1,000 True Fans (2008) - <AUTHOR> https://www.kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/ <comment><USER2> This again.

> Every thing made, or thought of, can interest at least one person in a > million — it's a low bar. Yet if even only one out of million people were > interested, that's potentially 7,000 people on the planet. That means that > any 1-in-a-million appeal can find 1,000 true fans. The trick is to > practically find those fans, or more accurately, to have them find you.

No. This is not how anything works, as almost anyone attempting to work in the art world implicitly understands. If there are 7,000 people _globally_ who might be interested in your work, it would take a massive _global_ campaign to find them. Which most people can't afford, especially not for a "this appeals to 7,000 people" idea.

> Now here's the thing; the big corporations, the intermediates, the > commercial producers, are all under-equipped and ill suited to connect with > these thousand true fans.

No, they are the ones most empowered to connect with those thousand true fans. They have resources and global reach.

For normal people without those resources, "true fans" generally come from personal connections, in my experience. And even if one gathers up thousands of personal connections, it can be really hard to convince even close friends to be interested in spending their time or money on what you're doing.

> The takeaway: 1,000 true fans is an alternative path to success other than > stardom.

No, it _is_ stardom. you don't have 1,000 true fans without having 10,000 or 100,000 casual fans.

Argh.

Anyway, I'm not saying passionate people can't support themselves on their art or personal project or whatever -- obviously it's completely possible and people do it all the time. But this "1000 true fans" thing is not a useful tool for getting there, in my very humble opinion.

<comment><USER3> Agree 100%. When this essay first came out I was totally on board and created some excellent hyper-niche products...that were too difficult to find an audience for.

After that I went for huge market and everything became SO MUCH easier.

<comment><USER4> I've noticed this myself. Going niche makes it hard to find the right market fit. Ive found that it's easier to find users/customers in a broad market and positioning as an option instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd personally say this doesn't just apply to creators or media franchises, but businesses in general. Especially in the days of the internet.

Because for good or bad, there are a lot of companies who don't really have a loyal 'fanbase'. People use them merely because they're cheap, conveniently located or out of necessity.

Which in turn makes them very liable to get disrupted and driven out of business by ecommerce giants and other large competitors. See many department stores like Sears and Macys who got obliterated by Amazon and online shopping. Or generic supermarkets who ended up destroyed by much larger competitors (like Walmart in the US, and the the 'big four' in the UK).

And the same pattern applies with creators on sites like YouTube. There are numerous channels which don't really add anything 'unique' to the videos they upload, and merely coast along on trends. They're at risk of being made irrelevant near instantly, as their 'viewers' go off to a nearly identical channel offering the same stuff even more quickly.

Developing that true fan following adds an extra 'moat' around your business to protect it from being disrupted by new technological innovations or social changes. An audience that will stick by you regardless of how much cheaper or quicker or more 'efficient' your competition might be.

</comment><comment><USER6> A couple past threads — 2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10625906](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10625906)

2010: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1338957](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1338957)

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm familiar with the music Youtuber and Patreon world.

The "1000 true fans" essay is correct conceptually, it just needs to be updated to be more prescriptive for current social media.

The numbers for an artist to hit initially are 200,000+ yt subscribers (free equipment and self-perpetuating audience) and 150 - 200 Patrons (less if you live at home.) yt pays $1,000 - $3,000 per million views for monetized (eligible) videos.

1 million yt subscribers is a comfortable lifestyle.

But wearing many hats takes effort (weekly upload, social media, video production, being "your best self" online, etc.) If you don't like/want/afford touring though, yt is almost a perfect alternative - all the exposure, none of the costs.

(By contrast, Rick Beato says you only need 1,200 sales for a gold jazz single today.)

If you haven't watched the successful yt music performers and instructors, you should - freakish level of talent out there.

AMA.

<comment><USER8> For reference YT pay is vastly superior for actually marketable subjects. This automobile channel for example [https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/randyshear](https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/randyshear) with ~2M views a month gets ~$15K checks from Google. This is one of the reasons for car channel 'bought a supercar' memes going around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Jaron Lanier challenged Kevin Kelly to produce evidence that his theory was true, which AFAICT never emerged, so by Kelly's own terms, "I surrender the case".

[https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-case-agains/](https://kk.org/thetechnium/the- case-agains/)

<comment><USER7> That appears to be a very old article (anything pre-2018 is basically irrelevant.)

Sarah Longfield has done interviews saying she makes a living off primarily Patreon, with concerts and t-shirts a less important revenue stream.

I can think of 20 others with the same story, and in fact, most have discussed it on video. They do that to educate their "1000 true fans" how to support them.

AMA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The author ignores acquisition cost, and it's not about advertising or anything. It is as in, if you're able to find 1000 fans on a millionth likelihood rate, you would need to have 1 billion people to evaluate your music/game for long enough to have an opinion on it, and that is not going to happen.

And that's what's wrong with the thinking 'I can have really niche product there will be someone liking it on this planet'. It doesn't work that way, In order for those niche to be found you either have to force every single person to evaluate your stuff or if those niche are naturally concentrated (possible). But if the potential suscribers are 1000 uniformly distributed in the world then we should just scrap it.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have always loved this line of thinking since it was introduced to me on the Tropical MBA podcast but I feel like the advice has limits. Many people, most probably, can spend many years without developing this level of following.

</comment><comment><USER12> I generally agree with the idea. I just don't know how we help people actually do that.

In reality, the big companies seem to dominate and crowd out the smaller players and we generally seem to be doing a poor job of counterbalancing that. I think this is a substantial source of our current problems where we have serious income inequality, phrases like The 99 Percent became popular, at least for a time, etc.

This is exactly what I would like to do and would like to help others do. I've not managed to hit the kind of numbers that would provide a middle class lifestyle.

</comment><comment><USER13> Tim Ferriss is constantly talking about the importance of this article to anyone who dreams/wants to be an entrepreneur. Great stuff!

</comment><comment><USER14> This kind of thinking is critical these days to artist's success, especially in music.

If 1,000 true fans buy your album and also come see your show, you are driving a lot closer to sustainable financial success with your music.

</comment><comment><USER15> Counterpoint: you can have a million subscribers on YouTube, or be the most popular writer of web serials (Wildbow), and not make much money at all.

<comment><USER16> Did you read the article? it talked about having 1000 people willing to give you $100 a year in profits in book sales, concerts, merchandise, etc

For a youtuber that might be 1000 people paying $8-$9 a month on patreon.

If you have a million subscribers but don't have that, then by definition you don't have 1000 true fans.

People read and listen to lots of people and things, but only deeply, deeply care about a fraction of them. That's a true fan.

That is one issue with the article: it glosses over the difficulty in acquiring a 'true' fan. But, it does show that it isn't some unfathomable number. Thus better to optimize for being loved by some rather than gathering mild interest from many.</comment></comment>


Show HN: RazorPay – Stripe-Like Online Payments for India - <AUTHOR> http://www.razorpay.com/

<comment><USER2> This is already on the front page: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249145](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9249145)</comment>


TechCruncher streams his entire web history using WebMynd (YC winter 08) - <AUTHOR> http://www.webmynd.com/stream/mcgranaghan/2008-04-18

<comment><USER2> WebMynd is private by default, but as an experiment, we did a custom plug-in to automatically publish web history.

Get in touch if you would like to try out publishing your own stream (founders at webmynd).

</comment><comment><USER3> mark mcgranaghan defines the word transparency. however, as soon as he leaves his desk we're going to hijack his browser and make interesting google searches.

<comment><USER2> I've been eagerly monitoring Mark's stream to see what's the worst thing a TechCruncher would look at, but it seems you guys are just all talk...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Timelope (<http://timelope.com/>) is a similar project started by Aviel ([http://timelope.com/index.php?p=user&username=aviel](http://timelope.com/index.php?p=user&username=aviel)) through Six Hour Startup here in Seattle a couple months ago. It's a Firefox browser plugin and keeps track of every site you go to (by default, the info isn't shared). From what I understand, it's got some brains on the backend to cut down on showing duplicates of the sites you visit.

The question is, do you really want people seeing a list of every site you go to on the web? ;)</comment>


Object-Oriented Reengineering Patterns (CC BY-SA Ebook) - <AUTHOR> http://scg.unibe.ch/download/oorp/

<comment><USER2> By coincidence, I read this recently, after following a reference from _Growing Object-Oriented Software_ ([http://www.growing-object-oriented- software.com/](http://www.growing-object-oriented-software.com/)) by Freeman and Pryce (which is also highly recommended). It contains a lot of clearly- expressed wisdom and practical techniques for when you're given one of _those_ systems to fix (which is too often for my liking, but there you go). The authors are deceptively insightful in that, after you've read the book, you feel like you should have always known a lot of the contents. In this way, it's a bit like Michael Feathers' _Working Effectively with Legacy Code_ , which it complements nicely.</comment>


Academics should stop doing free peer-review for non-open-access journals. - <AUTHOR> http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=417576&c=1

<comment><USER2> I really like this idea. It has a major strength as a boycott -- it just involves me refusing to do work which I would not have been paid to do anyway. It was never going to be possible to convince people to boycott submitting papers to top journals, as that would damage their career and standing.

I also think journals as they currently stand serve an important purpose, of quality control. They are not perfect, but I have nightmares where the future of publication is just arXiv, or worse a wikipedia-style "the research anyone can edit". I'm not saying these don't have an important place, but I also want a way for the best papers to get exposure, and I think our current system is about the best way of doing that.

<comment><AUTHOR> [Note: I am the author of the original article, so I have a horse in this race.]

I agree that the journal system provides a valuable filter. My beef is not with journal, but with locking up publicly funded research. Open-access journals are an unequivocal good.

But I am not convinced that all journals filter on the right things. I like the approach of PLoS ONE (<http://www.plosone.org/>), which assesses papers purely on the quality of the science, and ignores subjective notions of "impact" or "importance". The result is that everything they publish is good -- as reliable as articles published in any other journal -- but it includes articles that would never get into, say, _Science_ or _Nature_ due to the self-consciously super-selective approach those journals take.

Anyway, that's a side-issue. The real issue is that, whatever selection criteria a journal uses, it should make the resulting papers freely available to the citizens who funded them.

<comment><USER3> Everything PLoS ONE publishes is good because they are less selective than the top tier journals? Seems an extraordinary claim to make.

<comment><AUTHOR> Perhaps I wasn't clear. Everything PLoS ONE publishes is good not _because_ they are less selective, but _although_ they are less selective. The reason their acceptance criteria don't adversely affect the quality of their published articles is because they _do_ select on quality -- if it's not good, it doesn't go in. But they don't select on _impact_.

<comment><USER3> Ah, my mistake, I see what you're claiming. However, let me ask a more substantive question. You end by stating:"The real issue is that, whatever selection criteria a journal uses, it should make the resulting papers freely available to the citizens who funded them."

The OA model largely involves shifting the cost from the user to the author. This will be paid out of the authors grant money, which in many cases is publicly funded as well. It's not at all clear to me that the end effect is as different as the proponents claim.

Reminds me a bit of how Google uses "open" as a competitive weapon to push Android. I wonder if OA publishers are not doing the same to push their business model...

<comment><USER4> What exactly are those costs? Reviewers work for free. The only other thing that's needed is a web application and some hosting. These costs are negligible compared to the tax that closed journals are imposing on the scientific world.

<comment><USER5> At a premier journal in my field, a "managing editor" is paid for the 25+ hours/wk of work assigning submissions out to the SEs/AEs (based on area of focus), and—more importantly—following up with them on their progress. As I understand, he's also responsible for managing itineraries and speaking engagements for the editor-in-chief, who travels regularly evangelizing (and getting feedback on) the top journal in our field.

We have a couple of EICs for major journals at our school, and I suspect (but do not know for certain) that the journal subsidizes their conference attendance too, so that the journal's senior editorial staff can meet in person at least annually.

My point is: don't constrain your cost focus to just distribution. There's more to running any organization than initially meets the eye.

<comment><USER4> Is all of that necessary? Would a model like the following work:

Have a web site where scientists can submit papers. Other scientists can then review the papers. The reviews are publicly (though optionally anonymously) published along with the papers, and the authors of the paper can submit revised versions of the paper.

<comment><USER6> This would not work. Reviewers would not feel comfortable being completely honest if they knew their reviews would be published publicly. In any case, there should be no need for the reviews to be public.

<comment><AUTHOR> Reviewers should be prepared to stand by their reviews. If they're not prepated for it to be known that they said something in a review, then they should not say that thing. Anonymity and secrecy in reviewing doesn't help the field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is kind of chicken-and-egg problem. Today most established journals with high impact factors (= prestigious) are non-open-access. Publishing in or being a reviewer of a high impact factor non-open-access journal looks much better in a resume of a scientist than publishing in non-prestigious open- access journal.

For an open-access journal to become prestigious it needs high quality contributions. But at the same time an author of some important discovery will more likely to publish it in some high prestigious non-open-access journal. Of course for tenured faculty members it is not such a big problem because they have a secured position. But for their apprentices not having high impact publications may become a problem in their future career. And while tenured adviser may force a postdoc to publish in an open-access journal most of them will not likely do this because they understand that this puts members of his/her lab in a bad position compared to competing scientists.

I think that well known scientists should make the first move here and to start publishing in open-access journals. Their work has a lot of traction and will not suffer from being published in some not-so-well-known open-access journal. On the other hand this will help open-access journals to start building reputation.

<comment><USER8> Do scientists put being a reviewer on their c.v.? I am under the impression that mathematicians don't, at least I don't remember seeing it done.

<comment><USER9> Most people in the EE and CS areas I have seen do. The reason is that they don't invite just anyone to do the reviewing, you have to be deemed knowledgeable in your field, so it signifies that.

<comment><USER10> I always read it as: The candidate is well connected and has enough spare time to do reviews.

(FD: I've reviewed my share for IEEE. Now I have no time.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Although I'm in favor of open access journals for a handful of reasons, I think there are a couple of things working against the idea:

First, handling fees. As someone starting out in the field, there are a great number of journals that advertise (read:spam), and have handling fees. It feels very much like a scam, or a system were "success" can be bought.

Second, as one commenter on the article suggests, with a handling fee, the publisher is incentivized to print more. (There's an undercurrent of complain in my field that there isn't enough quality publication space, so this is two- sided, but is the cost of more outlets a lowering in quality?) However, with a subscription model, the quality must remain high to keep subscribers. (One might also argue that "closed" publishers want to print as much as possible to give more authors' schools reason to subscribe, but I don't know the level of this effect.)

Third, on a more personal level, living as a doctoral student—more particularly, with the budget of a doctoral student—even nominal costs can seem overwhelming. I don't see my institution covering "handling fees" in the near future, particularly with the amount of cost-cutting going on. The fees are less onerous for faculty, but present a slightly higher barrier for student entrants.

<comment><USER11> you're assuming, that open access journals need a handling fee

distribution costs are marginal, it is possible for an open access journal that wouldn't take handling fees. it could be a non-profit organisation, or it could have other monetisation methods.

<comment><USER5> Yes, I'm making that 'assumption' because the article says, "... open-access journals, such as PLoS ONE, which charge authors a handling fee to cover their operating costs ..."

EDIT: Link from comment above shows fees for the PLoS family of journals start at $1350 per article and go up rapidly from there.

<http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php>

<comment><USER12> I absolutely agree. The pay-for-publishing model is heavily disadvantaging towards smaller research institutions, independent researchers or young researchers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I let you in on a secret: In many research institutions the people that "do" peer-review don't do the review, they delegate the reviews to their underlings who are not in a position to refuse.

<comment><USER14> I've even been delegated a review by a researcher at a different research institution. (He didn't feel like he knew enough to properly review the paper.) But it seems like the guy the journal editor is talking to is still in a position to boycott, even if he's going to delegate the actual reviewing.

<comment><USER13> The guy the journal editor talks to has sometimes a different agenda. As he does not have interest in reviewing the papers, he isn't interested in the topics. He's often interested in advancing his career and building his network, and a move to do that is "review" papers for journals. Otherwise he would review the papers on his own.

Boycotting would run counter to his own goals (while the guy who got the task of actually reviewing the paper has interest in the topic and would like to boycott journals but is not in the position to do so).

<comment><USER14> The guy the journal editor talks to still has limited minion resources at his disposal, and he still has the option of caring about the future of academic publishing even if he isn't interested in the topics of the papers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I love how this all came about because of a criminal action. No amount of protesting or discussion was succesful. Would it ever have been succesful? Possibly, but unlikely. However, the second we see some illegal activity (the guy from MIT who downloaded the JSTOR articles from that server), suddenly Pandoras box has opened and we see real change, real disruption and fast.

Does this justify his actions? Is the only way to disrupt entranched business to conduct borderline actions? Effectively pushing boundaries to the very limits of legality?.

Either way, this is the concept of "tipping point" in action folks.

<comment><USER16> What exactly is the cause/effect relationship between the JSTOR breach and this article? I don't quite see it.

<comment><USER15> The JSTOR incident shone a light on the practices of JSTOR and journal publishers in general and highlighted just how restricted access is for the general public to research we have all either fully or partly paid for and we fully expect to be in the public domain.

Further, it created a martyr for the movement of open-sourcing articles and to be quite frank about it, the journal owners are now very afraid of their monopolies crumbling to this movement. They knew this day would come, but the speed with which this is gathering pace is terrifying.

<comment><USER17> I disagree. There is no single incident that caused everyone to love Open Access. Instead, over the last years librarians and activists have been slowly but steadily been making progress in this regard - without breaking the law or contracts.

<comment><USER15> No doubt their slow steady pace laid the foundations, but let's give credit where it's due. That MIT guy broke the dam and now it's a torrent.

<comment><USER18> No, I think it's just that you personally were more exposed to this debate because of that incident. The debate and the uprising have been going on ever since Patrick Brown and Michael Eisen started a petition in 2001 which eventually resulted in PLoS. Many people have been slow to follow them, for many reasons, but the movement has been growing ever since.

<comment><USER15> I'm not denying that. What I am saying is the movement has picked up a significant pace since the MIT incident. FWIW I'm currently doing a PhD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It seems like it should be governments who fund the publishing and peer review services, they are already funding most of the research. Having private corporations as middle-men just doesn't make sense, even if they are non- profits.

</comment><comment><USER20> One of the reasons academics do peer review is to put it on their CV/evaluations that universities do to evaluate the amount of academic work they do. Voluntarily declining offers to do peer review would therefore have a negative effect on that person's ability to retain their job. (I'm talking about those without tenure, mainly.)

One solution would be for universities taking stands like this is to somehow "give credit" to their academics who are asked to do peer review for non-open- access journals.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is certainly true that academic advancement is affected by publication in high-impact venues, and that some of those (incuding the ubiquitous _Science_ and _Nature_ ) are not open-access. I can see why someone might feel obliged to submit to these journals.

But I have never seen anyone's career affected by which journals they _review_ for. It might happen, but if it does then it's news to me.

(BTW., for academics who feel they _must_ publish in one of the tabloids, _Science_ is much sounder than _Nature_ because all their papers become freely accessible one year after publication, which is much better than nothing.)

<comment><USER21> > But I have never seen anyone's career affected by which journals they review > for. It might happen, but if it does then it's news to me.

Oh they absolutely are. Academic CVs are full of listings of which program committees you're on. You start being a member of a committee for a smallish conference (in programming language research, something like VEE or PLaS), then try to move up to a few medium size ones (CC, perhaps), and finally you make it to being on the program committees of the top top journals (PLDI or POPL).

I decided not to go down the academic career path after doing my PhD, but it was pretty plain even to a PhD student that being on good program committees is part of your career progression.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A lot of conventional journals have an open access option available to the author for a fee (usually for about $3000). What about offering a no-cost upgrade after reviewing some number of papers for the journal?

<comment><USER23> Journal generally won't do this so long as researchers continue to do it for free. In addition, even if researcher's followed the OP's advice and the journals adopted this strategy, it get us where (most people think) we should be: all research article available free to everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm a CS professor and for the last several years have refused almost every review request from a non-ACM/IEEE journal.

I'm also an associate editor of an ACM journal and often have a very hard time getting people to review submissions. My sense is that a lot of my peers have simply stopped doing (most) journal reviews at all.

A person can be totally overloaded just doing conference reviews, which are a lot more fun anyway. The papers are shorter and (at a good conference) the papers are a lot better than journal submissions.

</comment><comment><USER25> Since most reviewers are probably from Universities or Companies, it is likely that their employment contract prohibits them from doing professional work not associated with their current job. It should be fairly simple for these Universities and Companies to start enforcing this and take away the supply of qualified reviewers from Journals that lock up knowledge.

<comment><USER14> No.

Researchers at universities invariably do academic work for conferences, for journals, and for other universities — giving talks, for example. Often they get paid directly for these. This is a fundamental part of how academia works, and has been (in various forms) for centuries.

I worked in Silicon Valley as a sysadmin and programmer in 1996-97 and 2000-2006, at a total of seven different companies. I've also worked professionally at a professional services company, a defense contractor, and freelance for various clients (primarily in the US). I don't think I've ever seen an employment contract that purported to prohibit me from "doing professional work not associated with [my] current job". In some cases I have proposed modifications to confidentiality agreements with the explicit purpose of ensuring that I could moonlight safely (for previous clients, normally). The modifications were accepted.

<comment><USER25> Having an academic and industrial background myself, I understand that researchers currently do academic work for conferences, journals and so on

The point I was making was that employers could enforce the parts of the contract that allow them to control whom their employees work for. That would, at the very least, not be contributing brainpower to an industry that charges the very same companies / universities enormous sums for access to journals.

While you may not have seen such restrictions in sysadmin/programmer type positions, they certainly exist in several scientific and medical-related disciplines (though I agree that can be waived in certain circumstances).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a lovely idea but I'm afraid it's a pipe dream. Boycotts don't change profitable practices. (And there is little enough profit in academic publishing to begin with!) The author's heart is in the right place but his head is in the clouds. Too bad.

</comment><comment><USER27> So why is the idea that science publishing should be _free_ attributed more intellectual weight than the idea that music should be free, or movies, or software? I mean, we get it, everybody loves free stuff.

<comment><USER28> Because science research is funded by public interests, not private ones.

<comment><USER29> Not really true anymore.

A significant proportion of science research is funded by non-governmental organisations - for example the Gates Foundation.

Furthermore, most universities will charge the researchers who receive grants a cost known as 'overhead' that can often be 100% of the grant. Typically, the funding agencies pay for this separately.

<comment><USER6> When it comes to basic science, this is not true at all. Gleaning numbers from Wikipedia, the Gates Foundation seems to spend roughly $300 million a year on research. HHMI (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) spends $450 million a year. In contrast, the NIH spend $31 billion a year. Biology and medicine are the fields with the highest proportion of private funding, and even in these fields the government is dominant.

Overhead does not seem relevant to this point.

<comment><USER29> You need to provide a reference.

This page from Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science>) suggests that over 63% of research is funded by private sources.

Overhead is relevant as it shows that even at 'public' universities, the funding agency must pay for the research to be carried out, countering arguments about the public paying for research.

<comment><USER14> Where it gets quantitative, the Wikipedia page seems to be talking about "R&D" in general, which is an accounting category that is much broader than "research". When Intel designs a new CPU or Boeing designs a new plane, for example, that's under the "research and development" rubric in these figures. But they typically don't publish much about it, and a lot of what they're doing doesn't have much to do with the kind of "research" we're talking about here.

Perhaps more relevant, though, very little research indeed is funded by subscription fees to scientific journals or conference proceedings or sales prices of academic books; journal and conference authors don't even get royalties, and neither do their institutions, and very few academic books make a substantial amount of money.

I don't understand why overhead is relevant; we're arguing about who the funding agency is, not how grants are structured. If the NIH has to spend 40% of their dollars on overhead so that their PIs have offices and library access, and so does the HHMI, how does knowing this allow us to more accurately compare the expenditures of the NIH and HHMI?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


$570M for bankrate.com - Apax Partners - <AUTHOR> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/bankrate-a-new-model-for-private-equity-deals/ Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTb_iqZ2nBcE <comment><AUTHOR> Bloomberg link with more detail: [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTb_...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aTb_iqZ2nBcE)

Not sure how that slipped past my radar, since it's my industry.</comment>


Facebook to build its own private court system for governing speech - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/f0306e24-d982-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17 <comment><USER2> This was an episode of the court drama series The Good Fight. [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6199772/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6199772/)

Except it was about writing Terms of Service and debating people impacted by the new rules.

</comment><comment><USER3> Does the Financial Times accept all ads without question, or publish all letters to the editor?</comment>


Wit.ai is now free for all developers - <AUTHOR> https://wit.ai/blog

<comment><USER2> The original source title ("Why we're quitting Stripe") certainly an unusual application of a link bait title.

With the link bait removed, this article serves zero purpose as the price announcement was made with the original announcement.</comment>


Founder Depression - <AUTHOR> http://blog.samaltman.com/founder-depression <comment><USER3> Dig deeper, Sam.

Achievement-oriented people are given to depression both when they fail and when they succeed. If your identity is tied up in your work, then you feel bad about yourself when work isn't going well. That's obvious, and that's the message of this blog post. The implicit message is that you're depressed because you're not succeeding, so get your shit together and succeed and be happy like everyone else.

But then if you do succeed, you start to wonder, why did I just spend my youth in this masochistic, narcissistic path, and why the fuck am I not as happy as I was expecting, and is this really all there is in life. This is a classic "achiever in crisis." The problem is that you realize all along you've been doing things that OTHER people wanted -- that is, you've been doing things that make you valuable in society -- perfect summed up in the raison d'etre du jour, "making the world a better place." And nobody stopped you, because who can argue with making the world a better place? (Or being a doctor, or whatever.) But upon reflection, you quickly realize that this was in many ways easier than asking yourself what YOU wanted out of life. I.e. you've pushed aside your innate feelings and desires, whatever they may have been, and replaced them with the external motivation of achievement, under the rationale that you'd be able to "figure it out" after you had "made it".

Unfortunately achievers aren't really sure what they want "deep down" because achievement is inherently defined by society, and then after they've "made it" they freak out because they start to wonder if there even is a "deep down" or if they're just a highly educated donkey chasing a carrot.

If you talk to e.g. people who've gone through rigorous Ph.D. programs, you'll find a number of them were severely depressed after their defense. It was just kind of a let-down after such a long buildup, and then they started to wonder why they invested the entirety of their twenties into it and question whether that's really what they wanted their life to be. At least before the defense they could have something look forward to, and the various requirements provided a source of manic energy to propel the achiever forward.

Anyway I don't think the problem here is "not enough success," and I don't think the solution is having more coffee meetings. Founders need to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why they're doing what they're doing and whether their depression is truly a function of their free cash flow or if there's a deeper dissonance between the founder's feelings and the expectations of society, i.e. the heroic mythology of the founder that Silicon Valley has been inculcating in susceptible teenagers for the last 20 years.

Just my 2c. I am not a founder just an observer and aspiring societal psychiatrist. If you want to learn more I highly recommend "The Wisdom of the Enneagram":

[http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Enneagram-Psychological- Spiritu...](http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Enneagram-Psychological-Spiritual- Personality/dp/0553378201)

It looks a lot like astrological pseudoscientific trash but read it and see if things in it resonate with you.

Ok back to work.

<comment><USER4> Everything we do in life is to feel a certain way.

Anything with a brain is driven to acquire certain feelings and move away from others.

And all feelings have to do with the future.

That is, feelings are either

1\. a prediction of what you believe will happen in the future. For example, happiness is the belief that something good will happen in the future.

2\. a feeling that you should feel in the future when you come across this event again (data for #1 to work). For example, pain happens after you lose something, and this serves as a reminder for the future, if you ever come across this event again, don't do what you just did.

So on the topic of the post, what is depression?

Depression is the belief that you will not have good things happen to you in the future. It comes from what you believe (in your emotional brain), not what you think. And your beliefs come from memories (which in turn come from experiences).

The more recent a memory / experience, the stronger it is. If you have few experiences of good things happening in the past X timeframe, you will start to become depressed. X varies for people, it can be 3 months or 3 years.

So what counts as a good thing or a bad thing?

It all comes from how you interpret experiences. This can be controlled consciously, but only if you bring your emotional brain into the meeting and communicate with it in language it understands (action and visualization).

For example, I used to be addicted to reddit. While I consciously knew it wasn't good to be going to reddit so much, my emotional brain didn't mind. But after discovering a process that uses these principles, I quit "cold-turkey" by imagining a lot of bad stuff in relation to reddit. I wrote (I find writing a good method for visualizing) about all the stuff I was missing out on because of reddit. I wrote about how all I was doing there was arguing with a bunch of fat sweaty no-life neckbeards, which would only lead to bad things to me. Then after I wrote this, I went to delete my reddit account and I thought "whoa this is serious" (you HAVE to feel this way, a.k.a. surprise. Surprise happens when your emotional brain realizes it's past way of thinking is invalid). I thought about it for a couple minutes, but followed through and deleted it. After that, I never went on it for months and would be repulsed at the idea of going there. I rarely go there now.

Anyway, about depression specifically to entrepreneurs or "goal oriented" people. I believe the way to be happy here is to change our beliefs. The goal shouldn't be to have success, but to do the things well that lead to success.

Let's say you want to build a wall (think of the wall as your goal). If you're only happy if you have the wall, then you will be sad throughout the journey until the end when the wall is easy to see finished.

Then after the wall is made, well you don't necessarily have anything good to look forward to now (which is what happiness is), so your happiness will start to drop.

But what if instead, our happiness wasn't dependant on whether we have a wall or not, but rather how many bricks we laid today?

Then we could look forward to "I'm going to lay X bricks today!" and get a much faster success feedback loop.

I'm going to try a process similar to the reddit one above to link good things not with having the wall, but with laying the bricks.

<comment><USER5> >Everything we do in life is to feel a certain way.

I've heard that hypothesised, mostly in Tony Robbins style self help books, but have come to the conclusion that it's an oversimplification of the human condition. I mean if you were building a Mk2 human from scratch you might build it that way be we did not arise that way - we evolved from reptile like creatures which had extra stuff bolted on when they evolved to monkey like, chimp like and finally human like beings. As a result much of what we do is as a result of ancient mechanisms resulting in actions that do not always make us feel good. For example you might lose you temper and hit or shout at someone in ways you feel bad about almost straight away but it was not done to feel good, it was done because some ancient aggression instinct got triggered.

This stuff I think complicates the whole business of dealing with depression which like aggression often comes from the more primitive parts of the brain. I'm not sure what the answer is. Trial and error to some extent. Also it can be interesting to look at what makes cat, dogs and the like happy or sad as we are probably subject to the same mechanisms.

<comment><USER4> To put it in a different way, everything we do is because of the feelings we feel.

'Feeling' is a very broad term. My definition is the sum of your nervous system's activity.

What your nervous system decides to do - and what you feel like doing, are equal statements in my view.

That doesn't mean there's no inner conflict - there is. But if you imagine every neuron as a voter in a democratic election, the decision that gets the most votes is the one that you feel like doing, even though you are aware there are private interest groups of neurons that want something else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I qualified to chime in? We just shut down today after 4.5 years. ;)

This is very true, and unfortunate. It makes it easy to feel like everyone is being successful except you. I realized this a couple years ago and, when talking to other founders, I just stopped sugar coating things about my situation. I would tell them about our struggles, what was going on, and its affect on me. I don't think I've ever been brought to tears as many times as this year. It is super painful, but lying about it is bad for all involved. You can't get the support you need, nor provide proper support to others.

I can definitely vouch for the dark days. I feel fortunate to be an eternal optimist who knows these things are temporary, but the startup lows are about as low as they come. On top of that, you have things like breakups, family emergencies and other tragedies that are already hard enough to deal with when you are not nursing a struggling company. When those things hit at the same time, it can feel impossible to do anything.

Seriously, as a founder, find a few people you can really confide in and do so. And, don't be afraid to say things aren't going well. You never know what people can do to help. On that note, though today isn't the best day for me to cheer up others, I'm available to chat for any founder going through dark days. email@example.com

<comment><USER7> > It makes it easy to feel like everyone is being successful except you.

I'd say this is hardly a case _only_ when you're a founder. Throughout life, if you keep high expectations of yourself (which is IMHO a good thing in the long run), you will constantly feel like people around you are succeeding, and you're struggling. I've sometimes felt that way, but the key, for me at least, was to learn to take it easy on myself from time to time and not to be sickly critical of my own work.

Sometimes people feel like everyone else is succeeding and they are failing because, well, it is _true_ to some extent observable by them. (It sounds grim, but in reality you can mostly turn the tables if you invest enough effort.) However, sometimes you can get that feel if you constantly observe the people who simply set the bar lower. Psychological processes that drive us are curious; sometimes they may make us redefine success so that we can appear more successful to other people. But this is not a real, healthy gain: it's a pathological one. A giant, impressive pile of counterfeit, useless money, if you will.

Just my two cents. I'm most likely talking out of my ass :)

By the way, kudos to you and everyone else for being a founder. It sounds like both a great struggle and a fun journey, and everyone with the courage (or the madness!) to go down that path has my deepest respect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > You'll also be surprised how much you find other founders are willing to > listen.

This is super important. Non-founders often will not get it, in my experience. If you haven't started a company, you often will not have experienced the intense ups and downs, and just how fucked everything can be, even when you pour your life and soul into it, and that there really can be a light on the other side of the tunnel.

One brief tip: it is OK to give up your startup - don't feel that you can't.

If you're in a dark place, do take up the kind offers that people are making in this thread. (I'm email@example.com if you want to chat, and I've publicly fucked up one startup, so I understand.)

<comment><USER9> >Non-founders often will not get it, in my experience.

This is the kind of self important nonsense I would expect from a high schooler. Sorry, but starting a company is not the only way to feel intense ups and downs, or to put your heart into something only to be disappointed. Maybe thinking that you're problems are completely unique is contributing to the problem. There are lots of other people with their own problems who are either able to relate or at least empathize.

<comment><USER10> They won't get the particular contexts and situations. To have this conversation with a non-founder you'll be explaining a lot of jargon, background and cause-effect relationships.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My first thought on reading this: "Great, but who _shouldn 't_ I talk to?"

I've known founders whose VCs took their "down" moments as weakness. They "helped" them dilute to pave the way for future takeover. They exploited founders' weakness and talked about them behind their backs. Who can you really trust when you _and_ your company are at their weakest?

<comment><USER12> Thanks for bringing this up. Even worse is trying to raise a round of funding when you can barely raise yourself out of bed in the morning. VC/Investors are probably the last people I would ever talk to about the low feelings during dark startup days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The latest brain research is showing two powerful trends worth talking about in any conversation among friends and advisers:

1) The key role of sleep appears to be flushing toxins from the brain: [http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/10/sleep- ulti...](http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2013/10/sleep-ultimate- brainwasher)

2) Sleep disorders appear to precede mental health concerns, including anxiety and depression: [http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/health/conditions/sleep- apnea-...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/health/conditions/sleep-apnea- depression/) [http://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/related- illnesses/...](http://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/related- illnesses/sleep-disorders)

Your brain is your performance and health computer. Please remember to take care of it.

</comment><comment><USER14> Father died in final year of college. Only child moved home to mourning mother(of course!) Went on huge sarge to find a women. Did side work, but focused on 2nd startup(1st one in back of my mind to reboot.) Failed. Arrogant and never found a full time job. Was in love and my girl needed to marry to stay in country. She was fine I thought while i went after my dreams. Finally found my 3rd idea and was working on skills. Eventually wife lost faith and cheated(multiple times and not just sex on one, successful man.) Found out, blew my retirement(roth) I made working when I was younger on booze. Lost faith in myself, saw no point in my great idea, mother attacks, no real man to fend off. Sleep in a truck, brain so fried from settling divorce and lack of self confidence or a dime. Idea still viable, even after all this time, timing might be right. "If you are going through hell, keep going."

<comment><USER14> Why was I down voted for my open heart experiences for those who are struggling with their dreams?

<comment><USER15> I didn't downvote you, but it doesn't read very coherently. Maybe give more information.

<comment><USER14> I apologize for the mind dump. It all has been very painful so I stuck to succinct sentences. What more do you request?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I worked up the restaurant industry, opened my first restaurant in 2007. Second in 2009. In 2009 I was 24.

Leased the first location, bought the second for about $2 mil, ($100k down)... Economy took a crap, road work, city restrictions, f __king Denny 's decided to open right next to my first location. I closed in 2010. Sole-Proprietor. Combine taxes, bills, loans, etc.. I was looking at around 1.5 mil in debt. I had $400 about at the time. The newspaper had me front page for closing, social media blew up, everyone wants to know wtf happened.

I made ALOT of mistakes, not saying I am a complete victim but it hurts... REAL bad. So I ran and hid. Couldn't own a bank account, had to move. All those "friends" ain't friends we you are in the gutter. Worked random jobs just to eat and pay rent on a shared room in a new town. Decided to code because it looked better than my bartending/sales jobs.

Learned code and now in the industry. Its fun to hear people get VC help, a co-founder, community support, nothing really on the line but other peoples money and time. Not saying that it's everyone or even the OP, but things could be sooooo much harder when falling from grace. When you get on your knees in front of all your staff and beg the power company rep not to shut off the lights, you are pretty close to that wonderful feeling. "Run it till the wheels fall off.."

</comment><comment><USER17> I've been to some really dark places and back. If anyone needs to talk, shoot me an e-mail -- firstname.lastname@example.com. I'll buy you coffee, listen, and try to help you find a better place.

<comment><USER18> I will attest that Slava is not only wicked smart, but a great person to just talk with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can someone provide insight on life after a failed startup, in terms of career prospects? Often depression can make you feel as if you're failing on all fronts, that nothing will get better in the foreseeable future. Most of the time that really isn't true. You're often stuck in a temporary rut that your mind drastically exaggerates. But for a founder who's going through a dark time and whose startup ultimately fails, is it easy to pick yourself up again? Can you realistically transition into a more stable job where you'll have more energy to improve your life? I've heard from quite a few that the years spent on a failed startup do not improve your career options, and for a founder that may find themselves depressed running a company, I can't imagine such poor prospects lending any hope.

<comment><USER20> I think the best way to do well after failure is to be intellectually honest with yourself.

Polonius said it best "To thine own self be true."

As an engineer, in Seattle and the Bay Area, you will always have access to jobs.

For non-technical founders, you will have had gained valuable experience that will make you significantly more attractive.

You often have to wear multiple hats, manage your time, focus on what matters, and you gain a lot of experience in finance, shipping product, dealing with investors, dealing with customers, all of which is harder to get if you have a specific role at a larger organization.

Now, there are startups, and there are startups. If you quit your job and tinker at something for a few months to a few years and never really do anything to show for it (ship an MVP, hire an employee or two, raise or attempt to raise money), then, I imagine you didn't really learn anything, but if you were able to do those things, you will have gained real world applicable experience.

Being a founder, was the 2nd best thing that I could have ever done to my career.

My start-up didn't fail, but I ended up leaving because I was slowing it down.

My role now is basically a founder working for a late stage organization. I use lean methodology and entrepreneurship thinking to build new services to explore untapped market opportunities. Instead of raising funding with investors, my company will fund the growth of the service into a full fledged business unit.

<comment><USER21> (You know, Polonius was meant as a figure of mockery, so I'm not sure it makes sense to go around quoting his ironic sayings....!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> You can't afford to follow this advice. Saying you're crushing it is part of your 24/7 job description.

There is a story of the founder who had just put a round together with a VC. Then, privately, the founder confided to a mutual friend, over dinner, about some of the difficulties. Result? The friend told the VC, the VC pulled out, and cited this conversation, saying that it was because his mutual friend said the company was having difficulties.

You can't afford to talk.

<comment><USER22> Bullshit. Your advice could literally kill people.

There are always many many people you can and should talk to in confidence. Many examples have offered their email addresses above.

<comment><USER23> That's why you talk to a therapist who is legally bound to protect your doubts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> While the situation is most acute for founders, I feel that the general situation is true for most if not all professionals with strong aspirations.

You can't show weakness in public (web) for fear that a potential employer will flag you. You can't express your lament to many coworkers since it can come back to bite you.

Non-founders generally aren't subjected to the kind of lows that founders are, and have more room for camaraderie and confidants. But no matter who we are, it seems that were need to put on an air of invulnerability, and this bothers me immensely.

(And in general, I play the game as well)

</comment><comment><USER25> If anyone feels like they need someone to talk to, send me an email (in my profile).

If you're in San Francisco, we can also get coffee.

<comment><USER18> Same here! Email in profile, in the Mountain View area for coffee/beers.

<comment><USER26> Anyone in the East Bay?

<comment><USER27> I'm in Oakland with the same offer

<comment><USER28> I'm in Oakland too and have some experience with the ups and downs (and downs, and downs) of starting a company. If anyone could use a sympathetic ear, I'd like to help.

<comment><USER29> +1. I'm about to go oh for five so I definitely know how it goes. Maybe we should start a support group.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm a developer with bipolar disorder. I gave a about it last year at Business of Software called _Developers, Entrepreneurs and Depression_ that some founders have found useful:

[http://businessofsoftware.org/2013/11/developers- entrepreneu...](http://businessofsoftware.org/2013/11/developers- entrepreneurs-depression-a-wonderful-talk-at-business-of-software-conference/)

<comment><USER31> Same diagnosis. I struggle so much with wanting to help others and wanting not to tell anyone. Wanting to talk to my bosses so they can understand and wanting my privacy. Wanting not to use it as an excuse, or get special treatment but then being so angry when they don't get it (how could they?).

Also struggling with starting something and the need to finish it the same night. That one hit hard. The anxiety while I work on something only goes away when I finish, so longer projects are impossible. To avoid the pain I just stop trying to work on them.

I'm trying to get better with medication and a doctor and it is certainly better than constantly thinking about suicide but I worry that I'm never going to be productive.

Thanks for so much for your talk. And having the courage to put such a big part of yourself out there to help others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It will go a long way to have more people like Sam say "it's okay to talk."

It's not like people have to open their souls on their blogs.

But when high profile individuals like Sam "proclaim" that it's okay to talk about this, somehow it feels a lot safer to open up to people in person.

Especially if they're in a similar situation.

</comment><comment><USER33> Try dedicating your life to music its freakin brutal. Write some songs and go sing em in a public forum, thats some serious vulnerability. Not saying its tougher than being a founder, but no way the opposite is true. Anyway my point is that these days many people who are attracted to being founders tend to be shocked by the costs because they don't have the natural temperament to sharply veer from the path of established norms. Many don't believe in something greater than themselves or money which would allow them to suffer the pain as a cost of doing business. This is a given in the arts. Its like the marines, pain is part of the practice.

</comment><comment><USER34> Greek philosopher Epiktet has the solution. From [http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html):

The Enchiridion

By Epictetus

Written 135 A.C.E.

Translated by Elizabeth Carter

1\. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.

Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved.

Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.

[...]

</comment><comment><USER35> Another good resource is the classic "Feeling Good" [1], which describes basic cognitive behavioral therapy in a self-help format. It's old but good and has been validated in clinical trials.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0380810336?pc_redir=1402628516...](http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0380810336?pc_redir=1402628516&robot_redir=1)

<comment><USER36> I second, "Feeling Good" is great.

BTW, there is another book by the same author(David Burns) -- "When Panic Attacks" [1]. It is focused on anxiety, not depression, but these two conditions often go hand in hand.

[1] [http://amzn.com/076792083X](http://amzn.com/076792083X)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> > If you ask a founder how her startup is going, the answer is almost always > some version of "Great!"

This is not founder-specific but a fairly typical American greeting. "How's it going?" "Pretty good, you?" "Not too bad, how 'bout the weather / sports team?"

By comparison, the next time someone initiates the standard greeting try responding with something out of the ordinary. "I'm having a difficult time with foo" or "My wife and I just did this". Breaking the pattern will result in a lot more meaningful conversations.

<comment><USER38> I think there's two different things going on here. What you talk about is very much real -- the standard "how's it going?" or "how are you?" American question/response ("Good! You?"). Answering that sort of question in the way you suggest is a fairly non-American thing.

But I think there is also a more specific founder/startup conversation that Sam refers to -- that's more like this:

Q: "Hey, how are you?"

A: "Good! You?"

Q: "I'm good. So how are things with the company? How are you guys doing?"

That's where the typical "Oh we're killing it!" is coming in and where it might be nice for some to be a bit more honest. "We're trying. It's a struggle." You can also learn a lot about the person you're talking to by seeing how they respond to this. The good ones are the ones who respond with empathy and who want to listen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I can definitely relate to this. There are definitely times when it's hard to talk to anybody... and I don't know about you guys, but with some topics I actually find it harder to talk to someone I know, than, say, a random stranger at a bar. Luckily I have at least one or two friends, who, for whatever reason, I can talk to about "founder depression" issues more easily than other people. Strangely enough, it's not even that they're my _closer_ friends, they're just people where the nature of the relationship feels "different" in some subtle way.

I also find that being more frank, than is probably expected, on forums like this is somewhat cathartic. If you were to dig through my old posts (don't waste your time, it's not actually _that_ interesting) you'll find my admitting to suicidal ideation, and talking openly about how I think I'd off myself in the "doomsday" scenario. I hope it never comes to that, and I doubt it will, but something about this almost pseudonymous forum leaves me feeling more comfortable about saying certain things. This is true even though my "real life" identity is clearly spelled out in my profile and is trivially easy to find. _shrug_

Anyway, I'm no mental health expert, but if anybody just needs a friendly ear to listen to them vent, feel free to give me a shout. If you're in the RTP, NC area, I'm happy to meet for coffee/food/drinks or whatever. Email and contact info in profile.

<comment><USER4> >I can definitely relate to this. There are definitely times when it's hard to talk to anybody... and I don't know about you guys, but with some topics I actually find it harder to talk to someone I know, than, say, a random stranger at a bar. Luckily I have at least one or two friends, who, for whatever reason, I can talk to about "founder depression" issues more easily than other people. Strangely enough, it's not even that they're my closer friends, they're just people where the nature of the relationship feels "different" in some subtle way

That's because you're trying to maintain / live up to a reputation you've set to people close to you.

You believe that if you admit fault, they will love you / want you less.

Where if you talk to people that aren't close, you have no reputation to maintain and their love doesn't mean as much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> On the flipside of this is the fact that, as a founder, you are a clear target for subconscious repression by _everyone_ , thanks to the tall poppy syndrome. So, many times, discussing the issues and problems with others is precisely what you _shouldn 't_ do, because you will trigger the syndrome.

Its very important, thus, to have established trust with your support network _before_ you go into the founder seat. If you don't have a support network that consciously navigates around such things as TPS and mobbing-mentality, then you're going to be in for a hard time. The fact of the matter is that humans are subconsciously hard-wired to dissent against organizational structures requiring hard work and honest production, and a founder getting up there on the hill and attempting to work hard and produce new things needs to understand that the most difficult thing about organizing humans, is humans.

Disclaimer: founder who just went through all of the above, and still working hard to survive in spite of it all.

</comment><comment> 5943d536-f360 I wanted to chime in here to whine about my founder problems (loneliness, destruction of personal relationships, total chaos in one's life, no time for oneself etc) and I realized that I can't even anonymously talk about this without feeling like a spoiled entitled brat. I feel that no matter how much I lose to this absurd path I've forced myself into, I still have no right to complain about it, otherwise I'm obviously not "founder material".

I think to myself "Well, I've certainly turned my life into a clusterfuck, but at least I'm not like some of these guys who went bankrupt, couldn't afford medical for their children or who died from overworking. Can't really complain, right?"

I guess I find it very hard to whine about my struggles and all the fuck-ups when it's self-imposed martyrdom. Nobody asked me to quit my cushy 6 figures 9 to 5. I was miserable at it, but doesn't mean I needed to do a startup instead.

</comment><comment><USER41> Dear Sam,

It's interesting to hear you speak about founder depression as you sit on top of the world.

Our team, openhospital.com, interviewed at YCombinator 6 weeks ago for the current batch and we failed (rejection email below). The $1100 interview reimbursement we received from YC only covered 1/3 of the cost of the trip and the time/energy spent applying could have been time and money spent coding and developing our product (and paying rent).

In the last 7 months I've managed to burn through my 401k from years software engineering jobs in pursuit building a cash medicine marketplace. I barely have enough money to pay my rent next month. In a desperate attempt to find capital, I also charged a trip to San Jose on my credit card 2 weeks ago to knock on doors up and down Sand Hill Road.

If you or anyone on this forum is interested in starting a cash medicine marketplace there is an opportunity to change the world and this needs to be done. Ironically my wife has horrible stomach problems and I spent two hours calling GI/colonoscopy doctors trying to find a cash price as I will be charging this on my credit cards as well.

I am desperate to start this and I don't care if I end up with 1/10000th of founder ownership at the end. We have a working provider site with several providers (18k lines of code). The other engineer on my team is smart (Stanford educated) and an awesome co-founder to work with.

Am I depressed? Yes. Am I giving up? Never.

My contact info is joe (at) openhospital.com if you Sam or anyone on this forum would like to chat.

Joe Arnone Founder OpenHospital.com

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0jz58wmd8ynsup/Photo%20Apr%2026%2...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/d0jz58wmd8ynsup/Photo%20Apr%2026%2C%206%2002%2038%20PM.png)

<comment><USER42> You might have more success if you explain your business model a bit better. What pain point are you addressing? Who's the customer? How big is the market? How do you plan to introduce your innovation and induce behavior change in the current marketplace and insert yourself into the transaction? etc..

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> When I first became a manager at a large corporation, I often felt stressed out and alone. So a year into it, I created an informal "support group" of other new managers. We'd trade stories, tips, and beers.

This was nowhere near the pressure of founding a company, but I took that experience and created an informal support group of founders amongst my colleagues too. It didn't last unfortunately, but I later got into an accelerator and found the same support group.

No matter what the cause of your stress or depression, having a good support system is extremely helpful. It ranges from Mommy/Daddy groups to AA to even a single good friend.

Unfortunately for many people, it's very difficult to find and/or build a support system.

P.S. I vaguely recall seeing an organization (maybe a startup) listed on HN that basically helped people find someone to talk to. Anyone remember the name?

<comment><USER44> I believe [http://7cupsoftea.com](http://7cupsoftea.com) may be what you're looking for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> As they say start ups are a roller coaster ride.

All the lows are worth it for the highs, because the alternative is working n wasting ur life away at a desk job. Which after experiencing many highs sitting at that desk makes you hate it and for me I only keep jobs for a year because of my incessant need to start up. Needless to say I don't lead the normal societal life as I have sacrificed such for my startups/dreams.

But oh the lows(depression) and instability... Like today because of my startup addiction it's time to find a new desk job.

This stuff is crazy HARD, but I can't stop!

</comment><comment><USER46> For founders, it is a good idea to scope which socio-economic-environmental factors would contribute to their dissonance or depression. For me it's the lack of face-to-face contact, being an 'outlier' in so many respects, being in an environment that is not as innovative or open to entrepreneurs and so on. The list is not that encouraging but as long as the factors are known at least they are 'known'. Also these factors can easily contribute to freelancers, independent workers, etc.

The next item to know is that there are factors that would actively contribute to depression. I used to have some really bad habits that would otherwise feed into some sort of circle of depression and these would pop up when I am triggered. These habits formed because of thought patterns that I have somewhat developed growing up. Whenever I feel the triggers, I need to make sure that I don't engage in any of these bad habits or that if I do, I need to try and get out of that zone.

I've had my first episode when I was really young - culminated in a few sessions with a psychologist at school - so I've had this affliction for a while now. On top of that, I've been entrepreneurial since I was young so I think that the external 'being a founder' is hard to separate from the biology.

It's a bit of a circle for me - I get in founder phases and then when the business or idea fizzles out or when I need the cash, I get into employee phase which then culminates in me wanting to get my feet back into the entrepreneur game... and so on and so forth. At the moment I'm in that founder phase and have made commitments and arrangements so that I don't get back into being an employee for at least January 2015.

</comment><comment><USER47> Lots of interesting comments here. I'll put some thoughts here, too... I have always thought there are two kinds of people in this world. One who do things that make other people's life better. Others who reap benefits of things done by the former group. To me the question is about whether you want to be selfless in the service of others or live a steady life. Once you have figured out, there is no shame in failing if your goals are high and intentions are right. If you base your success based on how people perceive you that is a very wrong way to think. The only reason because public opinion tends to change very so often. So, for me at least, being successful implies reaching for a bigger goal than the self. Being principled and finding happiness in doing the right thing. Just imagine if Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Dr King, etc would have only thought for themselves what kind of a messed up world we all would have been living in? With greater goals come even greater challenges in some shape or form of "failures." "If There Is No Struggle, There Is No Progress"

<comment><USER48> Feeling the need to constantly be trying to improve the world and help others is a noble concept but also one that, if focused on too intensely, can unintentionally lead you down a dark path. By setting unrealistic expectations for yourself you can often set yourself up for failure by reaching too far too early. It also puts a heavy burden on your shoulders of being your own worst critic, undermining your motivation and clashing with your basic human desires that fall out of natural selfishness. As PG said in "Good and Bad Procrastination":

"You can't look a big problem too directly in the eye. You have to approach it somewhat obliquely. But you have to adjust the angle just right: you have to be facing the big problem directly enough that you catch some of the excitement radiating from it, but not so much that it paralyzes you. You can tighten the angle once you get going, just as a sailboat can sail closer to the wind once it gets underway."

I think the effects of trying to tackle big problems in the name of helping others head on can go beyond paralysis and into poor judgement in both strategy and tactics. The best way to change the world in my view is to first, know thyself, and then point yourself in the general direction you want to go.

From there, let your passions lead you where they may but be conscious if you are straying too far from the direction you were headed. Also, it seems more important to know if you've certainly begun heading in the wrong direction than knowing what exactly the right direction was from the outset.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> At the beginning most founders getting some kind of depression but the better founders quickly adapt to the situation and answer 'some version of great' when asked how their startup is going.

The reason is quite simple -- successful founders are always positive because every event which happens has some positive impact in their perception, even if it might feel as a failure. Successful founders don't use the word failure, nothing is a failure to them.

People who are depressed -- it doesn't matter if those are founders or not -- tend to let external circumstances determine the mood or happyness level. Most people are happy when it's good weather and sad if it is raining, successful people do not let something like rain influence their mood level.

The question is rather why the topic 'depression' pops up quite often on HN.

My theory: I had very successful times as a founder and also -- let's call them -- 'slow' times as a founder, in particular in the beginning. When I had successful times I didn't check HN for months a single time, when I had 'slow' times, I checked HN every 30 minutes.

-

</comment><comment><USER50> for the significant others of founders - [http://lifeofastartupgf.com](http://lifeofastartupgf.com) \- being in a relationship with a founder is tough and sometimes, extremely stressful.

<comment><USER51> I guess it's the thought that counts, but that's not a resource with a lot of depth.

My wife keeps saying she should organize a Startup Wives reality show, but I think we'd have to manufacture a lot of the drama.

<comment><USER52> [http://www.amazon.com/Startup-Life-Surviving-Relationship- En...](http://www.amazon.com/Startup-Life-Surviving-Relationship- Entrepreneur/dp/1480563862)

Book written by Brad Feld and Amy (his spouse)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Feel like I should offer this as well. If anyone feels like they need someone to talk to, send me an email (in my profile).

If you are in Utah, we can grab food.

<comment><USER54> That's very kind of you. I used to live in Utah, and still have many connections there. If you don't mind, I'll drop your name if any friends there could benefit from a quick chat with a real person. I'm in San Diego and the reverse offer stands.

<comment><USER53> For sure!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I wish I could explain what I'm going through right now, as a founder, but I legally can't. The few people that know what I'm going through have said it's the hardest situation they've heard a startup founder in, ever. I hope to one day tell my story.

Let's just say, it involves dealing with somebody that developed severe mental illness, quickly.

<comment><USER56> start writing your story down now, and then reveal it later when appropriate

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Recommended talk: [http://businessofsoftware.org/2013/11/developers- entrepreneu...](http://businessofsoftware.org/2013/11/developers- entrepreneurs-depression-a-wonderful-talk-at-business-of-software-conference/)

Seek specialist advice.

I personally try to limit success stories and get back to work :)

</comment><comment><USER58> You might also checkout [http://www.startupsanonymo.us/](http://www.startupsanonymo.us/). Two great guys, also founders who have been there and who just listen, for free and offer some feedback.

Great project, way too little exposure for them though.

</comment><comment><USER59> For me, startup depression was just something to get familiar with. I've been working on mine for about 3 years now, bootstrapped... on the weekends... making no money.... while supporting a family... being an involved father... but fuck it, I still believe in it and will continue working on it until I believe that the opportunity has passed.

The first two years consisted of my mind bouncing back and forth between dreams and depression. Now I've matured, at least emotionally, to where I feel emotionally invincible. I guess I just got used to it, the uncertainty, the hopes, the fears. This has become my norm, and living with it is much easier and honestly pretty effortless at this point.

</comment><comment><USER60> Glad to see this being discussed.

Relevant: [http://www.inc.com/magazine/201309/jessica- bruder/psychologi...](http://www.inc.com/magazine/201309/jessica- bruder/psychological-price-of-entrepreneurship.html)

</comment><comment><USER61> I've found it super helpful to surround myself by other entrepreneurs (they "get it" more easily). With the best ones, we can both speak with our guards down, and be open about our vulnerabilities.

I don't have data on this, but I actually believe you increase your odds of success by being open about your insecurities. Among other things, it helps you form connections that are more human.

If anyone in SF would like to talk through stuff, my email is in my profile. I've seen my share of lows, and been helped by other entrepreneurs. Would like to pass it forward.

</comment><comment><USER62> I listened to a surprising podcast from John Lloyd (UK comedy producer deity (Spitting Image, BlackAdder etc))

He talked about his breakdown, about how he was fired from ten or so jobs and slowly came to a realisation that I think is worth repeating - that you can accept your life is yours, if possible live "with no fear and no blame"

I certainly don't suggest his approach is perfect but I is interesting to see someone widely successful and respected talking about the same fears and depression pervasive within us.

Look for Seun Hughes / John Lloyd on iTunes

</comment><comment><USER63> When I went solo-fulltime on my startup, I started a Mailchimp newsletter and asked all my friends who I thought cared about the startup to join (I'm just shy of 100 subscribers now). It's been incredibly useful for battling loneliness; every few weeks I talk about a success, a failure, or maybe just something random. It's helped make the whole process less isolating; I always get personal replies after I send one.

</comment><comment><USER64> Just remember that the failure of your startup/project does not mean that you are a failure. In the last years you most likely "merged" yourself with your startup, you need to keep reminding yourself that your are _more_ than it. You have friends, family, other ideas. You always can try again. And yes, would be happy to have coffee/lunch/whatever to chat (I am in the Bay Area).

</comment><comment><USER54> In San Diego. Like Utah poster, let me know if you'd like to grab food. I haven't been a _founder_ until recently, but I've worked _as an employee_ at three previous startups. I'm familiar with some of the feelings and would love to share my experiences if it helps others. Let me know - my twitter handle is on my HN profile.

</comment><comment><USER65> I thought this was a really good talk (and associated thread with it) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4357037](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4357037) on entrepreneurial depression and happiness.

</comment><comment><USER66> I don't think it is as simple as learning that you can talk about it - <USER2> have to learn who to talk about it too. Not everyone wants to hear that things are not working quite as planned - most people would rather just hear "Great!"

</comment><comment><USER67> The app Secret seems to be a big vent for this feeling. I regularly see people posting about their own companies and feeling overwhelmed. The replies are always supportive and typically several are along the lines of being in the same boat.

<comment><USER68> Beware of trolls, though. Secret isn't immune from the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Maybe I'm crazy but I'm a solo founder (I have a great support system of other founders) and I rarely find myself depressed. At times I'm angry at myself for decisions I've made but hindsight is 20:20.

</comment><comment><USER70> I'm in Orange County running two startups with plenty of ups and downs. If you're in the area and want to grab a coffee and talk, my contact details are in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER71> This is also a good way to filter out who is actually your friend or who is hanging with you because "you're killing it."

<comment><USER72> No. It's not good for that at all. Depression is a monster. It eats relationships for breakfast. Friends who have not had depression will not understand it. There will be almost nothing they can do to help, but they'll want to help and find it a very frustrating experience. In the long run, those relationships will be very difficult to maintain.

Hyperbole and a Half has what I think is the best "layman" explanation for what depression is really like: [http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2011/10/adventures- in-...](http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2011/10/adventures-in- depression.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Doing what you love is the key to happiness. This may not make you a billionaire but will certainly make you very happy. There is just too much pressure in wanting to be a billion dollar startup. If you take a VC's money as a means to your happiness, you will end up working for the VC's happiness and not yours.

</comment><comment><USER74> I usually tell people it's "peaks and valleys". The peaks are really, really high, and the valleys are really, really low. But that's the whole point, isn't it? It's the ride that makes everything worth it.

</comment><comment><USER75> Maybe you just need a more engaging project?

</comment><comment><USER76> Happy people are less likely to start risky ventures.

<comment><USER77> True

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> amen. Glad you put this out there.

</comment><comment><USER79> Great post. I wonder whether organizations like YC might consider offering compensation for seeing a therapist during and after their batch, and even perhaps going as far as recommending a particular local therapist.

I've experienced depression while running a startup, and seeing a therapist was immensely helpful. A therapist who regularly sees founders as clients would have a stronger-than-usual feedback loop on what sorts of advice and recommendations can help.

Edit: While I think the advice of talking to other founders about depression is really excellent for those who have that option, I think back to when I've experienced depression and wonder whether it would have helped. Specifically I'm not sure I was even in a state to be able to act upon that advice. Generally my sense of self-worth was so deflated that it was very difficult to discuss it with anyone, and particularly anyone who I wasn't close friends with. Beyond my co-founders, few of my close friends were entrepreneurs.

<comment><USER80> wtf is that? yes, depression is bad, but YC should compensate treatment? Entrepreneurship is hard, everyone says that. So you should either expect to deal with consequences or not even get started. What kinda entrepreneur will graduate from YC if they have to be kinder-gardened?

<comment><USER81> "Might consider" vs "should". There's insane cash and bullshit perks flying around the industry, why not something that genuinely helps the people behind the business, and likely the business itself.

<comment><USER80> As a hidden/unofficial perk - may be I would agree. But I doubt they would want attract candidate with that kind of perk (I wouldn't.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> If you need help with depression and would rather try to figure it out yourself, consider Julian Simon's "Good Mood: The New Psychology of Overcoming Depression". Some of it didn't make sense to me, but I know much of it has helped me and a few depressed friends.

[1] [http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Good_Mood/](http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Good_Mood/)</comment>