Fundraising While Female - <AUTHOR> http://advice.datingring.com/fundraising-while-female/ <comment><USER2> I wasn't going to respond... But after reading the whole article, the author really comes across as self-entitled. I fear no one is willing to tell her the truth. So here are some thoughts:

1\. Fundraising is hard no matter who you are. Stop reading TechCrunch and comparing yourself to others. You never know what someone's journey is. From the story the press tells it looks like I've had an easy path raising capital but that's not true. We've gone 12+ months on a single $50k investment after a year of no funding. Startups are hard and you need to be willing to deal with the fact that most companies struggle to fundraise.

2\. I am glad you have conviction, you'll need it, but the dating space is not as guaranteed as you think. Up until recently, the entire dating market combined didn't top a billion dollars in the U.S. Companies like Tinder are probably overvalued and yet they have millions and millions of users with crazy metrics. Do you have ANY indication you've built the next Tinder?

3\. Investors invest in opportunities they understand. I look at your product and I ask "what's novel, defensible, unique here?". The design doesn't blow me away and the model sounds just like Three Day Rule which now has support and backing by Match.com (note: all founders of TDR are female). What sets you apart?

4\. Please please please don't think you're hot shit because the press covered you. YC says to focus on traction because that is all that matters, and they're right. 60% growth doesn't mean anything. What are the numbers? Do you have 100k users on track to pass 250k in half that time and 1MM in a year? Look at Slack or Snapchat or Instagram growth to compare what investors get excited about it. Be really honest with yourself about whether you DO have numbers or not.

Look, I understand discrimination and believe you experience it far worse than a straight white guy, but it really doesn't come across as a compelling argument the way it's explained here. I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate for calling you out here, but I feel it would be dishonest not to reply and tell you what it looks like from the outside. I wish you the best of luck and hope you build that billion dollar company, but please remember the dating space is hard, saturated, historically hard to monetize, and filled with tombs of companies that got millions only to go nowhere.

<comment><USER3> Fundraising is hard, for sure. You know what's harder? Having investors want to meet with you, and taking your meeting, not because they see value in your business, but because they want to fuck you.

Can you imagine how infuriating that must be as an entrepreneur? Imagine that there's a 50/50 shot that, every time you have a meeting with someone, they're just stringing you along so that they have the opportunity to fuck you and have zero interest in actually investing. You'd be outraged not only on the creep-factor, but also just the complete waste of time. Moreover, these same people trying to fuck you are also investing in actively shittier companies than you run.

As people are trying to "focus on growth" every single one of these meeting invites for investors could be a _huge_ waste of time, and that alone is cause for outrage. Take the sex out of it -- imagine that for every investor you pitched, 50% of the time the investor stood you up. That's the baseline of what's happening here: the investor isn't showing; in his place is also a dirtbag. That's a _really_ hard fundraising environment.

The only thing I can critique this woman on is why she's not more upset, and why she's not publishing a list of names.

<comment><USER4> I'm sorry, but to suggest that it's 50/50 whether potential investors are only meeting you to bone you is just ludicrous. I find that quite insulting.

You come across as sexist, and with a chip on your shoulder that big (and an ego to match), _I_ certainly wouldn't want to invest in you.

<comment><USER5> What do you base your assessment on?

<comment><USER4> I base this 'assessment' on the fact that not all men are unprofessional, drooling apes.

<comment><USER6> But you are a man and so you don't get to see the vast amounts of sexist unprofessional behaviour that women have to put up with.

<comment><USER4> Regardless of my gender, I also know that not every man is a sexist bastard hell-bent on shagging every woman he meets.

I really do find it ridiculous and offensive (slanderous, even) to suggest that all men (or 50% of men; it's not clear it the OP meant 50% of _people_ or 50% of _men_ ) are like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I sympathize with you, having also experienced subtle sexism in both the tech and investment world (I'm a technical co-founder, and I've fundraised successfully). Here's a couple of points I hope are helpful.

\- You should look to connect with partners at firms that have female founders (ideally purely female-founding teams) among their portfolio. There are also a few female partners out there as well -- get access to them, with your YC network it should not be hard. Listen hard and press them to get honest, specific feedback when given "no"s.

\- While the sexism is unfortunate and it's hard not to get frustrated, you may want to look long and hard at your pitch and company. If you've really talked to 40 investors and sent out ~500 emails, and this is a hot space for disruption, it's very unlikely that _all_ of them are dismissing you due to gender; something isn't connecting. I's very easy to dismiss all feedback ("their feedback means nothing; they are rejecting me because I am a woman") just because you are soured by your bad sexist experiences.

Ask yourself these questions honestly: Are investors giving the same criticisms and feedback for saying no? Are there questions you struggle with in the pitch about your business? Is the value prop clear? Is the product demo well orchestrated? Try to examine all of the feedback you've gotten objectively, and see how can you improve the pitch. Find someone who is ideally involved in the venture community (e.g. as a partner, associate, EIR) that you can trust, that can give you brutally honest feedback on your pitch and business.

\- Fundraising is hard for everyone. It's going to be harder for you. It sucks, but that's the truth of life. You are one of those pioneering women who are paving the path for others so hopefully in 20-30 years, it's not even an issue. It would be great if you didn't have to deal with this, but that's not the reality of the world. What doesn't kill your company will make you AND your company stronger.

<comment><USER8> > You should look to connect with partners at firms that have invested in > female founding teams (ideally purely female teams).

Are there seriously investors that only back purely female teams? That seems ridiculously sexist and financially stupid to eliminate so many good startups that aren't all female.

> You are one of those pioneering women who are paving the path for others so > hopefully in 20-30 years, it's not even an issue.

I see articles like this as a small step backwards. I don't know what the answer is to discrimination (of any kind), but I think complaining about it in articles like this is not helping to reach equality.

<comment><USER9> > Are there seriously investors that only back purely female teams? That seems > ridiculously sexist and financially stupid to eliminate so many good > startups that aren't all female.

That would neither be sexist nor would it necessarily be financially stupid.

As for the sexist part, reverse sexism is not a thing -- if the playing field is so imbalanced, then explicitly favoring the discriminated-against group is a fair measure to level the playing field. It's the same reason we have women's colleges and organizations devoted to advancement of women, and why similar institutions for men would be (generally speaking) incomprehensible.

As for the financial wisdom of investing purely in companies run by female co- founders, the whole point of investing is to find opportunities for investment that have been undervalued by the rest of the market. There are certainly some investors that have discovered that businesses run by women are undervalued in the market; maybe they have even calculated a rough figure for _how_ undervalued they are, perhaps 15%. They may decide not to even _look_ at male- led companies, as they would need to find 15% extra hidden value in order to match the hidden value -- unseen by the rest of the market -- they already know the female companies must (on average) have.

<comment><USER10> > As for the sexist part, reverse sexism is not a thing -- if the playing > field is so imbalanced, then explicitly favoring the discriminated-against > group is a fair measure to level the playing field.

You're conflating anti-discriminatory with reverse sexism.

Anti-discriminatory is passing a law that requires any company that gets tax breaks to meet some requirements of diversity.

reverse sexism is coming across a female owner who only hires women (I know of 1 such company).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Looking at the comments of this thread, I can't help but see the author's point, as most of the comments I see in response to this article fall into at least one of three categories:

1) "Fundraising is hard, suck it up you baby." (Some of which are just short of "man up!" \- and how isn't that sexist?)

2) "Are you sure your product doesn't suck? Maybe you've bitten off more than you can chew." (Levels of condescension in those statements vary from none to overwhelming.)

3) "Yeah, you're right, I'm a female founder/startup employee and have seen the same sort of thing."

Hell, if anything, the reactions here just serve to clarify her point.

<comment><USER12> > 1) "Fundraising is hard, suck it up you baby." (Some of which are just short > of "man up!" \- and how isn't that sexist?)

Wouldn't it be non-sexist if "man up" is applied to both men and women? What would be sexist is to only say that men should "man up".

<comment><USER13> The implication of "man up" is that anything less than a "man" is inadequate. It's much like "quit playing like a girl" or "grow some balls".

<comment><USER14> Except nobody actually said the words "man up" — it was the OP's own paraphrasing of a general sentiment they observed, which they then turned around and labeled as sexist for using the word "man", _all in the same sentence_. I've never seen such an impressive turnaround time on a strawman.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps a bit of a straw man, I admit, but since the author mentioned several instances of men telling her she should toughen up, yet experiencing less resistance from VCs raising money than she did, I can't help but see the comments as piling it on just a little bit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > The first investor who tried to invest was drunk at Demo Day and got handsy > with a cofounder, so he was out.

> One investor took me to lunch, said he wasn't interested in investing, and > wanted to 'test' the product out by going on a date with me.

> Another investor introduced me to a group of fellow investors as 'the > beautiful CEO who has two other beautiful cofounders'.

> Another never followed up with me after our meeting, but a month later > invited me to an event his VC was holding with a 'PS – this is a personal > invite' (meaning I was invited as a date, not because I was being considered > as a potential investment).

> Another investor met with my CTO, held off on investing, and then asked one > of our matchmakers if he could be set up with our CTO, or someone like her.

Shameful carry-on (on the part of the investors).

<comment><USER9> Whose actions are you calling shameful here? It's not clear (to me, at least).

<comment><USER15> I don't see how it could be unclear. In what way could the shame be on the female participants in these scenarios?

I've added clarification to my original post.

<comment><USER9> Thanks! It was ambiguous to me (and perhaps only me), as one could be saying that it was "shameful for the OP to carry on about this".

<comment><USER15> Ah yes, that actually makes sense, "carry on" is a british saying. It's a bit like saying "that's shameful behaviour".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Completely off the main topic, but - $25k/m is great, but growing beyond that is not difficult per se (when compared to growing any business). I personally know at least 5 different companies that have bootstrapped to over $1m/yr, three of those over $5/m year without a dime of investment. (We're in the $1m+ group.)

For us, that's 5 full time people. That's it. One $5m company has grown to 20+ people.

My point is, I wish people would stop with the narrative that getting funded is the only way to be successful. The idea that growing beyond $25k/m is too difficult without funding is absurd, because if you can get the money to scale quickly, you'll find that getting from $1-10m is really difficult. Then $10m-25m. And so on.

And before you know it, your valuation is 40x revenue and you're kicked out of your own company without a dime to show for it.

$300k/yr is awesome. It's not hard, trust me, to organically grow that to $1m. You'll pull a nice paycheck, and those dividends end up in your pocket, not someone else's.

Edit: if you really have 60% month-over-month growth, you'll break $83,333.34/m ($1m/yr) in less than 3 months! I'll assume you're not actually holding steady at 60% m/m... But you can see you're not that far away.

<comment><USER11> Just a guess, but since the company in question (Dating Ring) relies on matchmakers to help make dating matches for people, I can't help but wonder if they didn't try to grow their employee count a little early. Looking at their homepage, they have four matchmakers on staff, and from listening to Startup, I know they have another two people (a COO and a CTO) on board. Guessing they probably have a few other folks on staff too, and since they're based in NYC, it seems to me that they likely have payroll expenses well beyond what they're pulling down monthly.

As I say - just a guess. But $25k/month serves 5 employees reasonably enough in NYC, but I wouldn't say more than that.

I really hope they pull through. I anticipate nothing like I anticipate the latest episode of Startup now that Season 2 is going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > [list of three companies in different markets that received funding at > better terms than hers] The main difference? They were all run by all male > founders.

Only someone obsessed with gender would ignore the dozens of significant differences between these companies, their products, and the people involved with them, and state that the main difference was the gender of the founders.

</comment><comment><USER18> But.. isn't the dating game actually pretty saturated? OkCupid, Eharmony, tinder + a million other companies. OP mentions the startup was taking 25k/mo but needed funding to make a crack against big companies. Surely that was the exact turn off for investors?

<comment><USER19> Search was saturated once Altavista came out and kicked Yahoo's butt. If DatingCircle have a significant competitive advantage over the existing market that may not be relevant.

<comment><USER20> Right, so what is the competitive advantage?

She opens saying "Unless I have an absolutely perfect, bulletproof business (which I do not), I'm easily written off as someone blaming my failures on my gender" and offers nothing to dissuade me from following that. It seems entirely plausible she has been marginalised/dismissed - but I'm not sure I buy into it entirely.

Personally, I'd have thought that, in dating especially, a female founder would seem like a real strength. I wish the company luck regardless vOv

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I guess many of you already know but it's worth mentioning that the 2nd season of Startup Podcast is following datingring and their (quite amazing) journey: [http://gimletmedia.com/show/startup/](http://gimletmedia.com/show/startup/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Finding investors is a weird affair, really. Ultimately you're asking someone to part with their own money.

Of course you would hope it's based on the merit of your startup, but a lot of it is also 'seduction' (even for guys). Taking them to golf, dinner, building a slow relationship - winning them over.

We're not talking about a company's hiring policy here. This is an individual with a lot of money, and you happen to want it. I do think that warrants a different set of standards.

You're entirely right to deny the older creepy guys your business, but it's not a problem in the tech business. People work hard to get these rich people into one place so they can be swooned over. There isn't much of a filtering process there except for "they have money".

</comment><comment><USER23> I am so tired of people complaining about this kind of BS. I'm a short, not handsome white man who knows fully well he'd never be hired to be the CEO of any company. Why? because people respond to tall, handsome men and I'm not one of them. People also respond to attractive women, and I'm not one of them either. Guess it just wasn't in the cards for me to have an easy life, just like it wasn't for THE MAJORITY OF US! Some people got lucky and won the genetic lottery, most of us didn't. End of story.

<comment><USER24> just wanted to let you know I agree with you and I'm sick of people whining about basic human nature. it's not gonna change no matter how much you shame people or complain about it.

cheers, mate

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> How does datingring scale? If you're setting people up on dates using real- human matchmakers it sounds like you've got a matchmaking agency.

That's unquestionably a good business if you can get customers (I've seen the millionaire matchmaker reality show and she's got lots of money). What I'm not seeing is how that business scales to the multi million dollar exit that a VC is looking for.

For every few hundred customers you need a new "real human" to manage coordinating the dates. How can you maintain quality across even 100k users? Obviously, with money you hire more, but what's the "engineer to user" ratio?

Facebook has 1.2million users per. What's app has 14million users per.

How many users can one "dating engineer" handle?

<comment><USER26> I posted this comment elsewhere here:

Below is from [http://caseysoftware.com/blog/working-for-a-dating- website](http://caseysoftware.com/blog/working-for-a-dating-website)

"Let's think about their model again:

If someone joins the site and is unsuccessful, the site loses one customer.

If someone joins the site and is successful, the site loses two customers.

Wait, what?

That's right. Making you successful can be bad for them. Now obviously, they need success stories to promote and recruit new customers but too many success stories and.. they lose."

<comment><USER27> Except for the "craigslist early adopters", almost everyone who has done online dating has done so based on word-of-mouth recommendation from people they trust.

      Success = recommend to friends; Viral.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The groping and stuff is of course unacceptable.

But I don't understand what they need an investor for if there is 60% MoM growth from $25k/mo? Why give a large chunk of the company away when you're on track to push $1M/mo in revenue within 8 months?

<comment><USER29> Because it eliminates uncertainty? To sustain that 60% MoM growth rate, you're going to have to recruit staff to match (this is a relatively high-touch company by the sounds of things - no scaling out your staff to millions of users each!) What happens if growth stalls for a few months just after you recruit a bunch of new staff? Oops, cash crunch: you fail to make payroll & the company goes bankrupt.

On the other hand, if you play it safe & employ the minimum number of staff to make payroll even under conservative MoM growth predictions, you risk poor service killing your word of mouth under an influx of new users.

Either of these outcomes could bite you at any point: if you're re-investing your income straight back into the company in order to get the maximum growth rates then your exposure to short term user volatility is very high.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> "The main difference? They were all run by all male founders"

I know in Spain and Europe the founders of 10 different teams, all of them trying to disrupt dating. Rarely one succeeding, only after pivoting.

It is very easy to compare yourself only with the successful people, and forget all the people under them, and worse underestimating your competitors.

It is also a self fulfilled prophecy. I have seen bald founders get nervous with investors, getting too nervous, making a bad performance, then blaming it on being bald.

People do not care you are bald on a business, but if you are nervous they sense it, and start thinking there is something fishy about you.

Investors smell weakness and self doubt. If you doubt about yourself they will never invest on you, obviously, if you doubt about you nobody is going to trust you.

I created a company while traveling around the world. EVERYBODY BELIEVED I WAS CRAZY. Everybody. My parents, my girlfriend at the time...

I made it anyway but it was not easy and it worked pretty well in the end. If someone told me that I made it because I was a "white male" I would feel tremendously disrespected. It takes for granted all the incredible hard work, the difficult decisions, people around you feeling sorry for you, losing all your money, your girlfriend...

I got to met people tens of thousands of times more successful than me. If I made money in my twenties, I met people that become rich on their teens.

I know nobody that had success without hard work but there are people that work very hard that did not make it. I meet Rafael Nadal when he was a kid because I played tennis and played tournaments. I meet dozens of kids as good as him or better too.

It is so easy to put excuses when you do not make it, but there are that, only excuses.

But excuses are very dangerous. If you believe someone success because he is white and male, you wont be able to really see what REALLY makes them successful, and you won't be able to learn from them. Your competitors are your main teachers.

You have to use the fact that you are a woman as your advantage.

Sending hundreds of mails requesting meetings? Stop doing that, you are looking desperate male or female if you do that, that you need them more that they need you.

I created my company without external funding, lots of people were interested in investing, mostly because I didn't need them. Those that got in got a good deal.

<comment><USER13> Despite your hopeful anecdotes, there are plenty of stories that involve women in tech being overlooked and harassed. By these metrics, and those in the article's linked study, it's hard to deny that women have it much harder in this field.

There might be the successful female underdogs who will claim to follow your mantras of confidence and overcoming excuses, but overwhelmingly this is a problem with our culture. You absolutely cannot expect a woman in this field to bear the load of constant misogyny.

<comment><USER24> there are countless stories about men being overlooked or failing, you just never hear about them because it doesn't make a good story.

<comment><USER13> Of course. Men are overlooked for many reasons, some reasons unfair as well. However, men are rarely overlooked because of their gender, and that's what this discussion is about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The biggest disservice that YCombinator and other famous top-tier investors have done for entrepreneurs is to somehow convince us that the typical investor is a good person who will support you through good and bad.

They're not. Typical investors turn out to be horrible, lazy, horrible people, versus what you expect from them initially.

Keep that in mind from the start, no matter your gender, and you'll manage far better.

</comment><comment><USER32> Sounds like a business opportunity. Have a site that rates investors. And of course, as part of the rating, include which ones hit on the females asking for funding.

Well, maybe it wouldn't be such a good business as it would likely get sued out of existence fairly quickly.

Another tack may be to send letters the wives of said investors. :)

Seriously though, as a man, I find it very disturbing that there are men who simply cannot conduct themselves respectfully in front of a woman.

<comment> mkr-hn > _And of course, as part of the rating, include which ones hit on the females > asking for funding._

Or anyone, really. I don't mind being flirty with a guy once I know him (as I am with most of my male friends), but I wouldn't get that way with strangers at a professional event. Any man, woman, or otherwise who did that at an event like this would get a bad review from me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The title should read: "Fundraising While Not an Ivy League White Male". I believe everything she says. I agree that we should call out sexist behavior to stamp it out. However, I hope she doesn't wallow in how unfair this is. Nearly everyone has to face unfair bullshit in some aspect of their lives. Frankly, dating sites are a cesspool of people making superficial judgments. Fat people, short men and black women have a terrible time getting dates because of that same "pattern matching" investors do on founders. They probably have a harder time fund raising for their startups, too. So, you really have no choice but to persevere against sexist asshats in SV.

I heard about the dating ring from the Startup podcast. Checked the site out, but how is this different from It's Just Lunch? For $80/month I'd rather your matchmaker run my OKCupid account. Writing a hundred messages that get no response is a total waste of time, but OKC and Match is where people are at.

</comment><comment><USER34> Whatever disfunction exists in VC (I'm sure some does) is an opportunity for funders who specialize in funding women. They should obtain better deals than those who are for whatever reason only capable of correctly judging and interacting with male founders, especially if they can develop a reputation for it.

Best wishes to the founder here, who took positive action by starting a business that seems promising enough (I agree with the premise that there are still opportunities in online dating). I'm not a fan of scolds with no skin in the game and outrageists who make every 3rd anecdote into a 'trend', but relating true experiences is surely good.

Interpretations of social-psych-science studies (as opposed to the actual [reproduced] experiments) should be taken w/ huge lumps of salt.

</comment><comment><USER35> I can see why you're annoyed and have every right to be at investor behaviour. Lack of investment though, could that be due to scalability of the product? Reading between the lines as you take on more users will you need more staff to be matchers? This seems to put off some investors looking for a unicorn. It's a shame their are not more female VCs around. Hope it all goes well

</comment><comment><USER36> > It's easy to spot direct sexism, and to react to something like an investor > getting handsy. But the subtle sexism that hinders women goes ignored and is > often denied.

The first kind is better called misogyny; the second is sexism. It is often denied not because it is subtle -- a quick look at the statistics, any relevant statistics, would show that it's far from it -- but because it's unintentional, sometimes seemingly benevolent, and often invisible unless you're trained to see it or directly suffer its consequences.

I think the first step is to understand that being sexist is to be expected -- it's like doctors infecting patients with germs on their hands before the discovery of microbes and disinfectants -- you can't _not_ be infected unless you understand how the mechanism works. The next step is to learn what sexism is, how it works, why it feels "natural", and why fighting it may feel strange. Like with any mechanism that we can't easily see with the naked eye, coming to terms with its reality and its very visible effects is a process. It's OK to grow up sexist; if our current theories are correct, almost all of us do whether we like it or not. It's _not_ OK not to learn about sexism and try to fight it now that we have a much better sense of how it works.

What saddens me is that sometimes the very people who are usually most curious to learn how the world works turn willfully -- sometimes proudly -- ignorant when it comes to social mechanisms. It's OK to disagree, but at least everyone should be familiar with the core principles. Sometimes arguments about the subject here on HN or elsewhere sound like people arguing with Quantum Mechanics not because they think the Newtonian model provides ample explanation, but because they insist Zeus is ample explanation, or, worse yet, because we have no business trying to understand how things below a certain size behave because it's just not important enough.

<comment> mkr-hn Dealing with internalized homophobia as I came out to myself and others was eye-opening. The number of unfortunate things we internalize and perpetuate is amazing.

<comment><USER36> What amazes me is not only how much crap every one of us -- no matter how scientific or skeptical otherwise -- internalizes, but the kind of excuses we come up with to deny the reality of the evidence presented to us, or, better yet, the excuses we come up with so we don't even have to _look_ at the evidence.

Contrast that with how some people respond to news about nutrition, true AI, and cryonics -- all far less scientific than the study of sexism and racism -- and explain that even though the science isn't rigorous yet, we must consider the "results" on the off chance it will make the world a better place. But trying to reduce proven, pervasive sexism or racism? That's just unsubstantiated "ideology" (all without even a cursory study of the findings) and an unimportant/impossible (take your pick) undertaking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm really enjoying listening to you on the podcast - I want you to succeed and I know many others do to. Keep your head up high and keep at it.

Is sexism a problem in tech and venture capital? YES. But don't focus on it and don't let it stop you. So you've gotten lots of rejections. If something isn't working change your strategy. You don't have to raise money to build an awesome company. If you are out of cash take on part time jobs but don't give up.

This line really concerns me:

"You need tens of thousands of users to prove what we're trying to prove, and it acquiring users in this space is very costly"

Any business is about math. What's your lifetime value of your user? What does it cost to acquire them? Do do you do it cost effectively at scale?

</comment><comment><USER38> there are two issues: one cofounder was being "man-handled" by an investor, and their product received little support, allegedly because the author and cofounder was not attractive, white, male, etc.

i think everyone here agrees being "handsy" with anyone in a professional setting is not the right thing to do. it's certainly not punishable by death, but it's socially uncouth. that being said, the author acknowledged that it's common for sales pitches to be misinterpreted as sexual interest, and seeing how women _generally_ like aggressive men, it's not hard to see how an investor would interpret such a situation as a cue to get "handsy" with the cofounder. again, not excusable in a professional setting, but you can't lambaste a man for his own biology.

which brings me to the second issue. if men are biologically predisposed to choose male leaders over female leaders and we want women to have an equal opportunity to be funded -- _provided_ their product is actually as good as a man's -- then women will gain better traction by offering incentives for men to prefer the female leaders over the male leaders, rather than trying to change biology so men "work correctly".

</comment><comment><USER39> What I don't get about this is why she just doesn't name names. I'm a white attractive male, however, I don't want to ever accept investments from investors that do not share the same values as I do, such as women are a vast untapped skilled workforce and treating them as anything less simply isn't profitable, and pretty ignorant.

I mean, hell, sure, lets say for the sake of argument, "women belong in the kitchen, pregnant, and barefoot" (the single most classically sexist thing I can think of at 6:30 in the morning), women raise our children, both boys and girls: if you truly believe this, why didn't you marry a woman with multiple PhDs and a high IQ, so a much more intelligent forward-thinking educated woman is raising your children, thus giving them a better chance in life and thus spreading your genetic legacy more favorably (the driving force behind 99% of human culture and society)?

Seriously, sexism just doesn't logically make sense. If you're sexist, and a CEO or a major investor, please drop out of the game and let someone more efficient than you take your place.

Edit: I don't care if you downvote me, sexism is still wrong and needs to be called out as much as possible so we can exile people who are abusing their power to promote sexism.

<comment><USER40> Naming names are generally a bad idea, because you don't know if the person really was a sexiest sleazeball or the person making the accusation is just angry that that person just didn't want to invest.

I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to exclude someone for being a woman (or an Eskimo, handicapped, from Belgium or pretty much any other reason), if that person has the qualification you're looking for. In theory the companies that discriminate should suffer from a lack of talent or have to pay more for their workers, because they're recruiting from a smaller pool. I don't know if we want to wait for them to bleed to death, but eventually they will go away.

You're absolutely right that sexism doesn't make logical sense, I'm completely baffled when I hear stories about someone being rejected for being a woman. The sad part is that many of the women who step forward behave like self- entitled spoiled brats, so it becomes hard to tell if they where reject due to gender or personality.

<comment><USER41> I'd agree, but its so very, very common to mansplain womens' complaints as trivial ("self-entitled spoiled brats") while men in the same situation would have their response interpreted with some kind of respect.

<comment><USER40> >but its so very, very common to mansplain womens' complaints as trivial

I'm still undecided as to how I feel about that logic, it's something that you hear rather often. It's also, to some extend, claiming that I don't understand the problem, because I'm a man. That's really a bad starting point for getting male involvement in womens issues.

Mostly I try to avoid getting into arguments about sexism in IT. It's hasn't been productive in the past and I often feel attacked for being male. I get the impression that women, and some men, want me/us to take action while being extremely vague about what those actions might be. For now I've decide that I don't care about women in IT. I won't discriminate, I won't create a hostile work environment, but I won't be doing anything to actively help either.

<comment><USER41> I am with you on that. Its hard to say anything without criticism.

I believe the problem is, its a cultural difference. Some women have a different setpoint when complaining, which men are uncomfortable with. That discomfort is louder than the message.

Now, we could either ask women to learn to argue like a man. We could ignore them and hope they go away. We could try to speak for women, (mis)translating their message. Or we could get over it, and just address the message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I generally think of the whole dating web-site vertical as a bit sleazy. I'd be interested to know what percentage of the investors they pitched outright dismissed them on these grounds (psychologically it may have happened before even hearing the pitch).

<comment><USER42> EDIT:

I should also mention that the behavior these ladies were subjected to is completely unacceptable. My comment above wasn't in any way condoning the investors but rather trying to point out that it may (in general) be harder to get investment in a dating application. It may also be true that it's harder to get investments as a female founder (I suspect it is) but we're talking about a single instance.

As YC grows the number of female-led start-ups, they should be able to slice this data multiple ways - by vertical, male/female founders, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I've heard if you have real (how do you define real?) traction, no matter what you'll get funded. Is there any truth to this? Or in other words, would people actually pass on an investment on a purely physical basis?

</comment><comment><USER44> I am amazed at how quickly this article dropped off the front page...

</comment><comment><USER45> You can also send a "white, attractive male" to the VC interview, and be a ghostwriter of the startup.

<comment><USER46> Which is awful! A founder should not have to send a "white, attractive male" because she is female and investors refuse to take her seriously. The culture clearly needs to change.

<comment><USER45> If you think you can fight prejudice... think again.

<comment><USER47> Most of the 20th Century was an ongoing war against prejudice in one form or another, with prejudice constantly losing ground.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> So how did Jessica Alba did it then? She's not the typical startup geek, and her roles definitely defined her on the sexy side only. She managed fine. She pitched by herself, and finally found the right partner and investor. E.g. [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jessica-albas-tears- he...](http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jessica-albas-tears-her- way-736714)

<comment><USER49> Gee, I'm not sure, maybe there is something about being a very famous movie star that would help open doors to getting investment. Possibly?

<comment><USER50> Because she is a movie star investors are not interested in having sex with her anymore?</comment></comment></comment>


Option value of civilization - <AUTHOR> https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/01/option-value-civilization.html <comment><USER2> He lost me in his very first premise with there being "more ways for things to be good than there are for it to be bad". Is this true of governments? Animal welfare? Chess positions? Making things good takes effort to make them a certain way; bad finds its own path when you fail.

<comment><AUTHOR> …the next sentence: "Let's take this as a given for now; towards the end of this message I explore the consequences of relaxing this assumption."</comment></comment>


How Microsoft will shake up the security industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/channel/67648/how-microsoft-will-shake-security-industry <comment><USER2> A friend of mine at MSFT has been working on some version of this for almost 3 years now.</comment>


Why do humans swing their arms as they walk?  Riddle answered - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090728/sc_afp/sciencearmsoffbeat <comment><USER2> Submitted 5 hours earlier: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=730352>

More discussion there.</comment>


Dropbox accesses all the files in your PC? - <AUTHOR> http://www.e-siber.com/guvenlik/dropbox-accesses-all-the-files-in-your-pc-not-just-sync-folder-and-steals-everything/ <comment><USER2> In Windows, even with a filter limiting which directories to process, a FileSystemWatcher object has to examine each event and decide whether or not to call the event handler or let it pass without action. That means it would have to read the file information and compare it against the filters that have been defined.

These actions will show up as at least 4 or 5 entries in Process Monitor (and maybe more, I'm not sure off the top of my head). This also means that applications monitoring for file access will catch each time this happens.

Unfortunately, whoever wrote that article does not seem to understand Window's internals, or how to determine what consists of bad or dangerous activity.

It should also be noted that Dropbox runs in the context of your own user account. It does not run as a service or elevated user, so it will only have access to the files you have access to (and that you have access to without requiring elevation).

I'm not going to claim to be a security expert, but I don't see anything that would suggest a security risk on Dropbox's part. Further, if a company has data important enough that they need to run DLP software on individual computers, they should not be allowing software such as Dropbox anyway.

<comment><USER3> Why it is scanning files outside of the agreed location?

<comment><USER4> Doesn't tallavor address this in the first sentence?

> _In Windows, even with a filter limiting which directories to process, a > FileSystemWatcher object has to examine each event and decide whether or not > to call the event handler or let it pass without action._

Sounds like the very act of checking whether the file falls within the "agreed location" is what caught the author's attention. I can't say whether that's true, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.

<comment><USER3> It was rhetorical question :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This article does not prove "steals everything" claim. Very shallow work for "Information Security Specialist".

The reason Dropbox accesses files all over the drive may be that FS events driver generates events for every file accessed by every program, and Dropbox has to read their metadata for some reason (e.g. to check if their full path is under one of synced folders). He should elaborate by checking if Dropbox is actually scanning _and reading_ all drives, which is hardly unnoticeable, or is it something else.

Having network activity at the same time does not mean this file has been transferred. It is incredibly hard for me to believe that Dropbox has sneakily transferred >1TB from my various computers without me and my ISP noticing. The author should monitor Dropbox traffic volumes over a week and check if it actually exceeds synced folders size before spreading panic.

<comment><USER6> Or maybe not. Your speculation is as good as mine. Or the op. Or everyone else. The point was Dropbox is accessing files outside the folder, something I would not want or expect.

"It is incredibly hard for me to believe that Dropbox has sneakily transferred >1TB"

Did they transfer hashes? name+type+size for fingerprinting? Searching for credit numbers or SSNs? Who knows. I don't. And don't do evil is no longer the basic assumption.

<comment><USER7> I agree with you. The main problem is that why dropbox accesses the files that it is not permitted.

<comment><USER8> I don't know. I'm actually more interested in what it receives/sends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I just had a quick look at dropbox with ProcMon, and I learned that

      1) when I created a new text file on my desktop, it was not read by Dropbox
      2) when I created a new text file in my dropbox folder, it was immideately read by Dropbox
      3) I have to find some sync tool that doesn't feel the need to enumerate my network interfaces 3 times every second, when nothing is actually changing.

<comment><USER10> Have you heard/tried Bittorrent sync? It's P2P, doesn't put your files on their server. Very fast for transferring locally between your phone and computer for example. You have to keep your computer running if you want your files accesible anytime though.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately btsync is very much not open-source. There are alternatives, though. I am very satisfied with syncthing[1], although it didn't have usable mobile app last time I checked.

[1] [http://syncthing.net/](http://syncthing.net/)

<comment><USER12> And requires port forwarding, which may not be an option for people who are not on IPv4 at home (e.g. my ISP uses DS-Lite, so I cannot use IPv4 port forwarding).

Bittorrent Sync works pretty good. Somebody should reverse engineer the protocol and make an open source client.

Edit: why the heck is the grandparent downvoted? He/she offers a good suggestion.

<comment><USER13> or ownCloud

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Independently of whether DB reads/uploads all the files or not, I've arrived at a difficult position about Dropbox: I'm looking for alternatives. No, it's unrelated with politics or pricing; it's just that in many cases _Dropbox sucks_.

Why? Well, I mostly don't care about all the new features (mobile, Carousel, etc.). What I care the most is that i) it syncs files and ii) acts as a quasi- backup. However, I see the same old bugs from _years_ ago and nothing gets done. To name just a few:

\- If I copy a file to the Dropbox folder in Windows, it will convert it to small caps, even if the file is in Camel Case. Yes, I get that for windows caps are just "optional", but do not change it just for the sake of it!

\- Many people sometimes have temporary files. Photoshop, Matlab, Word, Latex, etc. leave crumbles of temp files and folders. Can't I just set a quick rule to avoid "tmp" folders and e.g. ".tmp" files?

\- A few months ago their forums went down and stayed down for around a month? Why? Technical problems. But the real reason is that they don't really care.

There is no way DB can justify their valuation with just the syncing part, and I'm fine with that. But just stopping altogether to improve in that area _is_ a huge turn-off, and on top of that they do not care to fix bugs (there were hundreds of bug requests about the lowercase bug in the forums, before they deleted it).

Now that my rant is over, I ask you: are there any useful alternatives? I've heard that GDrive is very slow and the MSFT alternative seems a bit risky to me (will it work on Linux in the future? will it be customizable?).

<comment><USER15> GPL Unison?

Add in encfs with a cheap storage VPS for off-site redundancy. It should run on android too if you have a normal-looking chroot installed.

<comment><USER16> Unison was the first thing I tried after moving away from DropBox. The main problem I had with it was that both machines involved in the syncing had to be running which made moving from laptop to desktop not as seamless as I would have liked. Still the syncing process was flawless. I had better results using Seafile, [http://seafile.com/en/home/](http://seafile.com/en/home/), their free account was sufficient for my needs and worked great. You can self-host if you are worried about keeping control of your files.

<comment><USER17> You'll have that problem with anything you don't run yourself so that seems like an unfair complaint. Can't this sync desktop <-> server and laptop <> server?

<comment><USER18> I ran unison for a while but the conflict resolution was unfortunately lacking. It repeatedly stopped sync'ing properly until I intervened manually.

A few months ago I switched to csync[1], which looks better so far.

[1] [https://www.csync.org/](https://www.csync.org/)

<comment><USER19> The last csync release is from August 2013. Is the project still alive?

<comment><USER18> I don't know. It simply works for me ever since I installed it (on linux and OSX) so I never bothered to check for updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Process Monitor[1] will show you every filesystem call Dropbox is making. (Like strace.) That should confirm or refute this article's claims.

(You could also just collect an ETW trace and analyze it in xperf (err, WPA, of course) yourself.)

[1] [https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb896645.aspx](https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/bb896645.aspx)

<comment><USER21> I copied a file in C:\ and saw Dropbox access it a few moments later, followed by network activity:

[http://cl.ly/image/443Y1S092g1R](http://cl.ly/image/443Y1S092g1R)

<comment><USER22> Uhm no. It calls QueryBasicInformation and closes it again right after.

<comment><USER21> Do you think QueryBasicInformation is a mischaracterization of the word "access"?

<comment><USER20> QueryBasicInformation is like a subset of stat(2). It can't access a file's contents. While I'd prefer Dropbox not to go looking at file metadata on my whole device, I'd chalk this one up to over-eager coding and not some kind of data-smuggling backdoor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't see any evidence that Dropbox actually transfers files, and I'd be very surprised if that would actually happen.

But if the information is correct, it does transfer some kind of information to the Dropbox servers directly after accessing files outside the sync folder. I would have liked an examination of the tranferred data, or at least a comparison of the amount of data transferred compared to the size of the accessed file.

<comment><USER24> There are different levels of information, with the last being the actual file contents. I doubt dropbox would sync file contents from unrelated files (that would be the biggest security scandal ever), but there are multiple levels of metadata that you may or may not expect Dropbox to upload. If something is uploaded after you create a file in a separate directory, I'm guessing it's one of two things

1) metadata such as a timestamp when all files in the _synced_ folder were found up to date. 2) metadata about the non-synced file changes, such as timestamps, checksums or etc.

While 2 isn't an upload of the file contents, it's still bad enough. I wouldn't expect Dropbox to upload any data OR metadata related to my unsynced files _at all_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is probably an unfortunate combination of a broad watch for file changes, code that opens changed files to determine whether to proceed (hacks for hardlinks/junction points? collecting more information before bubbling the event up to higher layers?), and built-in analytics.

I'd be shocked if it's actually _uploading_ a comparably sized payload.

</comment><comment><USER26> _shakes head_

No, Dropbox is not stealing your stuff. Apparently people have never heard of Windows Shell Extensions, the approved non-hacky way to overlay icons over files.

[https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/desktop/bb7...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/windows/desktop/bb761267\(v=vs.85\).aspx)

The tortoise apps do the same thing to overlay Git/Hg/Svn icons.

</comment><comment><USER27> inotify_add_watch(29, "/root/Dropbox", IN_MODIFY|IN_ATTRIB|IN_CLOSE_WRITE|IN_MOVED_FROM|IN_MOVED_TO|IN_CREATE|IN_DELETE|IN_DELETE_SELF|IN_MOVE_SELF) = 1

Dropbox's call to inotify_add_watch [1] is properly scoped so this is either a platform problem (but it looks like Windows' analogous API [3] allows only one directory to be monitored), sloppy development on Windows, or something else. I ran Dropbox under a Docker container under strace and grepped strace's logs for inotify and got this [2]. At least on Linux, it's impossible for Dropbox to receive any notifications about new files outside the Dropbox folder.

[1]: [http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man2/inotify_add_watch.2.htm...](http://man7.org/linux/man- pages/man2/inotify_add_watch.2.html)

[2]: [http://pastie.org/9995412](http://pastie.org/9995412)

[3]: [https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/aa364417(VS.85).asp...](https://msdn.microsoft.com/en- us/library/aa364417\(VS.85\).aspx)

</comment><comment><USER28> "Access" is a bit vague. It's one thing if their 'fstat' is leaking, it's another thing if they are actually reading all the bytes of those files.

Another piece of evidence I'd like to see is a mitmproxy checking out what's under that TLS session. Improper local reads are one thing, it's another thing entirely if they are communicating back file names, hashes and/or the file data actual.

<comment><USER29> My personal theory is it's something to do with Dropbox's Explorer shell extension.

(But I really don't know enough to day for sure. Still, if the shell extension mechanism is such that you get a file or list of files, it'd need to figure out whether they're in a Dropbox folder or not and play with the icons.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not a Dropbox user, but why doesn't anyone with Dropbox just install a local proxy and try to read out the requests made to the Dropbox servers. The speculations on spying, etc. in this thread are completely worthles, just look at what they're sending to the servers.

<comment><USER31> FYI - they do certificate pinning for their clients and won't let you proxy the HTTPS connections, last I checked.

I'm not saying this as cause for alarm. Obviously if they were sending the files you could measure the volume of traffic if nothing else.

Make a completely random non-compressible file that's of an arbitrarily significant size (say 1M+) and see if that amount of traffic goes out to them.

I do think Dropbox is watching for filesystem events outside of the locations users specify, but I see zero evidence they're uploading information about the files / the files themselves so far.

<comment><USER32> If anyone has a lenovo box, they could use its Superfish feature to get around this.

<comment><USER33> Superfish doesn't get around pinned certificates.

<comment><USER34> Plus, anyone can create a root certificate and install it in their own trust store. You don't need Superfish.

I think kweinber was kidding, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Synchronizing all your files sounds like space-waste. It would be trivial to determine if dropbox does that, simply by monitoring the number of bytes sent to dropbox (Create a new file of size x, determine if the stream to dropbox transmits at least x amount of bytes) or by replacing the SSL certificate in the program with your own and then set up a fake server (This would be harder) to determine exactly what is being transmitted.

If this is indeed something nefarious, I would much rather assume it would transmit file hashes rather than the files itself. Although I can't possibly imagine this is actually true, the implications would be devastating for dropbox and it should be easy to verify by an independent third party.

<comment><USER7> Dropbox does not allow SSL interception of its traffic. It immediately errors out saying host is not trusted or smth else.

<comment><USER36> Probably cert pinning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What if they upload file hashes? What if they upload name+type+size to fingerprint files? They don't need to upload file contents for fingerprinting your drive content.

<comment><USER37> Hmm there is a business model right there!

Fingerprint popular torrent movie/tv/games etc files and then monitor (via dropbox) their spread and how many computers around the world they end up on, I bet movie studios would love to measure exactly how much piracy affects them

shiiiittt

<comment><USER6> And we know automatic DCMA bots work on size and name alone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> If taken at face value, this implies that Dropbox is spending their own bandwidth and storage space for data that's potentially much bigger than your actual shared folder, without charging you for it.

What's actually going on here? What sort of false positives might we expect from such a program?

<comment><USER39> The article draws a pretty solid argument, if you wanted to confirm results yourself I'd suggest creating a windows vm, installing dropbox, and getting a packet capture of the traffic leaving when you drop a .docx file in the C:// directory.

It's not a stretch of the imagination that dropbox could still be making a profit spending bandwidth and storage space this way. I can think of a government agency or two that would re-imburse the costs.

<comment><USER40> You say solid, but I don't see any proof that the client actually send the file. Without something like a strace analysis, you can't really know for sure if the file was even read completely and sent to the Dropbox servers

<comment><USER41> I really, really doubt that the client actually sends the file. But, imagine if they read only metadata and uploaded that.

I agree with what another commented brought up - it's probably just unfortunately overaggressive 'filesystem-watch' code - IE when you change a file it checks to see if it needs to be synced and re-uploaded. It shouldn't be able to affect other files, though. Makes me wish we had more nuanced security controls, like per-app permissions a la Android/IOS.

<comment><USER40> I thought the same thing: maybe eventually desktop OSes will have some sort of permission control like on mobile

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I know that HN is not a help desk, but I have noticed DropboxOriginal eating a lot of my CPU (on OS X), when I am writing files to folders which are NOT under (official) control of Dropbox (or at least: out Dropbox folder, not synchronized). Any ways to block this behavior on OS X?

Security aside, it is really annoying for scripts which modify a lot of files.

</comment><comment><USER43> [http://www.drop-dropbox.com/](http://www.drop-dropbox.com/)

</comment><comment><USER44> Dropbox doesn't access all your files, it just hooks to explorer.exe and then whatever directory you open in explorer Dropbox will query info about that directory, files and subdirectories. To test this, just close every explorer window, run Total Commander and Process Monitor, and use Total Commander to do your stuff, you will see that Dropbox won't be quering directories/files.

And about that connections to dropbox servers, it needs them to sync files if they were uploaded from another computer/smartphone.

</comment><comment><USER45> The article covers the dropbox app on windows. How about others platforms, like OS X?

<comment><USER46> I've just run a quick strace on Linux but I don't see it accessing anything outside by ~/Dropbox folder.

<comment><USER27> It calls inotify on the Dropbox folder only [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9136831](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9136831)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I didn't really think about it before, but I now feel very uncomfortable that Dropbox has copies of my unencrypted files. I would feel much better if the files were encrypted before being synched. Is there a service that does this?

I don't want Dropbox to be able to see the contents of my file system at their end.

<comment><USER48> If you don't trust Dropbox you should encrypt your files before copying them to the Dropbox folder because you can't trust the client too. You should encrypt them with a key the client cannot read from fs. Basically you're going to use it as a backup service because you won't be able to work on files in the DB folder. Maybe one of those file systems that work in user space and store only encrypted data will do. Check this [http://www.howtogeek.com/121737/how-to-encrypt-cloud- storage...](http://www.howtogeek.com/121737/how-to-encrypt-cloud-storage-on- linux-and-windows-with-encfs/)

</comment></comment><comment> java-man "collect it all"

But I wonder why we don't have application isolation as a basic design principle. Imagine an OS where applications/serices each get their own mini- filesystem, without ability to access each other's data. Would that work?

<comment><USER49> That's the basic idea behind sandboxing, and it's a model that a lot of newer OSes are moving towards, especially in mobile.

Android does this for all apps, as does iOS. MacOS is also doing it for apps downloaded from the App Store.

On the server side, that's also one of the things that Docker gives you.

<comment> java-man So, if someone finds a vulnerability in Docker software and roots a process, your filesystem is safe?

The idea is not sandboxing, it's "multiverse". Each process, even an OS one, gets its own little filesystem, and connects to a limited set of interfaces explicitly permitted by the user (and that can be audited by the user).

<comment><USER49> > So, if someone finds a vulnerability in Docker software and roots a process, > your filesystem is safe?

You could make the same argument about a vulnerability in the OS itself. There's nothing magic about kernel code that gives it extra protection here. :)

In fact, I'd argue that the most probable attack against Docker would already be via a vulnerability in the OS. Docker uses a lot of kernel-level technologies, like cgroups. Beyond that, the most likely way to escape a Docker sandbox would be by finding a buggy syscall, since these weren't always designed with containers in mind.

This presentation is a good overview of Docker's attack surface: [http://www.slideshare.net/jpetazzo/linux-containers-lxc- dock...](http://www.slideshare.net/jpetazzo/linux-containers-lxc-docker-and- security)

> Each process, even an OS one, gets its own little filesystem, and connects > to a limited set of interfaces explicitly permitted by the user (and that > can be audited by the user).

That would be an interesting research project, at the very least. You'd probably have to rewrite much of userspace, since it breaks many of the assumptions the current generation of system tools rely on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> They might or might not steal your files, but the mere fact that to use their service you have to install proprietary software is a reason not to trust them.

<comment><USER51> You don't have to install any Dropbox software besides using the web app... just like you don't have to install Chrome to use Gmail (yet)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> If it access complete PC, why does it won't display in syncing list?..really hope this is not the case..else i will plan to move away soon..

</comment><comment><USER53> This might be shallow, inaccurate and sensationlist in tone, but it is inherently alarming.

Getting a list of files from the good old /Torrents directory that everyone has, but pretends they dont can be incriminating enough to raise some very serious privacy issues. They can explain this any way they want, but Dropbox certainly has no business accessing any files outside of its config and its sync folders.

</comment><comment><USER54> [http://www.drop-dropbox.com/](http://www.drop-dropbox.com/)

</comment><comment><USER55> Is there (likely to be) an official response from Dropbox?

</comment><comment><USER56> They are probably doing statistics about our files not syncing the entire drive.

Which is not cool either

<comment><USER57> You are making a conjecture, assuming it's true, and then chastising them for it. That's a bit hasty, no?

<comment><USER58> He is saying that even if they are doing it for benign reasons, it still goes against reasonable user expectations. What's "hasty" about it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> snowden warned us not to use dropbox.

</comment><comment><USER60> First, the appointment of Condoleezza Rice to their board and now accessing and uploading folder information without explicit permissions!

I'm going to stop using Dropbox now.

</comment><comment><USER61> _As you see below, Dropbox says that "only checked folders will sync to this computer"_

Very interesting wording. I don't want to play conspiracy theory, but it only says what will sync to the computer. It doesn't say anything about what will sync (or upload) to the cloud.

<comment><USER62> That is because that is the ACTUAL purpose of that (Selective Sync) dialogue he is showing, contrary to his implication that it is related to upload configuration. When you have 2 work computers and one personal laptop, perhaps you have a CAD Drawings folder that you would like to sync between your work computers but don't want 100 GB of work stuff on your personal laptop. What the Selective Sync feature allows you to do is untick "CAD Drawings" on your laptop Dropbox settings, so that you don't fill up your disk with stuff you don't want in that machine's context. It's a nice feature.

<comment><USER63> Nice feature or cunning conspiracy you be the judge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> In a while, this will be disregarded as a bug, might be fixed and maybe Dropbox will even state that they apology and will be deleting all mistakenly uploaded files from their server(s).

But you don't know. The lesson to be learned here is that proprietary software cannot be trusted.

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you- trust.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html)

<comment><USER65> I'm curious - why is this downvoted?

<comment><USER36> I can't downvote anything, but I can only guess it's being downvoted for being propaganda.

<comment><USER65> Propaganda of what exactly? That we shouldn't trust proprietary software?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


9 year old's DIY Cardboard Arcade gets Flash mobbed: Video - <AUTHOR> http://danielhope.org/post/20914927615/9-year-old-caine-sets-up-an-arcade-in-his-fathers Watch his reaction!  Over $82,000 has been raised for his scholarship fund. <comment><USER2> Twenty years ago, a kid who tended a fake arcade in his dad's shop would get teased at school, (how cool is it that he even makes and wears shirts?) and thus convinced much too early to submit to a tyranny of the mediocre. Now, a filmmaker shows him that tens (hundreds?) of people right in his own city love what he is doing and want to support him. He could go on for the rest of his life believing in himself and being determined to express himself no matter what the small minds around him say.

That is something I wish I could have seen when I was Caine's age -- that the people ostracizing me for some kind of non-conformity actually know nothing.

<comment><USER3> If you watched the entire video, you would have seen Caine's father say [sic] "he no longer wears his tshirt to school because kids make fun of him" "nobody believed he made an arcade".

Kids are still kids.

<comment><USER4> Nirvan, the guy who made the film about Caine, says that not only does he wear his shirt to school now, but they're going to have a screening of the film there too:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/s1lmp/reddit_here_is...](http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/s1lmp/reddit_here_is_the_short_film_about_caines_diy/c4awkep)

<comment><USER5> Man, he's going to be chick-magnet now :)

Guys, c'mon donate a few dollars to the kid, right here:

<http://cainesarcade.com/> They are raising 100k for Caine's scholarship fund and at the moment about 97k has already been donated :D

<comment><USER6> It started out as a $25K goal, and they blew through it ($24K in the first day). They reset it to $50K, and it was at $49K when I saw it yesterday, which means it gained ~$50K in the last 24 hours.

Holy cow.

EDIT: Spleling

<comment><USER7> Your edit comment deserves an upvote...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Best soft launch ever on Hacker News!

This one had everything:

      - Build something you want.
      - Build something other people would want.
      - Turn your passion into a business.
      - If you need it, build it. (Love the S-hook idea!)
      - Offer street level appeal.
      - Tiered pricing. (Love the fun pass!)
      - Instant rewards. (Tickets through slot.)
      - Organic growth: more games.
      - Secure technology (calculators).
      - Turn customers into raving evangelists.
      - Leverage others' technology (Facebook, Reddit).
      - Company t-shirt.
      - Bootstrapped with friends & family.
      - Have a customer write a song about you!

<comment><USER9> I couldn't stop laughing when I saw the calculator security check. What an ingenious solution! It's not the most robust "hash", but it's no more than what he needs for the purpose. It really puts things into perspective when people are talking about how one technology is "better" than another. Pragmatism over pedantry.

<comment><USER10> The "checkmark" was pure genius.

<comment><USER11> It does look like he had a flash of insight about the usefulness of a digest function. And maybe the "checkmark" symbol suggested a security check to him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Remarkable that he has business sense too, that FunPass is totally a great deal and irresistible.

I can't wait to be in LA in a few weeks to visit him. Everyone who's in LA ever should make a point to tell this kid never to let go of his creativity and aspirations.

In 2nd grade I built a computer out of a tide box, complete with paper tower rolls that scrolled a long sheet of perforated paper that was a game. Everyone looked at me weird, but I had my first computer, and more importantly, could explore imagining how the computer would work to do everything.

Make me wonder where the heck most of us have ended up from the passion we all had as kids and if we've stayed true.

<comment><USER13> Haha, the paper towel and Tide box computer brings back memories. My cousins and I made side-scrolling video game machines this way.

We set up the paper towel rolls in the box, with paper (half-sheets of copy paper taped together end to end) rolled around them, with a big, long scene/level drawn on it. One person would turn the crank, causing the screen to scroll while the player controlled a character which could move up and down, courtesy of being attached to a popsicle stick poking out a slot on the side of the box. The object of the game was to hit goals and jump over objects and pits.

More complex games had two popsicle-stick controlled sprites, and I seem to remember that we experimented with cannibalizing the motor out of a broken remote control car to run the screen, at one point.

<comment><USER14> have you seen the teagueduino mario brothers scroller: <http://vimeo.com/28781718> ?

<comment><USER13> Ha! I hadn't seen that, thanks. That's cool. Definitely more refined than our cereal box machines. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> "I said what the heck! He figured out how to make a claw machine with a string and a hook!"

Ah, to be a kid again, when ingenuity and imagination can take you anywhere. When I was about his age, after a particularly colorful and extravagant Tournament of Roses parade my sister and I staged a parade of our own. I had a toy monster truck with two gears: low and high. In low gear it went at a nice leisurely parade-like crawl, and was strong enough to haul several styrofoam- packing "floats" with decorations and passengers (stuffed animals, my sister's Barbies). My radio-control tank was strong enough to haul one or two more. The Monkees supplied parade music via my TI Program Recorder ("The Poster" is a particularly good song for this purpose).

But oh man, this kid is hardcore. Look at the way he debugs his soccer game! He play-tests it, solicits player feedback, and adds challenge elements in the form of Army Men "goalies". He's a _real_ game designer.

<comment><USER12> He needs to apply to YC and show everyone how it's done. After laser tag it would be the 2nd thing one could be afraid of getting their tails kicked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love how he sits there and tends his shop; cleaning when idle, drumming up business, or thinking up new ideas. This was really special, and touched me the most.

<comment><USER17> Totally agree. It was amazing to watch. To me he defines what an entrepreneur is. So inspiring!

<comment><USER18> And a swing in front of his business for strategy retreats. Take note, folks.

There is a lot to be said for the creativity-inducing boredom of an analog, resource-starved existence. If you grew up in a certain time or socioeconomic situation and became a geek, you know what I am talking about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been following Caine's cardboard arcade adventures for some time now and it just keeps getting more interesting. At first it was just a lark, getting a big group of people to come out and visit this funny kid and his arcade. Over time it's grown into much more and now he's got one heck of a college fund built up just because of his imagination and how he's touched people. Kudos to all involved.

<comment><USER20> I think on the site is was in excess of $60,000 raised so far. That is just unreal. +1 for the internetz.

<comment><USER21> Almost 90K right now and it increased by around $300 from when I started and finished the video.

Edit: 3:50 PM Pacific (roughly 1 hour since my previous post) it is at 95K.

<comment><USER12> Wow, it was at 80 a few hours ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I did this myself when I was 8. I saved up my allowance for months, until I finally had a whole $60 to spend on cheap prizes online. I took over the entirety of my parents' garage, and spent weeks building everything from scratch. (I bought $10 of boxes and a roll of vinyl from the party store to make the prize are and the games. I even hacked together some electronics so I could press a button to print tickets. I actually made a shirt, too.

That was seriously some of the most fun I've had. I'm really happy they made this such a success for him. I only ever got 10 people or so, and even having that many customers at that age was amazing. (I somehow made $100 on that!)

</comment><comment><USER23> This brought tears to my eyes, but also is funny, e.g. the part where he says "I used to play with Hot Wheels when I was little"!

</comment><comment><USER24> Why not just post the original site instead of embedding the video onto your own website? <http://cainesarcade.com/>

<comment><USER25> For some reason the original site was submitted (as were a couple of articles about it) yesterday and not upvoted enough -- I'm glad this has finally made it to the front page. And wow. $100K for his college fund. The Internet is incredible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It looks as though Caine will be a future lover of HN, like us.

Not afraid to say I teared up a bit watching this film.

<comment><USER26> > It looks as though Caine will be a future lover of HN, like us.

He's got the hacker gene, that's for sure. With his non-reversible, encrypted, calculator-based hashing algorithm one time pad ticketing system...

<comment><USER27> Yeah! I'd always wondered what that check-mark button on the calculator was for. :-)

On a related note, ever since I was a kid, every calculator I've ever encountered, I run the square root of 89, and if it returns 9.4339811(..32 on more powerful ones) and thereabouts, then I trust the calculator. Kids do weird stuff. Big kids continue it sometimes.

<comment><USER28> How come you do the sqrt of 89?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is a great story. There is a website for the arcade <http://www.cainesarcade.com>. They are accepting donations for a scholarship fund for Caine and so far has received over $85,000! It's nice to see that not all kids are glued to the TV or video games.

</comment><comment><USER30> He should really salt that security function...

I loved how he got in the box and pushed the tickets through...Awesome.

<comment><USER31> That security check is pretty amazing. I wonder what he was doing to figure out that the square root ("the checkbox") produces the same result for the same numbers and made him say that I could use this as security.

<comment><USER12> The security check made my jaw drop, I thought it was a pretend thing but sure enough, he thought it way through.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is great - seeing something like this made me so happy. It's almost as if my belief in the human spirit is vindicated by this alone (of course there are many many other examples).

Kudos to his dad.

</comment><comment><USER33> I loved how he checks for counterfeit fun passes! "The check mark" on the calculator. So cool.

<comment><USER34> Especially if he came up with it himself. It's the sort of thing only a child's brain would think of and an adult would say "Oh! Of course!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This kid's ingenuity, determination and commitment toward his customers are very inspiring. It's obvious his dad is his role model. I expect great things from him in the future.

</comment><comment><USER36> Caine is of course quite a dear child, I really can see myself (at his age). However, what I find fascinating is the fact that this person chose to make a movie and really create a truly memorable experience for him.

There are many Caines out there ... will you pay attention to them?

<comment><USER37> It's a good point, let's not forge that it took an outsider who came across it to get the message out around the Internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> The real hero of the story is the guy or organized the surprise flash mob! Most people would say that was cute and move on, but this guy stopped and took an interest in this kid and in making him feel good about himself. We need more people like that guy!

</comment><comment><USER39> I made sure to donate for the sheer fact that it will change this kid's life to see his dream come to fruition. His story alone has hit the media and will be sure to inspire god knows how many other young children.

<comment><USER40> Funny, I had exactly the same impulse. When I saw the kid as a proto-hacker, I came to the realization that we have to encourage such behavior. Would be awesome if everyone on HN gave at least the equivalent of a Superpass ($2) and I suspect we'll not only see this kid hanging out around here soon but I also wouldn't be surprised if we see him posting cool projects too :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think it says a lot about his determination, that somehow, he has natively. He built a lot until the first customer came. That is priceless and I hope it will not go away someday. I hope that it doesn't. I don't know people that well, but I hope it doesn't. He'll achieve anything like that. And hopefully, he'll go beyond just businesses. He's a great kid.

<comment><USER12> Don't be surprised about the "somehow". Some kids are just way more curious where others are more reserved.

I'm not looking into a nature vs nurture debate but having enough friends with kids who are all super supportive, some just don't take a liking to some things while others start quicker, and take off way quicker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So awesome. Have shown everyone in my family.

When I was 11, I made Pinball machines. You would use Popsicle Sticks as the flippers, and I proper Clipboards up on books. Then I designed my pinball machines, with Plastacine, paper, and lego. I charged a nickel to my friends to play them.

Here's where, in retrospect, I think I was particularly smart. I also had a 'Comic Book Rental' program. It was more like a pass, and for one dollar they could take out 3 comics at a time, any time - and when they came over they could play the pinball for free.

I had to do it in my bedroom however, and only to friends. This kid had a storefront location! And access to all the cardboard boxes he could ever dream of!

Loved this - thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER43> Source site if you want to make a donation or visit the arcade:

<http://cainesarcade.com/>

</comment><comment><USER44> those of us who live by the motto "Anything worth doing is worth obsessing over" will immediately recognize this kid as one of ours.

i offered in the reddit thread to buy him an actual claw machine. they don't look that expensive. anyone know an arcade machine dealer in LA?

<comment><USER45> yeah, you are seriously missing the point if your instinct upon seeing this is to buy him a claw machine.

<comment><USER46> What is the difference between buying him a claw machine and giving him money for college? Did he earn the money for the college or did the publicity about what he is doing get him the money for college?

Taking it one step further what if someone comes along and wants his input on a real arcade and wants to call it "Caines Arcade". Is that also missing the point?

<comment><USER45> it's not about "earning" or "rewarding".

your kid says "look dad, i built a clock out of paper". do you respond "that's great, let me buy you a real clock so you don't have to mess with that paper anymore." or do you respond "that's great, let me take you to the machine shop so you can machine some gears and take this thing to the next level/get you a breadboard and some electrical bits so you can work on digital clock/etc etc"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> By the time I got home last night grandma had already pulled this up on the vimeo channel on the ROKU (staff picks) and said I had to see it. this sure went viral.

<http://vimeo.com/40000072>

</comment><comment><USER48> Someone should teach the kid about HN. I'm sure he will be a valuable member in the future. What a beautiful story.

</comment><comment><USER49> Any chance Paypal will freeze the college fund? They don't seem to look kindly on donation drives [e.g., 1]

[1] <http://www.regretsy.com/2012/03/12/paypal-does-it-again/>

</comment><comment><USER50> 720p WebM formatted version on YouTube: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faIFNkdq96U>

</comment><comment><USER51> About his college fund, a #reprap channel member commented "I wonder what kind of college he'll build."

</comment><comment><USER52> What an impressive kid... I think he has a very bright future.

</comment><comment><USER53> Also, go buy the theme song (all proceeds to Caine's college fund).

<http://cainesarcade.bandcamp.com>

</comment><comment><USER54> Excuse me but I have to do this: IT'S OVER 100000!!!!

</comment><comment><USER55> square root security ftw!

</comment><comment><USER46> This is great for the boy (who the producer thinks is a genius) but it seems to me like it is a strategic publicity vehicle for the producer's (Nirvan Mullick) other idea <http://www.the1secondfilm.com>

(The domain CAINESARCADE.COM is registered to Nirvan...)

<comment><USER56> Of course it is.

So what?

This guy put in a lot of work, he deserves it.

<comment><USER46> "Of course it is. So what?"

Not sure I can answer a question like that. But from reading the comments here I'm not sure everybody notices the publicity angle which drove bringing attention to this because a filmaker saw an opportunity.

What he is doing isn't that spectacular. The quality of seems about average for his age and probably wouldn't win any awards in an elementary school fair or anything. (I'm somewhat familiar with what kids this age produce and this really isn't all that great.) The father didn't appear to put in any effort to helping him understand how to put a little more quality in the construction (which is of course different from building it for him).

By "this guy" who are you referring to? The boy or the film producer?

"This guy put in a lot of work, he deserves it."

I'll assume by "this guy" you mean the boy. So you think that this is worthy of all the donations he is getting to pay for his college? He is getting the donations as a result of a random meeting with the film maker.

<comment><USER56> No, I meant "he" as in the subject of your post - the filmaker.

I find it a bit odd that you, I assume an adult, are saying things like "what he is doing isn't that spectacular" in regards to a nine year old boy.

I don't get why you have so much cynicism __toward a nine year old boy __but it is not my place to challenge your view.

Simply put, this boy is very creative; that it's _relative to some arbitrary set standard threshold level of creativeness_ does NOT matter to me, I don't care - he's creative. As an adult, I feel it part of my responsibility, and part of the greatness of being a Good human being, to cultivate young minds.

This is what I got from the film - I think it's great. I think this kid is great (again why does his greatness have to be relative to "other kid's greatness") and I think the filmaker put in a lot of work to create value for all involved.

Beautiful story, it brightened up my day, I'm happy. =D

<comment><USER46> "why does his greatness have to be relative to "other kid's greatness""

What's the point of a trophy if everyone is getting a trophy? Sorry, the generation I was raised in didn't think that way. Awards for being special weren't passed out to everyone. And it was relative to what others have done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> So I saw this video on reddit and thought it was really cute but said to myself at the time, "I hope this doesn't wind up on hacker news because it's not really hacker news". So I'm honestly not trying to "big bummer guy" but I always thought of HN for more tech and startup news than heartwarming stories. I think we all agree that memes and +1 are not for HN, so where is the line?

<comment><USER58> This story was really touching and inspiring (and my first exposure to it since I don't read reddit) and I hope one day to create an environment where my own child can build as prolifically as this kid has.

Some highlights to take away if you're focused on the entrepreneurial lessons from this kid:

\- Ability to see the core value proposition: that S-hook with string is the fun part of the claw game, you don't need the complex mechanical arm and flashing lights to make it fun

\- Scrappiness: use what you got, he only had his toys so made those the giveaways in his arcade.

\- User testing: soccer game wasn't hard enough so put up army guys

\- Lean startup: don't build a ticket dispensing machine while you're still testing development, just sit in the box and dispense tickets while you watch the balls fall through

\- Pricing: make the upgrade plan really easy to justify to yourself (4 plays for a dollar, 500!!! plays for $2)

\- Marketing: he even had the cool web startup t-shirt going!

I'm sitting here with practically unlimited web technology in front of me and all that kid had was cardboard... and I think if the flash mob came to my creation they'd have a lot less fun :)

<comment><USER57> Your argument makes sense and I agree with you. Too bad I got so many downvotes, I thought it was a fair question.</comment></comment></comment>