/interview ratio?

<comment><USER10> It may do that, and when it does it's probably for the better. When you are in a pre-seed startup, things are not rosy, and you want to make sure that your potential hire does not hate being a part of it in a few months.

In other words, you want to make sure you hire the kind of person who really wants to join an early stage startup, in spite of all the risks associated with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Did he delete his tumblr?

MIRROR: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&s...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?output=search&sclient=psy- ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.2890.4431.0.46188.8.131.52.0.0.0.865.1679.0j1j0j2j6-1.4.0....2...1c.1.24.psy- ab..5.4.1629.pInnjsxsgso&pbx=1)

<comment><USER12> Man, dude got exposed.

I mean it's easy to extrapolate who the person is, call around, figure out which recent YC startup is laying off people, figure out which biz-dev person they let go, which YC startup is raising money via AngelList.

If I was going to do a Yelp-style tell all, I'd definitely shield my identity much better. Instead of giving away where they are raising money and at what round they are failing to raise the money at. The nature of my position and specific's of my work history.

I wish the man's identity remains shrouded lest he becomes the next Mr.X from American Airlines.

<comment><USER13> Tired of these young and fresh idealist developers. Put your big boy boots on, do some fucking work, wait a few years, then develop an opinion. Hope he gets exposed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't know the person or the YC company in question, and I realize I'm nitpicking, but these three things stuck out at me.

 _> I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company._

Anybody could waste months and months working on the long-term vision and culture. In a startup, that's next to useless as _everyone_ should contribute to the long term vision. It's the day-to-day that's important.

 _> I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea._

VCs invest in traction. "I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me."

 _> The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice._

That's what an early startup is -- figuring out product/market fit, largely based on ad-hoc decision making like this. Picking a vision that just works is incredibly rare.

I know dozens of YC founders and in my experience they're really good at what they do, but you can't expect to stumble on Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Evan Williams by joining a random YC company. There are probably less then a dozen people of this quality in the entire world, and YC invests in ~60 companies per batch for god's sakes!

EDIT. And also:

 _> The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do._

Engineers _should_ be told what to do (but hopefully not how to do it). Being good at engineering doesn't in any way qualify you for being good at managing product.

EDIT2:

 _> Then another round of raising Series A started. The "nos" started piling up. Our last hope said "no" 2 weeks back._

Of course the nos started piling up. Having a few rejections is nothing, we went through ~60 rejections before raising the first round for our company.

Excellence in the absence of pressure wins you no accolades. How you act when the house is burning down is what ultimately defines who you are. It's cool if the guy wanted to leave because this kind of pressure isn't for everyone (and that's fine), but blaming two measly rejections on others is off-putting. It's easy to blame failure on others, much harder to take responsibility for it yourself and help turn a dire situation into a victory.

<comment><USER15> > Being good at engineering doesn't in any way qualify you for being good at > building products.

Being good at engineering is _exactly_ being good at building products, whether its civil engineering and the product is a bridge, or software engineering and the product is an application.

Being good at engineering may not be the same as being good at _deciding what the product should be_ , but no one should mistake "deciding what the product should be" with "building the product".

<comment><USER14> You're right. I meant to say "being good at engineering doesn't qualify you for managing product". I fixed that sentence.

<comment><USER16> Gahh, this sentiment from product managers drives me nuts. IMO you will never have the best engineers work for you, because the best are very good at making product decisions / knowing the business in addition to excellent engineering skills.

To me this is the single most differentiating philosophy between great product managers and very mediocre ones.

<comment><USER17> The statement was:

> "being good at engineering doesn't qualify you for managing product"

Which is demonstrably true. They're two different skillsets. If we reversed the statement:

> being good at product management doesn't qualify you for engineering

We could also agree on that statement. That doesn't mean that there aren't engineers who are/could be kickass product managers, and it doesn't mean that there aren't product managers who could sit down and build the application.

But they're two different roles. Product managers are supposed to identify problems, design requirements, provide engineering with clear context and business data to help inform the priority, and then engineering should get to, _based on that information_ , build the best solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This post seems like a half-truth in itself (with a tinge of sour grapes). Furthermore, there seems to be a lot of self-contradiction. E.g.:

" _The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice._ "

and

" _I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea._ "

Being pulled in many directions at once is characteristic of new companies. Furthermore, you yourself were pulling it in one direction (it would appear). So, then, were you also guilty of this ad-hoc influence? I'm not sure what to take from this apart from "my pulling was good, their pulling was bad."

Also,

" _The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do._ "

I think that this is pretty status-quo (you're an engineer, not an idea guy/founder after all). Not only that, but someone needs to hold the reigns. I couldn't imagine being a founder and not telling engineers what to do. Like the other HN'er, I need some clarification here. Were you being micromanaged? (And even _that_ may not be a bad thing..)

Let me make a small aside about _culture_ while I'm at it. I don't really buy into this "company culture" bullshit. It seems (to me at least) that it's mostly self-gratifying mental masturbation. Instead of being so obsessed with "culture" \-- it's mentioned two or three times in the essay -- why not bring up more substantial issues up? After all, maybe it just wasn't a good fit (but that has nothing to do with culture). That would be like a girlfriend breaking up with me because of my "person culture." It's a meaningless platitude that's thrown around far too much in startup circles.

<comment><USER19> "When I hear the word culture, that's when I reach for my revolver." \--Hanns Johst

I'm often struggle with the whole notion of "company culture" as well, and I can't help but agree that much of it is bullshit.

I can think of things that are perhaps "software engineering culture" like the public shaming of folks who have broken the build. At one company I worked at you had to wear a stinky old Viking helmet if you were a build breaker, at another you had to buy doughnuts for everyone on the team. There are probably more examples out there.

<comment><USER20> _At one company I worked at you had to wear a stinky old Viking helmet if you were a build breaker_

I guess 'shame' is relative... that would only encourage me to break stuff so I could keep wearing the helmet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Lying about the numbers is never ok - when you ask people to take on risk for you it's inexcusable to be anything but transparent about what exactly they're taking on. The rest of the issues don't really surprise me, but dishonesty is a doozy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed! That was my biggest surprise - not lying but half-truths.

<comment><USER2> _I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A_

Did they tell you that VCs were lining up for Series A? Because when you just say "you got the sense", you say little about what they said and more about how you perceived whatever they said.

<comment><USER22> They might have said "we are looking into raising a Series A in the following months" or "Guy X is in contact with some of the top VCs in the valley", "we have a lot of interest from VCs", "we are in talks with xxx", etc. None is an affirmative, but they paint a clear scenario in your head.

<comment><USER23> And quite possible that none of those statements were untrue, either?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is a risk evaluation failure.

When you join a startup, when you think of startup statistics, you should think that the company you're joining has a 90% chance of failing and returning less than $0 (ergo wasting your time in addition to a lack of financial return). With this in mind, joining a startup is not for the faint of heart, and it's also not for those who exemplify hubris.

YCombinator is signal. Investing is signal. Intelligent cofounders are signal. They are not surefire guarantees of a great return on investment. ___Nothing really ever guarantees a return on investment._ __

It seems like basic vetting of a startup just didn 't happen. Everyone has a linkedin, is it too much to ask that you do some googling to figure out the accomplishments of the people you're about to invest 10 years with? Yes, when you join a startup you should imagine what doing 10 years with that company could be like. If you can't see yourself there in 2 years, don't even bother (90th percentile advice).

Look. I'm all about Venture Capitalism, but you have to ask yourself. If there's no possible way that this business could do what they're trying to do without VC money and they're still on a seed stage, what is your risk? I would argue that your risk is almost incalculable (which is also true of your reward). When you trade security for potential, you can gain or lose liability in exchange for risk. Joining a YC startup is only marginally less likely to fail than joining a regular startup.

In short, every startup is a huge gamble and you have to play the game with that in mind. Your experience at a YC startup is no different than countless friends I've had over the years. Go and talk to anyone who has lived in the Valley for more than 10 years, we all know people exactly like you.

What happens from here on in matters greatly. Will you let the experience cannibalize your ambition or reinforce your drive? You don't need to join a startup to change the world, and you shouldn't let a failure like this destroy your dreams. If anything you've learned a ton of what not to do next time.

In short, be brave, be foolish and do. I applaud the writeup and hope that it becomes fuel for future endeavor.

<comment><USER25> "The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half- truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs."

Do you consider that a due diligence failure on the employee's part or a misunderstanding regarding the general nature of numbers?

<comment><USER26> If the startup is going to outright lie to anyone not on the inside, then there's not much you can do. But the onus is definitely on the prospective employee to press them for the facts, and recognize people for being shifty. The author is justifiably upset about the outcome, but hopefully this can be a learning experience and move on.

I have to say, as much as YC has a great rep, I was kind of shocked when I heard the sizes of their classes in recent years. When I participated in another accelerator last year, our class had 10 teams, and that seemed like a fairly good size in terms of the folks running program being able to keep on top of the startups involved. I have to imagine when you are running classes of 80 teams (though they temporarily scaled back recently to more like 50, it sounds like they are going to grow the number per session again soon), not only are some going to be duds, but some are going to be outright scammers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Seems like a pretty common early stage startup to me--they look like sure shots from the outside, but internally everything seems like it's imploding. I remember joining my first startup back in 2007, and even after it received funding by some of the best names in SV, it felt exactly like what you described.

If you're looking to join a startup and expect the same experience as a large company, I don't know if you'll find it. It doesn't excuse bad behavior. The CEO at that startup I mentioned was pretty bad (at the time; I'm sure he's better now because he has moved on to bigger and better things) and got fired by the investors a few months after I left.

Early stage startups are probably not going to feel much like a normal job, based on what my friends tell me it's like (Google: you can work 30 minutes during the day and you're basically done).

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm assuming the author posted this. Thanks for doing so! I love to see inside perspectives on startups, _especially_ Y-Combinator startups.

The tech industry has this bad habit of hero-worship and name dropping (well, I guess it's probably every industry). I think it's good to see that the entire process is not as glamorous as it seems, and that just being associated with a huge pool of talent/success/prestige does not guarantee _your own_ success or future prestige.

Kudos on the experience and the lesson learned, good luck in finding a job :)

</comment><comment><USER28> Interesting that so many people are saying, "startups are risky, end of story." What pops out for me is this: "The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs."

Just because a company hasn't found product-market fit doesn't mean it's okay to lie when recruiting.

</comment><comment><USER29> Why delete the article? More to the point, why post the article here and then delete it? If you're going to blog, and especially if you're going to share your article about YC on a place like HN, then you should be prepared for whatever feedback you receive.

I'm well aware someone has posted a mirror to the original article, and I've read it. I'm just sort of baffled by the deletion in the first place. The article made it to the front page, so clearly a decent number of people liked it. A lot of others didn't, hence, the flurry of critical comments. Either way, the article generated a big response. Was that not the intent?

</comment><comment><USER30> As a YC founder, I'm really sorry you had such a bad experience with other YC startups.

I don't think your experience is generally true of YC companies, though. They vary in so many ways, including those unrelated to success.

The biggest problem seems to be communication. None of the things you discovered were inherently enough to make them toxic -- but not learning those things sooner was bad. (I suspect even the best company would have a hard time raising an A in certain markets).

The "VCs doing vetting for you" with a Series A has a big cost -- if you're otherwise the same and going into the same job, you get a _lot_ less equity, and on much less favorable terms, after an A. Assuming you're in a position to take the risk, being one of the first employees is ideal, or being an employee in a later stage company which is already knocking it out of the park (if I had to get a job today, I'd be looking at employee 1-5, or going to a place like Tesla or Apple or CloudFlare or whatever, where success is already apparent, and the team is obviously already awesome.) And, manifestly, VCs fund shitty companies at Series A (and later!), too, so it's not even great vetting.

Once you "satisfice" on hard location, cash, and stability requirements (which, for many people, especially those who want to startups themselves, can be pretty easily met), probably picking for "how awesome are the founders and how much do they like me" is probably the next thing to optimize for. "How much responsibility and room to grow/learn will I personally have", too. Then just make sure "if the company is super successful, I will be super successful too", and then focus on maximizing the odds of the company being super successful.

</comment><comment><USER31> _The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do._

I'm not sure I understand this point. Were the founders micromanaging?

<comment><USER2> Also, define _micromanaging_.

<comment><USER22> OT, your username makes this comment hilarious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I would be amazed if this was not the norm!

A _cozy job at a top-tier tech company_ != _start-up life_ (YC or otherwise). Larger companies have a culture, well define pathways for information to flow, you get acclimatized to this, etc. Startups typically have none of these, it is like a culture shock, imaging moving to a different country.

ps. no comment on the numbers bit.

</comment><comment><USER33> I have questions about the OP's motivation for writing this but more on that later.

The real fault lies with both parties for not setting expectations. A lot of the requests from the founders seem very reasonable; I fully expect them to be telling their friends about this bad hire who never executed on the details for them. Neither of you seem to have done the hard work up front of conveying what you needed and expected from the other side. I can see the other side of the data points you show - weekly revenue need not be the right thing for the company, startups need detail often more often than execution and guess what, VCs do care about the actual idea. It also sounds like you were surprised by the risk profile of an early stage startup (and your notion of VC vetting might be in for a harsh reality check).

What I don't understand is this post itself - you seem to blame YC for what seems to be a typical startup experience (not raising funding is the median outcome and even folks like AirBnb struggled with this for a long, long time). I'm wondering whether the way you've constructed this post with an anonymous post on a blog, the callouts to their funding situation, etc is meant to hurt the company's future prospects by making them identifiable (and maybe take a swipe at YC too). I hope that's not the case here.

<comment><USER34> > _you seem to blame YC for what seems to be a typical startup experience_

Why are so many here thinking this? I didn't even remotely interpret this post like that. If anything, the post seemed to overwhelmingly present your _exact_ same point here: that even a YC startup _is_ in fact, just another startup. He seemed to be more concerned with giving people realistic expectations (like you are) than trying to discredit any of the entities involved.

What I don't understand is why people are so quick to attribute malice to this. Clearly there was a communication breakdown, I'm just not entirely sure where... the post felt pretty simple/clear/genuine to me.

<comment><USER35> If the author's point was in fact that "even a YC startup is in fact, just another startup," then he shouldn't have mentioned YC because in the context of the now-deleted blog post it can only serve to narrow down the candidate list of companies that the post was in reference to. That is somewhat malicious, given the sentiments expressed.

If that wasn't "overwhelmingly" the point he was trying to make, and he was in fact trying to imply that YC startups have an inherently better chance of success than "just another startup," then your comment is moot.

Malicious or not, telling the world over the Internet about bad experiences you had with co-workers probably isn't a great idea in the long run. Hash it out with them directly, or learn a personal lesson and move on.

<comment><USER34> > _it can only serve to narrow down the candidate list of companies that the > post was in reference to. That is somewhat malicious, given the sentiments > expressed._

This seems like an awfully cynical view to take. YC has accepted quite a few startups in its lifetime (564 to be exact [1]), and he mentioned no other specificities aside from that. He _could_ have titled it "My experience at an incubated/accelerated startup", but then there wouldn't be much of an anchor back to reality to drive it into people's heads that: 'hey, this does happen, and it could happen to you'. Not to mention that any of the other 'large' accelerators probably still pale in comparison to YC's startup numbers. Either way, trying to anchor a helpful point into reality does not seem like good evidence for maliciousness. Trying to frame another person's legitimate attempt at helping others as malicious feels more malicious.

> _If that wasn 't "overwhelmingly" the point he was trying to make, and he > was in fact trying to imply that YC startups have an inherently better > chance of success than "just another startup," then your comment is moot._

No, because that's a given. The post was talking about cultural aspects, and I in-turn was talking about cultural aspects. And thus here you are (either intentionally, or unintentionally) arguing that there is some deep correlation between a company's specific set of cultural decisions and a company's success. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that's the case.

> _Malicious or not, telling the world over the Internet about bad experiences > you had with co-workers probably isn 't a great idea in the long run. Hash > it out with them directly, or learn a personal lesson and move on._

I agree that being a bad sport and gossiping over the internet is in poor taste, but telling someone to bottle up their insights when it seems like they're trying to help other people avoid the same mistakes is just counterproductive. We live in a society and we should help eachother out. Depriving the community of potentially useful insights out of fear that you'll run into the ~0.1% (1/564 * 100) chance of accidentally gossiping about somebody is just not productive for anybody.

[1] [http://www.cloudave.com/29767/y-combinators-startup- math-2/](http://www.cloudave.com/29767/y-combinators-startup-math-2/) (Granted, the number of remaining _active_ startups is definitely less, but it is still a large number.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company"

#1 reason to not join an early stage startup. either found one yourself, or go learn from a place that pays top dollar for actual experts so you can learn how to be one.

</comment><comment><USER37> Like it or not, this is an extremely common startup story. You have heard that 90% of startups fail, right? Each failed startup goes through some kind of phase like this.

Borderline dishonesty is also common. Every startup is trying to pitch itself in the best light possible, and they all got a hockey stick graph sitting around somewhere no matter how poorly they're doing.

</comment><comment><USER38> > YC doesn't necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and > bound to make mistakes.

It sounds like he made the poor assumption that YC = Success = Millions for everyone involved.

</comment><comment><USER39> New Link: [http://www.mydogear.com/articles/5201723ff1a81d1b38c0b47f](http://www.mydogear.com/articles/5201723ff1a81d1b38c0b47f)

Edit: Just read the post, here is a tl;dr:

I thought joining a YC backed start-up would lead to easy and guaranteed riches. Boy was I wrong.

</comment><comment><USER40> This reads like a hit piece on "YC Startups". I'm not saying it was intended to be so, but it sounds like one. Why?

      1. Where is the evidence that any of this is true?
      2. You could have named the company in question and given them a chance to respond..
      3. Instead your claim aims to hurt the reputation of hundreds of YC startups.

_Of course_ YC startups could fail, whether in raising money or making something people who want. _ANY_ startup could fail. A YC startup may be less likely to fail, but YC doesn't _ensure_ success .. for that matter neither does being a post series-a (webvan, color labs etc) or even being a public company (zynga for example).

</comment><comment><USER41> Can't seem to access the page, a cached version:

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:techie...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:techiedudeblog.tumblr.com)

</comment><comment><USER42> Most(probably all) early startups are in chaos.

Growth solves all problems. If the startup mentioned in the post had a healthy/steady growth, no one would have complained and the OP would still have stayed with the startup.

If you are looking to join a startup, join one that with explosive growth. "Get on a rocket ship.", Eric Schmidt to Sheryl Sandberg[1], early Google.

1: [http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandbergs-full-hbs- spe...](http://www.businessinsider.com/sheryl-sandbergs-full-hbs-speech-get- on-a-rocketship-whenever-you-get-the-chance-2012-5)

<comment><USER43> he noted in his article, that he checked for that.. startup was growing 100% mom, he was told.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> You never told us the other side of the story. Sure, the other side could, but what do _you_ think the other side would say about you? And why should we believe you over them beyond taking your word?

<comment><USER44> That seems like a standard that is not really applied to any other post on HN. Why should it apply in this case?

<comment><USER2> Most other posts on HN don't involve such degree of mudslinging. When they do, I think you'll find similar questions being asked.

<comment><USER45> I don't really think is is mudslinging. He purposely left out the company's name, and YC as a whole won't be hurt by this - there have been enough YC successes that I'm sure everyone here would consider a YC startup to be better than the average startup.

This is just one engineer warning people that you should still take a solid look at a company before you hop on board, even if it is a YC startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Here is the original text of the article, since it has been taken down now.

My experience at a YC startup

This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things:

        The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed.
        The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs.
        The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice.
        The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do.
        The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company.

One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea.

Then another round of raising Series A started. The "nos" started piling up. Our last hope said "no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team.

I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don't want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup:

        YC doesn't necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes.
        Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often.
        Preferably join a startup where you know the people.
        If you don't know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision.
        Ignore marketing pitches by founders.
        Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you.

I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don't invest blindly.

</comment><comment><USER46> While your advice at the end is good, what precedes it comes across as "I am perfect and always right, and these guys were a bunch of dishonest incompetents."

I have a hard time believing that view. At the very least, you did not do a good job of evaluating your future employer, and once in there, you did not do a good job of influencing them to follow your lead (without pissing them off).

</comment><comment><USER47> > The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled > in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel > advice.

I wouldn't call it vision problem. Vision is generally very high level. When it comes to actual implementation you need to dig 100 ft deeper into the problem.

Moreover, isn't it the case with most of the early stage startups that are yet to hit product market fit? I run my own startup and I get constant feedback form all the stakeholders. Of course, my team makes decisions based on the feedback and insights. But we are constantly evolving as a company and decision making is very quick.

In fact, from my interactions and readings even successful companies were like that. For example Google -

"Key decisions made in the cafeteria line while a founder is loading his plate with baked organic tofu"[1]

[1] Early Google Employee experience: [http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2011/04/so-different-yet-so- ali...](http://xooglers.blogspot.com/2011/04/so-different-yet-so-alike.html)

</comment><comment><USER48> He misses a key point: References

You should speak to former coworkers, friends, customers and investors before joining an early stage startup. Don't ask the company for references, but rather use your own network to find these people via mutual contacts and talk to them about the founders and the company.

</comment><comment><USER49> There are "doomed" companies in every batch, which is okay. Startup investing is a numbers game.

This is a great time for the company the OP is talking about to reflect on possible mistakes they've made. I take what the OP says with grain of salt, but no startup is perfect. This is the time to think about the culture they created and how they can improve it to stay alive.

Most of the time, it just takes an honest conversation with the team. Lock yourselves in a room and have an open talk about what's going on. Let no feeling go unspoken. Don't make any excuses- just focus on how you guys can be better in the future and make every effort to do that.

</comment><comment><USER50> If you paraphrase most arguments here, we would end up with a conclusion that a YC-startup is no different from a random startup. There is huge struggle getting product/market fit, things are constantly in motion, rejection by VC's etc. Somehow that doesn't seem right. I'm sure the YC founders would negotiate pretty good terms for themselves (compared to a random startup) just because they are a YC startup. For people who feel the OP is naive etc., what exactly should he have expected (net delta) because it is a YC startup?

</comment><comment><USER51> Due diligence. You'd do it if you were investing money. You should do it if your going to invest your time. Especially if you're taking a big pay cut. In which case you're investing both your time and your money.

At least four of the five problems listed near the beginning of the article could've been discovered without leaving the cushy job.

</comment><comment><USER52> the up link of article : [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Atechi...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Atechiedudeblog.tumblr.com&oq=cache%3Atechiedudeblog.tumblr.com&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i58.10380j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

</comment><comment><USER53> >YC doesn't necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes. I may be wrong, but I don't think YC aims to only fund companies that will "succeed." Each venture is an exploration into a space. I think "mistake" is a bit presumptuous.

</comment><comment><USER54> Not found! The page have been deleted.

</comment><comment><USER55> Off topic, but is there a name for that type of pattern in the header? It looks familiar.

</comment><comment><USER56> Startups are hard and falling apart on the inside. This isn't news.

Also, being post Series-A will in NO WAY eliminate many of the issues he talks about (struggling vision, etc).

Seems like this guy should stick to the corporate world..

</comment><comment><USER57> Literally read this post and clicked to see what other posts were in his/her blog and it's no longer up.

<comment><USER57> I guess the story doesn't "need to be told"

<comment><USER39> Does anyone have a link or chached?

<comment><USER43> I had an open tab, just posted the text on this comment. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6170145)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> mh- getting a 404 on this story now.

here's a readability-google-cache version I preserved: [https://www.readability.com/articles/zdsdagi](https://www.readability.com/articles/zdsdagi) (click _readability_ )

edit: oops, looks like someone beat me to this by a couple hours.

</comment><comment><USER58> The only agreeable part is "The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do."

</comment><comment><USER59> Article can still be found here: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&oq=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftechiedudeblog.tumblr.com%2F&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j69i58.1831j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

\---

My experience at a YC startup

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=====

This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things:

\- The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed.

\- The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half- truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs.

\- The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice.

\- The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do.

\- The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company.

One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea.

Then another round of raising Series A started. The "nos" started piling up. Our last hope said "no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team.

I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don't want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup:

\- YC doesn't necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes.

\- Talk to as many team members as possible before joining.

\- Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often.

\- Preferably join a startup where you know the people.

\- If you don't know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision.

\- Ignore marketing pitches by founders.

\- Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you.

I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don't invest blindly.

</comment><comment><USER60> My first impression after reading it was it's a FAKE.

</comment><comment><USER61> Is the link down?

</comment><comment><USER62> For those of you trying the link and unable to find it I have copied the content from the post:

My experience at a YC startup

This story needs to be told. I am an engineer turned business guy who recently left a cozy job at a top-tier tech company and joined a YC start-up. Needless to say I took a huge pay cut and a big risk. I talked extensively to one of the co-founders and he/she did an amazing job of selling me the opportunity. I got the sense that VCs were lining up for Series A (it was still early stage) and the company had amazing growth curve (numbers like growing 100% Mom etc.). Once i joined the startup, to my horror, I discovered a few things:

* The company tried to raise Series A earlier and failed.

* The numbers that were shared were not entirely true. It was kind of half-truth and part of the marketing pitch to VCs.

* The leadership was struggling with the vision of the company. It was pulled in many directions - sometimes ad-hoc based on customer feedback or angel advice.

* The culture was bad. Engineers were constantly told what to do.

* The quality of the people were much lower vs my previous company.

One of the first things I did was steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective. I constantly butted head with one of the founders but my strategies were clearly impacting the revenue numbers. For example one of the tactics doubled the weekly revenue. I wanted to have a significant impact so I was constantly asking the founders to work on the long-term vision and culture for the company. I also told them that VCs invested in talent and not the idea.

Then another round of raising Series A started. The "nos" started piling up. Our last hope said "no" 2 weeks back. And then I was asked to leave last week (though I was already planning to leave). I think they got what they needed out of me and now the first person to go would be the business guy (along with some other engineers and business folks). Actually the team is paying for the incompetence of the founding team.

I would add the disclaimer that my experience may not be reflective of every single YC startup. But I don't want you to make the same mistake so this is my piece of advice before you join an early-stage startup:

* YC doesn't necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes.

* Talk to as many team members as possible before joining. Try to gauge culture by visiting the office quite often.

* Preferably join a startup where you know the people.

* If you don't know the people, work part-time for some time before making a decision.

* Ignore marketing pitches by founders.

* Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you.

I just heard they are planning to raise more money via AngelList or FundersClub (not listed yet). If you are an individual investor, do your due diligence before investing via AngelList or FundersClub - don't invest blindly.

</comment><comment><USER63> anyone got a cache?

<comment><USER64> here : [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://techiedudeblog.tumblr.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> The VC-funded startup scene is full of frauds: fake startups, fake technology (manual work being sold as high-power machine learning), and promises made with no intention of keeping them. It's a shark's world, not for the faint of heart, and not a good place if you're a bad judge of character (unless you're prepared to learn, painfully, in that arena).

I've worked in finance and in the startup world. Ethics in the startup world are a lot worse. Finance has more reach (see 2008) but the people who will completely fuck someone over just to make a nickel are just not as common. Even if you get politically unlucky in finance or otherwise end up being laid off, you'll still get a severance and a decent reference. They'll send you off in a decent way. On the other hand, I've seen startup CEOs ruin peoples' reputations just to do it.

OP's complaints have nothing to do with the company being YC, and certainly nothing to do with it being pre-A. The most unethical people I met in the startup scene were the management team of a well-established post-D startup in New York. (The CEO is from an extremely wealthy family and pulls connections to raise money in spite of his own incompetence and the mediocrity of the leadership; otherwise, the company wouldn't exist, but you knew that.) These people have used extortion to settle severance disputes, hired multiple people into the same exact leadership role as an explicitly intentional recruiting tactic, and were so dishonest with investors that they're known for it in New York, which might be why the Series E seems to be a struggle for them. _That_ is in a company that has passed VC vetting four times.

 _YC doesn't necessarily mean sure shot success. Paul Graham is a human and bound to make mistakes._

Well, fucking duh. No one is a perfect judge of character. No one. You have to make decisions on people based on extremely minimal information that has more to do with someone's charm and social skill than anything deeper. You only know if someone's a good person when they're really tested; you don't see that in a few hours of superficial interaction. On the other hand, if you're not willing to bet on people based on almost no real information, you can't make any deals at all and that's generally considered worse.

 _Go for post Series-A. VCs have already done the vetting for you._

They're not going to be any better than YC was. Judging character is just fundamentally a hard problem. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. A change of context turned normal people into monsters.

Most of these startups do not match the ideal we have of Google's early days: technical to the core, well-managed, etc. The bad news is that about 75% of these VC-funded startups still fail (but you knew that). The ugly news is that _at least_ that percentage _deserve_ to fail. Sorry, man.

So, OP drew a dud. It happens. I've drawn two and I'm still alive.

</comment><comment><USER66> Get a grip on yourself!

1) This could have been your experience at ANY startup and YC has nothing to do with this (you are just trolling their name).

2) You said you steered the company in the right direction? That's just a matter of perspective.

3) "The first person to go would be the business guy" \- maybe they thought that a whiny child, that you are, was impacting their focus and productivity.

<comment><USER25> 1) ... YC has nothing to do with this

Like it or not, YC signals some sort of vetting (by PG, at the very least). It's a _good_ thing for YC if people give YC companies the benefit of the doubt (it would be worse if people expected the worse or, even worse, decided not to work for those companies)

2) steered the company ... a matter of perspective.

He made it clear that it was from a strategy perspective: "steer the company in the right direction from a strategy perspective." And based on how he explained it, I suspect PG would agree.

3) they thought that a whiny child, that you are

There's really no need to sling ad-hominems. Not all startups are perfect. Many have issues, especially cultural issues. To deny it only reflects poorly on you.

The issues that the author presents is consistent with stories I've heard from others. It's not that people are bad, but when push comes to shove startup founders are willing to do what it takes to succeed.

<comment><USER40> You didn't respond to a _single one_ of the criticisms made.

1\. YC startups, on average, are more likely to succeed all other things considered, thus the perception. But YC itself can't guarantee success, are you claiming they should?

2\. "Based on how he explained it" .. therein lies the problem. He hasn't given any evidence or provided the company a chance to respond. So effectively, he's targeting the reputation of YC rather than a specific company.

3\. The problem isn't that the author is claiming "all" startups have issues, but that he is attributing these issues to YC Startups in particular. Even if this particular story were true, which we have no way of knowing, it seems like a bizarre attempt at _schadenfreude_ against YC.

<comment><AUTHOR> It should be pretty obvious from the post that I am a huge YC fan (and I added a disclaimer in the post in case you missed it).

You misjudged the intention of the post. Read the last few paragraphs.

<comment><USER40> I did read it, but it _states the obvious_ (that YC startups are well, startups).

Name the company, let them respond to your allegations. That would be fair ..</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Switzerland Became the Envy of Europe - <AUTHOR> http://american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/cuckoo-for-switzerland

<comment><USER2> This reminded me of an episode of 'From Our Own Correspondent' I heard a few years ago. When you move house in Switzerland, apparently, you get a visit from the 'hygiene inspector':

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspon...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4318029.stm)</comment>


Lost scenes of "Metropolis" rediscovered - <AUTHOR> http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/27/metropolis-vorab-englisch

<comment><USER2> Coincidentally, I just saw this a few days ago for the first time. Definitely worth a Netflix/Blockbuster/whatever if you haven't seen it - the story is surprisingly complex for a 1920's movie.

<comment><AUTHOR> _M_ is also worth seeing. I suppose it was the first serial killer movie, as well as Peter Lorre's screen debut. It's different from modern movies insofar as the serial killer is rather pathetic. But the film itself is haunting and is drenched in that marvelous 1920s German expressionist look and feel.

Edit: not Lorre's screen debut, but his second appearance, as I just found out from this superb piece: <http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.4/leming_printable.htm>.

<comment><USER3> +1 on _M_. I remember a scene where IDs where asked from everyone, perhaps Lang's commentary on nationalization/government control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not again! :)

Guess they'll be yet another definitive final completely restored digitally enhanced version.

(Not that I mind; it's perhaps my favorite film.)</comment>