Tell HN: I didn't get a job due to a failed startup on my resume - <AUTHOR>

My startup went down the pan due to lack of money (what's new?) I was always told the expereince you get from a failed startup is a good thing. Well, a certain large software company doesn't seem to think so. Apparently, "as an entrepeneur you are obviously a free spirit, not the kind of person that settles well in a normal job, we would never hire people with a failed startup on their resume".<p>Thanks HN. You lied to me about the true cost of a failed startup. <comment><USER2> Let me get this straight--you're bitter because you didn't get hired by a company that evidently doesn't even want you to have any ambition or initiative of your own? I would be relieved if I was in your position.

<comment><USER3>
      I would be relieved if I was in your position.

I don't think you know enough of his situation to say that. It might not be the best place in the world to work but I imagine after your startup runs out of money, you just want a paycheck.

<comment><USER4> And why would a company want to hire someone that 'just wants a paycheck'?

<comment><USER5> Possibly because that's all they have to offer.

<comment><USER4> Allow me to elaborate:

A lot of companies have a policy of not hiring people that are significantly overqualified for a position. The reason for this is that those people are almost guaranteed to be unhappy and perform poorly. That means that if your company just needs some code monkeys to crank out code to spec then you need to hire people that are perfectly happy doing that because it matches their skill level and ambitions.

Someone with enough initiative to start their own company is not likely to do well in that kind of an environment, and the fact that they look at it solely as crap they need to tolerate in exchange for a paycheck doesn't help.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough - but then tell the candidate that: "Sorry, you're overqualified, you can find a better position, and be happier. We just need a code monkey for now". None of the BS about "free spirits" and "normal jobs" - I mean, come on.

<comment><USER7> Because rejections are always honest?

<comment><USER6> No - but they should be. Or, were you about to make a case for dishonesty?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm going to guess that it was due to how you behaved during your interview. If you are going for a corporate job, you need to pretty much crap all over your startup experience. You need to talk about how it just wasn't for you, and that you have no plans to ever do it again.

If you talk about how cool it was, and how you plan to do it again, they won't want to hire you, thinking you are just there for a few months until you go back to doing startups

<comment><USER9> When I interviewed, I said my startup was basically a great experience, I absolutely hoped to give it a go again in the future, but right now all ideas I had led through Google. That seemed to work for them, and it was basically the truth. No need to lie or misrepresent.

You definitely don't want to give the impression that you're just applying to pick up some quick cash before trying your next startup. But there's a lot of middle ground between that and "I never want to be an entrepreneur again, and will happily be your corporate bitch forever."

<comment><USER10> That was your situation in one job interview. To repost: "Sampling size error"

It is dangerous to assume that "One size fits all" in this situation, for both you and OP. A better answer might be to read the interviewer/company and make the best decision at the time given all the info (on whether to "fudge" or not about whether you'd do it again). It also, I suppose, depends on your financial situation.

<comment><USER9> I've said that elsewhere on-thread. However, by definition each person only has direct experience with a sample size of one, so the only way to get bigger sample sizes is if people post their experiences. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Unlikely. I doubt that's the real reason -- it's just the excuse the recruiter told you.

You probably just had a bad interview. Either you're not completely qualified, or they didn't feel you were a good fit for the team. Maybe they didn't like some of your answers to the interview questions. Or, somebody else beat you out for the position.

Using careful wording you can spin any negative experience into something positive. I'd recommend doing that with your startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> In my experience within the UK graduate market I find that recruiters for larger companies usually give very frank and honest reasons for not hiring you.

<comment><USER12> You're in the UK? Well, that's the problem I'm afraid. People in the UK are _not_ generally very accepting of startup failure, and will often count it against you.

I moved from the UK to San Francisco a few years ago, and everything is very different. An attempted startup, whether successful or not, _is_ almost always seen as a good thing here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sample size error.

<comment><USER14> +1 and to elaborate:

Seriously? With a sample size of _1_ , you are blaming hacker news for bad advice rather than blaming the hiring manager for having a rare/bizarre attitude?

<comment><USER15> Here's something to balance this story out: one of the reasons I got my current job is because I founded a(n ultimately failed) startup.

<comment><USER16> Same here: I was hired as one of the youngest full-time employees at a Fortune 100 company. I did not have a degree, and on top of that, attended a community college, but I was Student Body President there. I also co-founded a Student Newspaper and Chess Club (both of which still exist years later.)

My previous experience was selling shareware for a few years, which helped me demonstrate that I knew what I was doing, as well as making me comfortable communicating with adults in their 40's when I applied for a position (when my dad was laid off). I had only applied to a few companies and did not have problems getting interviews. I also sent recruiters and managers, follow up e-mails with code, screen shots, and links to websites and software I had created, after each interview.

The other few young employees there had started as temps or in the training pool. Although they had Bachelor's Degrees on top of that, they didn't have a real job title for months after I did. What matters is that the managers who hired me could see I had drive and did not rely on having a piece of paper.

In my first two months, I got an iPhone and told my manager I thought the company should have an iPhone web application and then a native application when the devkit came out. I also got them to sign up for the iPhone Enterprise Beta. I taught the guy who hired me all about differences between phones and technologies, how hard it was to program for each one, and different applications that could be made. Multiple times he felt the idea had run dry, and I told him that if we could just get statistics about this, we would be good to go. So he partnered with his friend who did have such statistics and I was out of the picture suddenly... But some of my mockups did make it to the presentation shown in front of who-are-now the CIO and CTO of the company, as well as the two Chief Operating Officers. Sure, it would have been nice (and fair) for me to attend those meetings and get credit and a bonus, but it was a good learning experience about the corporate world. Looking back, I probably should have made my own presentations early on (using publicly available information) and made sure everybody knew the whole story, because apparently the manager who had told me he wanted to work on this with me, only cared about his own name getting mentioned--so don't worry, maybe you're not missing much from big corporate after all. :)

I am completing a B.S. in Computer Science and Mathematics right now, a decision I made as school started in September because I felt I should get my degree then move to California. I hope I will have the same swagger and hustle as I did without a degree, instead of relying on it in any way. I am focusing on theory as much as possible (Algorithms, AI, math courses), even though it will hurt my GPA, because I can learn other stuff myself.

Instead of being bitter, think of how lucky you are. For me, losing the freedom of working on my own software product in order to work at a Fortune 100 company, and now attending a research university for a four year degree that causes frequent sleepless nights, feels like I'm on a "downward spiral". In reality, that's better than 99% of what other individuals can accomplish at our age (assuming you're in the mid-20's or younger), and that's just in the United States alone. Your situation is very similar, and we should feel lucky.

<comment><USER17> You get out of a degree as much as you put in. This should reinforce your "swagger and hustle" rather than weaken it.

From an employment perspective, you are simply making HR people happy. The technical interviewers don't see much value in a degree in practice, even if they will tell you differently.

<comment><USER18> Sometimes school teaches you the things you wouldn't take the time to learn normally but are so vital to your experience as a hacker. I value school in that respect, sometimes you need a push to learn something to open up your mind a bit.

Kudos to this guy, I agree with his path. He's not just making HR people happy, he's truly learning regardless of what his GPA may become after it.

I do agree, you do only get as much out of the degree as you put in.

<comment><USER17> I think your argument is valid, sometimes you get more out of learning something when you're forced to learn the alternatives and edge cases that don't matter in a learn-as-you-go approach.

However, take two job candidates:

One of them just has a CS degree, let's even say it was from a "prestigious" university or whatever. No internships, no computer-related jobs, no open source / hobby projects, nothing else except good grades and dubious academic rewards.

The other has no college degree, but has spent 4 years working various junior positions / contract jobs that pertain directly to the job in question, mentioning several cases where they wrote/maintained software in a production environment. To even the field, let's just say they don't have any open source / hobby projects or otherwise "outside" experience.

They are both asking for the same salary and are "equal" in terms of team fit and other non-technical factors. Who would you hire? This is ultimately the point I'm trying to make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I doubt that the recruiter who told you "we would never hire people with a failed startup on their resume" is actually speaking true company policy.

"Thanks HN. You lied to me about the true cost of a failed startup." Are you kidding? Surely, you aren't ready to blame those trying to help you for one bad encounter with a knucklehead recruiter with a bad attitude.

</comment><comment><USER20> They said this to you at an on-site interview? How did you make it that far if they had that attitude?

About your last comment: take responsibility for your actions.

<comment><USER21> _About your last comment: take responsibility for your actions._

The real question (which neither the OP nor I am qualified to answer) is whether a startup opens more doors than it closes, not whether it closes one particular door. Obviously, there are all kinds of people in the world with all sorts of stupid biases; there's someone out there who will decide not to hire you because you went to the same school as some intern he disliked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Sorry it didn't work out for you. I'm one of the people who's been cheerleading the "Even if you fail, it looks good on a resume" approach.

Whenever you listen to any advice, you need to view it through the filter of Buchheit's Law: "Limited life experience + overgeneralization = advice". Lots of people post about their experiences here, but nobody's experience will completely fit with your own circumstances. So you've got to examine _why_ it worked for them and determine if those same conditions apply to you. In my case, I was applying for a job at Google in Silicon Valley, not a big company in the UK. I had previous successful programming projects, though unfortunately nothing lucrative. And I had sharp basic CS skills and did well in the interview. I'm not sure how many of these apply to your own situation.

If they don't, you have two options:

1.) Make your situation look more like the people whose advice you've been reading.

2.) Seek out advice from people closer to your own situation.

It's really valuable that you've posted your own experience for others to learn from, but there's always a danger in generalizing too much.

</comment><comment><USER22> I've negged people for having a number of failed startups in their work history, without any intervening stable roles. I've never negged anyone for a single failed startup. So, be aware that a resume full of go-nowhere company attempts may not serve your career well.

I took time off the lifestyle and worked at an established (but small) software company for about 4 years after my last failure, and feel like I was better off for that choice.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is a self-absorbed inflammatory post from someone who is clearly going through a difficult experience. I don't think he's a troll (though the account was created 2 hours ago), but I also doubt there's anything you can say to him in this thread to change his feelings.

</comment><comment><USER24> All I keep thinking is "Blag it, surely?"

My thoughts:

\- I wouldn't sell it as a failed start-up, you can put an honest story around anything

\- "I didn't like start-up life, I thought the grass was greener, and it sure as hell isn't"

\- "Yea, I agree, the product didn't work out, but I learned a lot of operational skills. Planning, hiring, firing etc."

\- "One thing it definitely taught me was it all comes down to numbers and ROI."

etc etc etc

Disclaimer: My first job was with a start-up that I'm pretty sure is on its why down the pan. But I sure as hell don't share the same concerns. I'd argue that what I learned in a start-up has prepared me for _my_ life more than any degree could.

</comment><comment><USER25> I doubt anyone lied to you zubar. At one former startup employer the founder hired me in part because some years earlier I was a co-founder of an unsuccessful company and at other established places I've been rejected for reasons similar to the one given to you.

Anything you do in your career has the potential to open or close some doors.

My suggestion is to be prepared to tailor things like cover letters and resumes appropriately for the position and be more selective in how you apply so as to maximize your chances. Unless you're very very good or lucky you're bound to have some kind of failure in your past. The important thing in this sort of interview situation is to be able to convince people you've learned the right lessons from the experience and are more valuable as a result.

</comment><comment><USER26> Hiring is extremely random and for most part very hard to do fairly. Bet even if someone like bill gates or the google founders applied to some of the bigger companies - chances are they will get turned down from a few of them.

Though, I think there is almost zero correlation of landing a position and having done a startup. Also, in real terms failed/successfull startups dont really matter much because often there is a very fine line (often described as luck) between failed and successfull startups. You might have learned a lot more in a failed one than having lucked out in a succesfull one. (for eg. jobs might have been considered a lesser success when apple mostly did the mac compared to say the youtube guys. Even though we now know otherwise because of the ipod, the fact is that it was plain market conditions that led to youtube being a bigger hit than the Mac).

A friend of mine got turned down with one of the biggest private enterprise software firms in the US. They hired the best of the lot - stanford, mit etc. He went on to join a smaller firm, and then did a startup which is about to run a million in revenues this year. The private software firm has since lost its mojo and is laying off right left and center. The friend, who is now CEO, is hiring right left and center. The very people who thought he was unfit to join their 'ranks' would now be very happy to be on his payroll.

In any case the lesson is that treat a job as independent from doing a startup - it takes a different set of skills to land one and its not fair, so just try to find what is required to land a job and not assume it to mean anything more than that.

</comment><comment><USER27> I had a similar reason cited by a company few years ago. My gut reaction was that of "seriously?". Then I came home, thought of their decision, and realized that indeed, I am not fit for the 9-5 do-as-we-say job I was applying for. I got rid of my bitterness and learned something about myself in the process!

</comment><comment><USER28> You are in the UK? Perhaps, after collecting some more feedback from other companies, you should add your perspective to the prevailing wisdom here. It sounds like the Silicon Valley software culture may be a bit more accepting of startup experience than in the UK.

That said, it may be beneficial for you to think about how you are selling yourself and your experience.

</comment><comment><USER29> Happened to me, I ran my own small ventures for about 2 years out of university. They definitely didn't fail, but they didn't make me a millionaire either. I cashed out of one of them with $20,000+ so it wasn't the end of the world.

However, whilst being interviewed over the past month or two I've encountered people who've really disliked the fact that I'd moved around several small entrepreneurial projects and now wanted a job. Some people absolutely loved it, but some people were really quite sceptical and even critical. Just shows you that people can be stupid, you have to keep trying as many as it takes until someone understands your value and doesn't make some retarded judgement based on something that doesn't matter.

As a sidenote, I found that the CEOs and founders that interviewed me were very keen on the entrepreneurial aspect to my cv. The middle management and wage monkeys weren't at all.

</comment><comment><USER30> _as an entrep_ r _eneur you are obviously a free spirit, not the kind of person that settles well in a normal job_

Thus does the domesticated assail the free.

</comment><comment><USER31> Companies are smart enough to know that when a potential employee has done a startup and liked it, they unlikely won't be happy in a corporate job.

When writing a resume, you need to be careful to tailor it for the reader. If you're applying to work at a place that values free-thinking and risk-taking, then leave it on there. If you're applying to work at a consulting company or less-inventive company, they will see it as a red flag.

No company wants to train someone for a job only to have them bail to do their own thing.

You can still talk about it to the latter type of company, but you have to spin it in a way that doesn't make them think you're a rogue and unlikely to be happy in a corporate environment.

Alan

</comment><comment><USER32> _Thanks HN. You lied to me about the true cost of a failed startup._

This is either:

a. Bait. You got me.

b. A poor joke. Next time you may want to try <sarcasm> and </sarcasm>.

or

c. Your true feelings. You have a attitude problem. The large software company noticed too. Fix your stinkin' thinkin' and stop blaming others for your failure. I wonder if "lack of money" was the only cause of your startup's failure.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see why you got downvoted for what I think is good adivce.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Also note that you don't have to include that failed startup on your resume if you really feel it is hurting you.

<comment><AUTHOR> So I should lie about what I've been doing for the past 2 years?

<comment><USER34> "CEO and Founder of startup.com" -> "Senior Django Developer for startup.com"

<comment><USER35> You can do that, but even in exactly the same market, two different companies (or contract firms, in my case) may want diametrically opposite changes to your resume (or CV, in your case). Here in the DC area, I was told to play down my business ownership _and_ that the amount of money I was asking was "unrealistic" (and did I want to maybe talk about something 20-30K lower?) within a coupla weeks of being hired at more than the "unrealistic" salary by someplace I'd sent the older version of my resume. It's incredibly variable.

<comment><USER21> Unscrupulous recruiters have a habit of trying to get you to come down on salary. Remember that their incentives are not the same as yours.

I had the same experience. Had been employed at X, headhunter told me to consider jobs at X-15 (this was February 2007). I got one at X+35.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Odd that you would even get that kind of feedback. If they really have that sort of rule, wouldn't they just toss your resume on the pile? Most large companies avoid giving specific reasons for rejecting you, as that information could contribute to legal risk. (e.g., "too much experience" = ageism)

</comment><comment><USER37> You could always try to apply to a younger, smaller firm. You would probably enjoy your job more too.

</comment><comment><USER38> Thats not a company you want to work for - they are looking for people who don't think.

</comment><comment><USER39> Everyone faces rejection and failure. Persist onward and success will come soon enough. Don't give up. You can't win if you don't keep trying.

No one here lied to you but there is no absolute truth.

</comment><comment><USER6> Uh, no, HN is not wrong, the company is wrong. Why would you want to work for such a company?

You know yourself better than the company does, and "free spirit" vs. "not the kind that settles in a normal job" is not only a gross generalization, an artificial dichotomy, and generally B.S., you know yourself better than they do! You know you are perfect capable of settling in a normal job, right?

Again, the company seems to be looking for a drone, and hiring that way. Surely you can find something better?

</comment><comment><USER40> Maybe if you're applying to State Farm. Why on earth would you want to work for them? Find another young start up, brush yourself off, and try again. You only fail when you quit.

</comment><comment><USER41> Corporations will only hire drones and you have to prove that you are a drone in order to get hired. By being entrepreneurial you are automatically labeled as an anti-drone, therefore, no job. The only border line exception to this rule is sales. In sales you are expected to be like the hunter's dog, bring in the game and be content with getting cold leftovers the next morning. That's after it was you that jumped into the freezing lake not the hunter.

</comment><comment><USER42> I agree with the prospective employer. Any place that could think that way will make you miserable, and you would be a terrible hire for them.

</comment><comment><USER43> You probably don't want to work at a company where they think failure is an automatic disqualification. In order to succeed you must take chances, and sometimes you miss the mark but not from a lack of not trying hard enough.

Perhaps they just fire you when you commit your first broken build. Then you could have an entire team of programmers that have never submitted buggy code.

</comment><comment><USER44> They are resenting the fact that you are an outlier, a 'free spirit' and even if you had succeeded in your startup, they wouldn't see the relevance of that success to a (seemingly boring) desk job. UK companies read a lot 'between the lines' and it can be frustrating to find your strengths noted as weaknesses. Try not letting that affect your own perceptions.

</comment><comment><USER45> Did you ever consider that you probably don't want to work somewhere that considers lack of failure (and the opportunity to learn from them) to be a good thing? Of course, if you're just trying to get something to pay the bills for now, I sympathize. Maybe it's an even newer lesson to take from this that applies to interviewing at big organizations.

</comment><comment><USER46> I work at Google, and I am quite certain that the (failed) startup experience played a part in getting hired there.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's true that a monolithic software company might feel someone with a mind of their own was too free-spirited to fit in. But if that's the case, surely you don't want to be working for the company anyway? And if it's a recurring pattern, take the startup off your resume if you can't reword it.

</comment><comment><USER48> "...we would never hire people with a failed startup on their _resume_ "

"In my experience within the UK graduate market..."

So was this job in the UK? If so, was the recruiter American?

</comment><comment><USER49> Tailor your resume to the potential employer - remove the startup for the conservative ones.

If it's a really long time just say you were a free lance consultant or something.

Cheers

</comment><comment><USER50> >> Thanks HN. You lied to me about the true cost of a failed startup.

You are kidding right?

</comment><comment><USER51> How does one know that interviewer is smarter than the interviewee?

</comment><comment><USER52> Looks like a case of terrible attitude to me.

</comment><comment><USER53> What company?

</comment><comment><USER21> _Apparently, "as an entrepeneur you are obviously a free spirit, not the kind of person that settles well in a normal job, we would never hire people with a failed startup on their resume"._

By their own logic (maybe I'm giving them too much credit, by assuming consistency) they probably wouldn't want to hire someone with a successful startup either.

<comment><USER54> Then again, you probably wouldn't be looking for a job if your startup was a success. I agree with you though -- I think it's just a case of them not wanting someone with a high level of ambition and drive, and instead needing someone who would fill that position for the long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> First, I (we?) would be really interested in hearing what company. Please spill.

Second, I don't know what type of job you're looking for but the two startups that I've worked at both think very highly of startup experience on your resume, failed or not. If you pursued a startup idea it tends to indicate all sorts of good things -- self directed, can run with ideas, aren't averse to a certain amount of boring but necessary work, etc. Of course, you should expect to be grilled on why it failed and what you would do differently.

Third, Scribd always needs good rails people, so send your resume if you want. Email is in the profile.

</comment><comment><USER56> My response:

1) You don't want that job. You really don't. They want in-the-box thinkers who would never question why they didn't get their raise this year. They want risk-averse programmers caz you can exploit them.

2) HN never lied. In probability there are no absolutes. if I or my manaders had to choose between two resumes of equal qualifications all would choose the one with a startup. I doubt any programmer I personally worked with would dissagree(or their manager). However there are exceptions to this rule. Some simply want the workers that work not the workers that think.

3) You really don't want to work for them... Do you want to work with people who never act on their dreams or hopes, only whine and complqin and sit down and shut the fuck up about problems at work when it comes to talking to managers or asking for appropriate pay for teir tallent (if they got it)? Every job I take I want to gain something. At 60 ill take the safe job and retire on it. Till then I want to wor with people who challenge me, not conformists.

So OP really consider is it so bad that you don't want that job? If you do FIGHT FOR IT. Call em tell em THEY WANTYOU! What do you have to lose? Only gain!</comment>


Cryptocurrencies described in four words or less - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/19/100-cryptocurrencies-described-in-4-words-or-less/ <comment><USER2> > Bitcoin: Digital gold

Huh, I remember it being "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash".

[https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Bitcoin cash deserves the moniker "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash." Core's roadmap ceded that claim.

Sadly, being "digital gold" is a huge mistake because a store of value that is _also_ a currency is a dominating strategy in this game.

Lightning is "18 months away" which is exactly the sort of estimate I hear at work when something will take 4-6 years, or be shelved without getting released.

<comment><USER4> >Bitcoin cash deserves the moniker "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash."

I think Litecoin deserves it far more, bcash was a cynical pump and dump.

<comment><USER3> I don't think so. Bitcoin cash is not being dumped by miners--they are in it for the long haul. Litecoin is a me-too copy, bitcoin cash is people with different values working on a different vision. Here's an interview with the lead dev. Doesn't sound like he's going anywhere.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By0w43NQdiY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By0w43NQdiY)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Would be nice to get more meaningful descriptions than "_ clone."

Also seems a bit selective/biased: For example, Litecoin is "Faster Bitcoin" but Vertcoin is "Bitcoin clone" while the Litecoin codebase is maybe closer to Bitcoin core than any other coin on that list. (Is there any coin on that list that is _not_ "Faster Bitcoin" or a "Bitcoin clone"?)

If anything, "fork" would be more accurate than "clone", but still not really a meaningful description.

Some suggestions:

\- Bitcoin Cash: Bitcoin for P2P payments

\- Ethereum Classic: Ethereum for immutability purists

<comment><USER6> > Bitcoin Cash: Bitcoin for P2P payments

Bitcoin... is for P2P payments. The literally only difference between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is block size and segwit. Your descriptions are partisan and disingenuous.

<comment><USER5> > Bitcoin... is for P2P payments. The literally only difference between > Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is block size and segwit. Your descriptions are > partisan and disingenuous.

... and different community, different ideals/goals, different features approaches, incompatible protocols (replay protection, difficulty adjustment).

Please be constructive in your comments, suggest how to improve things rather than disagree and hit submit.

<comment><USER6> If you wanna go there, it's obvious Cash is basically a money grab for Ver — made apparent by the fact r/btc won't shut up about r/bitcoin while the latter cares about actually improving the network. Same tactic used by r/The_Donald against r/politics.

Oh yeah, and since you're so knowledgeable and pc I'm surprised you forgot Cash almost _didn 't_ have relay protection.

<comment><USER7> > Same tactic used by r/The_Donald against r/politics.

And yet the irony of it all is that the reason some r/bitcoin users migrated to r/btc was that any discussion even remotely critical of core's decision would get _literally_ removed or downvoted into oblivion, creating a de facto echo chamber that you very conveniently decide to ignore. Just like how T_D readers were forced out of r/politics in the first place.

edit: and regarding your "Bitcoin is for P2P payment claim". yeah sure, as long as you don't mind paying an average of $10 per transaction to make it happen in a reasonable amount of time. the days of the changetip mania on r/bitcoin sure seem long gone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Author here. The TC version of this post is essentially immutable, but I'll be keeping the Google doc (and potentially Github repo) up to date.

If you have a better four-word description of what any coin is for, post it below and I'll make updates.

This list is designed for minimal orientation. The difference between e.g. hashing algorithms or block time is inconsequential at this altitude.

<comment><USER8> Here's the Github repo if you'd like to suggest changes: [https://github.com/jashmenn/cryptocurrencies-in-four- words](https://github.com/jashmenn/cryptocurrencies-in-four-words)

This guide is intended to provide orientation for someone who knows very little about cryptocurrencies. Many are quite different in scope (and legitimacy).

I hope no one makes investment decisions on just four words. It's just a taste to help you find what you might be interested in pursuing further.

By the way, if you're interested in learning the hard-core technical details of programming cryptocurrency, you find more of my in-depth material here: [https://www.newline.co/](https://www.newline.co/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Applicable to all:

> _Is pyramid, buy please._

Joking, of course... sort of.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, this list amazes me that there have been this many companies/teams creating new blockchains and yet they still fail to solve any real world problems more efficiently than current solutions (besides illegal markets where governments have explicitly made it hard and the "decentralized blockchain solution" kind of currently gets around it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm really disappointed at how Buzzfeed-esque this piece is and (even more so) how it could reach the front page of HN. I'd like to think that easily- digestible, low-effort articles don't have a place in this community, but here's one on HN. I guess even HN-types are susceptible to the wrapping of a hot topic in the "For Dummies" style.

<comment> King-Aaron > I'd like to think that easily-digestible, low-effort articles don't have a > place in this community

I'd be inclined to disagree with your opinion here - You can have an easily- digestible piece of writing that still holds good value and insight. Not everything needs to be a peer-reviewed journal article, I'd start pulling my hair out if literally every submission here was an effort to read since I usually browse HN on my short breaks at work.

However it's still worth vetting low-quality content, I agree.

<comment><USER11> Yes, fair enough—I guess it's more about the low effort on both sides of the equation. I suppose I do value articles which make it easy for me to quickly digest more complex ideas, but this this in particular is just... almost the bathroom graffiti of cryptocurrency reporting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wonder how much money coinmarketcap.com is bringing in.

</comment><comment><USER13> This was a fantastic list, is there a larger, or more up to date feed or something similar to this list?

<comment><USER8> Author here. I'm working on adding many more.

Here's the Google Doc: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/151E3d26SIRNhXQewq-55...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/151E3d26SIRNhXQewq-55dcvsJ8CEz70pzjCDg- B_350/edit?usp=sharing)

<comment><USER13> hmmmmmm if you could host as a text or even a json document somewhere and somehow get it to update that would be super useful. Happy to share my personal trading algorithm outputs if you do.

<comment><USER14> Let me see your algorithm?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been interested in ZCash since Snowden commented on it. Quoting a tweet stating 'Zcash is the only altcoin (that i know of) designed and built by professional and academic cryptographers. Hard to ignore':

"Agree. Zcash's privacy tech makes it the most interesting Bitcoin alternative. Bitcoin is great, but "if it's not private, it's not safe.""

[Source: [https://twitter.com/snowden/status/913544739542241282](https://twitter.com/snowden/status/913544739542241282)]

I still think cryptocurrency is a dumb idea on the whole. I haven't invested and never plan to. But the element of privacy would be important to me if I did.

</comment><comment><USER16> Maidsafe is a new encrypted internet. Rent your disk space is sooo far from what it is

</comment><comment><USER17> "Pura | PURA | Cryptocurrency"

Well, true and it is under four words but...

</comment><comment><USER18> I can't get this page to work on Chrome/Android.

</comment><comment><USER19> Mine applies to all of em: Bubble about to burst.

<comment><USER20> What might cause the bubble to burst, in your opinion?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Have Solution, Seeking Problem

</comment><comment><USER22> to the trolls: it's impossible to be exhaustive in 4 words; this is excellent starting point to learn more...</comment>


Ask HN: Apartment search site that doesn't suck (Bay Area) - <AUTHOR>

I'm finally moving to the Bay Area from Los Angeles. Can anyone recommend any good apartment search site? Thanks. <comment><AUTHOR> So far I found [https://www.padmapper.com/](https://www.padmapper.com/) pretty good.

</comment><comment><USER2> [http://livelovely.com](http://livelovely.com)</comment>


After reviewing about 30 YC applications, here's some general advice - <AUTHOR> http://sandersak.posthaven.com/after-reviewing-about-30-yc-apps-heres-some-general-advice <comment><USER2> While growth is the most important thing in a startup, it's unreasonable to expect it at the point when companies are applying to YC, so it is not the main thing the partners look for. Neither Dropbox nor Airbnb nor Stripe nor Optimizely had any growth when they applied to YC. When I was reading applications (odd yet delightful to use the past tense) the main thing I looked for was energetic founders working on an idea that grew organically out of their own experience. E.g. Optimizely consisted of the guy in charge of a/b testing for Obama's first presidential campaign, starting a company to turn the insights he'd gained into a product.

That said, startups should certainly seek growth, because that's how you evaluate and refine an idea. When you try to get people to use something you've built, and especially to pay for it, you learn quickly what's wrong with it.

The only misleading thing about Adrian's advice is the implication that you need growth to get funded by YC. That is definitely not true. A quick random sample of the current batch (the first 10 in alphabetical order) shows only half had any growth when they were accepted.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I didn't mean to assert that growth will guarantee YC funding, but that growth is the one of the best ways to keep you on track as you explore your idea and prototype.

At least for us, it saved us a lot of discussion when we could say "is this particular feature helping us grow?" and if the answer as no, we would move on.

But I do think, even at the earliest stages, it isn't hard to gauge interest by showing demand. Sign up pages are simple enough to do.

<comment> mck- Great article; maintaining focus on growth is good general startup advice. However, I think it breaks down for startups in the Enterprise realm (not talking about the B2B startups that provide commodity services).

Firstly, getting traction by number of users is much harder. But every customer you sign on implies huge growth for your company in terms of revenue. Take Palantir for example; afaik, their initial massive growth came from a single, but huge, government contract.

Secondly, growth will never be a smooth 10%/week type of curve -- more like an irregular staircase; but taken over the long-term (years), it might get you higher. So taking a granular snapshot of the early beginnings might show no growth at all.

Thirdly, there won't be many early signups. Simply because the volume is much lower.

Having said that, zooming out on the macro scale (years), your advice still holds (growth > everything) -- but it doesn't apply to the YC application process :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> _Starting a startup is like going to war with hundreds of millions of people except instead of attacking you, they just do not give a shit about what you 're doing and ignore you all the time._

This is really important. When I first started a business, criticism stung. Now I love it. It means someone knows you exist, and it's worth their time to tell you what you're doing wrong.

<comment><USER4> I liked that line too. The worst place to be is in the nobody gives a shit category. I would rather people attack what I am doing than just not give a shit because at least than I have something to work with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> >The goal of your startup is not to get into YC

One of my friends who did YC said something that stuck in my mind: "Getting into YC is like getting into Stanford. For 70% of people it's their zenith. Sure the other 30% go on to do amazing things, but for most people just getting in is the most impressive thing they ever do."

I found the perspective extremely motivating and it doesn't surprise me at all that he and his company have continued to do well.

<comment><USER6> So true. It's fairly common for people to spend most of their lives expecting others to give them value. "If I get into Stanford/YC, then I'll be successful"

It's weird people don't think about the other way around:

• Strive for success — period — and then Stanford/YC will want YOU.

At the end of the day it's about creating value. It's not made out of thin air. It's not made from a diploma. It's not made from an acceptance letter.

It's made by You.

(hopefully)

<comment><USER7> This lines up so well with what I've been thinking. If your goal is to get into YC or some other VC thingy or get some high-level contacts or something of that nature, then you are probably thinking all wrong. Start by building something and getting some customers, then find out what else they want. If you can't get any customers at the un-funded scale, then funding isn't likely to help you much.

I bet every investor out there would much rather fund the guy who says "I built this website with this basic feature set, got a few dozen customers and X revenue. My customers want these totally doable features. If you give me $Y, then I can hire more engineers or whatever to build them." than the guy who says "I have a really cool idea that I haven't done anything at all with yet. Give me $Millions and I'll do something awesome".

If your goal is to get funded, you're much more likely to get ignored. If your goal is to build something awesome with whatever is at hand, then the investors just might come to you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is awesome Adrian - I wish this existed six months ago. I've been asked this many times lately, and I think it's important enough to add it here as well:

The best way to prepare for the YC application process is to actually work on your company.

You learn so much about your customers and product space by actually building something and talking to customers about it. By doing that, thinking critically about the results, and iterating, you'll find the YC application and interview questions get easier to answer - because you'll know more about what you're doing and why than anyone else.

<comment><USER9> I found that to be true applying to YC for the first time now. We spent an hour or two doing a first version of the application.

After that we spent 95% of our time talking to potential customers and building things. We just refined our application every few days.

The questions get a lot easier to answer, and you're not wasting time trying to hack answers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've talked to a few potential applicants this week and something that perturbs me in particular is that YC will somehow "make everything work". In startups things rarely work (at least initially).

YC should be regarded as fuel to the mythical fire... whether that fire is your passion, an initial sloping growth curve, or a crazy new technology you just created in your attic.

Partners, the schedule, constant accountability will all provide structure and tremendous value to accelerate your progress - but the mythical fire must already be a spark.

</comment><comment><USER11> Some things just require a lot of time to grow, either because it's a new problem or a new technology. We were lucky because both of us (founders) had a headstart in academia, which funded our research for 2 years. We could chart prototype pools of 20,000+ people and test out things like scalable mesh wifi networks and user-persona switching because of that academia safety net.

Maybe it's more truthful to say - "having a growth vertical and being able to articulate it concisely is the most important." Things will change. Your strategy will change, your product will adjust itself based on testing, listening, more testing, listening. Getting that market fit, and _knowing_ your market ensures that you're growing in the direction that you actually want to grow in.

I'm a current applicant though, so maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, we did our best in the application and that's all we can do. Now -- back to working on the company! (it takes them a while to get back to you anyway, no point waiting anxiously)

PS. good luck to everyone else who applied

</comment><comment><USER12> I applied, with growth. Funny enough this is truly the first time I've gone asking for money when I didn't need it.

YC has a lot of benefits, but I feel like it would be a amplifier to our existing success and a community of mentors and entrepreneurs to help us stay focused on what it takes to sustain growth...

Growth is very gratifying. It still surprises me when people like the things I build.

</comment><comment><USER13> Can somebody help me - how do you show/project "growth" before actually creating the product? (a SaaS app)

<comment><USER14> Adrian reviewed our application at a time when we had absolutely zero evidence of traction or growth. Our product was (and still is) unfinished and certainly not at the stage where we could run beta tests.

To combat this, we presented a concept video on our website[1] and accepted emails for signups. By carefully explaining the idea and finding people who might be interested in it, we've managed to collect over 600 emails in the past few weeks. I'd recommend a similar approach, reach out to people and communities who might be interested in your product. If they're unwilling to give you their email, it might indicate they're even less willing to give you their money.

Once we flushed the idea out a little bit more, we updated the video[2] with actual footage.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbezr3yDJtQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbezr3yDJtQ)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQ8NJOypqs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuQ8NJOypqs)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would be interesting if YC ever rejected someone with 10% growth over 8 weeks or what the rejection rate at that growth is, because I think it's quite a strong criterion? (given that it's not a totally unscalable business)

<comment><USER16> Well, let us say you start out with a pool of 10 people.

Week 1 - 11 [10%] Week 2 - 13 [>10%] Week 3 - 15 [>10%] Week 4 - 17 [>10%] Week 5 - 20 [>10%] Week 6 - 23 [>10%] Week 7 - 26 [>10%] Week 8 - 29 [>10%]

Would a growth rate of 2-3 paying accounts at a SaaS price point of $10/month really affect a decision?

Sure, if your MRR grew by 10% and your starting base was $10,000 I could see a reasonable extrapolation from that. But if your starting base is 10 accounts @ $10/month [$100 MRR], you might die out once you realize your niche is only 1000 accounts deep.

So I'd say 'growth' is probably the equivalent of a +1, criteria met, rather than an overpowering criterion that is weighted higher than any other.

That is just my guess tho.

<comment><USER17> This is actually a totally legit target for investment on Demo Day.

If your product costs $30+/user/month, dozens of users could mean that you're ramen profitable at the end of two months, a major milestone. If you can sustain that 10% growth for two months of YC, you'll have enough money to hire an employee by bootstrapping alone, which means that you're able to turn down investors, which makes you more valuable.

You shouldn't ask for (and shouldn't take) millions of dollars in investment at that point, but you're certainly lined up for hundreds of thousands of dollars; keep up that 10% growth rate a few more months and you _will_ be ready for VC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A special note to those energetic founders: don't go after a small market. That will certainly cut your chances in half or more. I've seen in many times (and for myself). Yes, I A/B tested the 'energetic founder' YC claim myself.

Show you want to go after something big. And if you switch after (you most likely will), no problem. You still meet all the big players and accomplish your goal (which will be impossible to uncover).

</comment><comment><USER17> > because growth is nearly the only thing that really matters, if you can't > get growth, then you should probably hang up your boots and retire from > founder life.

Lifestyle businesses are not failures. If you're making enough money to live on from your business, and you're happy, then keep doing it, even if your business isn't growing.

<comment><USER6> • Does YC fund "lifestyle businesses"?

• Even a lifestyle business needs growth — just enough to support the owner's lifestyle — but growth nonetheless (unless one customer is all you ever need)

<comment><USER17> YC doesn't fund lifestyle businesess (on purpose).

Lifestyle businesses don't need growth; they need profits. If your revenue/profit are consistent, and they're high enough, you don't have to grow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am currently working on a side project that requires contracts with content producers - think HBO. My goal is to have a technical prototype and apply for YC in W15. The main thing I need from YC is connections to be able to get those contracts. I cannot get users until I have contracts. How do I show growth in my application?

<comment><AUTHOR> Sounds cool!

But the reality is that with or without YC, you're going to need to learn how to close some of those contracts on your own.

Of course having connections is super helpful, but you're much more likely to get those introductions if you can show that you get things done without them.

So my advice would be to work on closing smaller contracts / deals and show that you are capable of running those processes first (and you also show growth!).

Then it's a lot easier to recommend you and pass you along to people in a network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> All good except :

> if you can't get growth, then you should probably hang up your boots and > retire from founder life

Don't let anybody tell you when to retire.

</comment><comment><USER21> Growth > everything is something that just came up in a conversation I had with a VC-backed startup. My employer is bootstrapped, and I have both EBITDA and YoY growth goals. The startup told me that they essentially ignore acquisition cost. It made me incredibly jealous, since I've been driving growth with positive EBITDA for two years, and I am salivating over what I could do with a good product and no EBITDA constraints.

<comment><USER21> Just want to clarify this - I'm speaking solely as someone who was given aggressive growth and profitability targets that pretty clearly were so aggressive that it was highly unlikely we could hit both. The envy I felt was primarily about early stage startups being able to focus primarily on growth (and covering as much of their burn as possible), rather than outright profitability. I don't think companies should ignore profit, especially not as they grow larger. But having a clear primary goal sounds pretty great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Startups are difficult; conviction and passion for what you're doing is imperative.

</comment><comment><USER23> So...should I mention growth in my application? ;)

</comment><comment><USER24> growth before all else. i'll take that.</comment>


Show HN: Personalized technology news aggregator - <AUTHOR>

http://techwatching.com
TechWatching is a technology news aggregator.
Every story is tagged based on its content (i.e.: "wearables" "android" "Microsoft" etc.), and you can sign in to TechWatching to add tags to your watch list and get a news stream tailored to your interests.
Here's what it looks like personalized: http://techwatching.com/sample_screenshot.png
Here are some sample tags: http://techwatching.com/tag/android http://techwatching.com/tag/billgates http://techwatching.com/tag/spaceindustry http://techwatching.com/tag/wearables http://techwatching.com/tag/htc
Let me know your thoughts (UX? Functionality?), and thank-you for taking the time to check it out. <comment><USER2> This is awesome! Like everything is relevant! Great work!</comment>


Ask HN: What reddit community intersects HN? - <AUTHOR>

I appreciate HN and have been a part of the community here for several years. However, I'm uncertain about the policies currently being employed and I'd like to use another, similar, community news site as a comparison point to see an alternate view of headlines, etc.<p>Is there a subreddit, or other community I'm unaware of, that is most closely aligned with Hacker News? <comment><USER2> _Is there a subreddit, or other community I 'm unaware of, that is most closely aligned with Hacker News?_

On reddit, /r/programming and /r/startups come to mind.

You can also put together a Multi Reddit that combines a few channels with related topics and crib together something useful. For example:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/linux+programming+android+startups+c...](http://www.reddit.com/r/linux+programming+android+startups+compscipapers+machinelearning+semanticweb+cobol+business)

Lambda-the-Ultimate.org intersects with some aspects of HN, as does Slashdot.org.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't know of any popular ones that are exactly aligned, but these are some I frequent:

r/technology

r/futurology

r/cyberpunk

r/programming

r/futurism

</comment><comment><USER4> /r/programming /r/technology /r/science</comment>


Design fully interactive prototypes in no time - <AUTHOR> http://www.onfocus.in/startup/view/design-fully-interactive-prototypes-12-13-27 They really moved prototyping to the next level. <comment><USER2> What does "Prototypes that actually look good!" mean?

The thing about prototypes is that if they "look too good" the people who see it forget it's a prototype. Then you get bogged down in details like "why is that button so orange?!?" every time you show it off.

That's why low-fi prototyping tools like Balsamiq are so good... they help you create things that look like prototypes.

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a point to "Prototypes that actually look good!". If your client does not like the orange button then you have to change it anyway, so better sooner than later.

Anyway I liked them because it's very easy to create and share prototypes.

By the way you can create wireframes if you want to avoid that kind of comments.</comment></comment>


Advanced Deep Learning with Python - ivan-vasilev- https://www.amazon.com/Advanced-Deep-Learning-Python-next-generation-ebook/dp/B082DHGVT5/ <comment> ivan-vasilev- I'm happy to share my recently published book [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082DHGVT5/](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082DHGVT5/) :)

On the computer vision side, you'll find in-depth analysis of CNNs, the most popular CNN architectures, as well as their applications in object detection, image segmentation, and GAN models. On the NLP side, we discuss RNNs, language modelling, sequence-to-sequence models, the attention mechanism, and the latest in transformers. The book also covers some more exotic topics like graph neural networks, memory augmented networks, meta-learning, and even autonomous vehicles. The source code for all examples (along with Jupyter notebooks) is available at [https://github.com/ivan-vasilev/advanced-deep- learning-with-...](https://github.com/ivan-vasilev/advanced-deep-learning- with-python).

P.S. Since the book contains quotations and images from other sources, I have taken serious measures to avoid any semblance of plagiarism. Not only I have requested explicit permissions from the authors of each quoted paper (as is required), but each quotation or cited figure has prominent indication of the original source. In addition, whenever I have used open-source projects, the original licensing is preserved and the original source code is clearly linked from my repository and the book itself.</comment>


WP7's app bar icons - Where consistency fails. - <AUTHOR> http://www.significantpixels.com/2011/11/23/windows-phone-7s-application-bar-icons/

<comment><USER2> I see the authors point, and I'm not a designer, but as a wp7 user, I have to disagree.

Looking at his image comparison, with and without the circles, he's absolutely right that without the circle it is easier to see the image.

However, which looks nicer? I'm sure there was discussion at MS about which to chose, and it won't be the first time that visual appeal won out over function.

As an example, the lack of strain relief on Apple cables (and unfortunately many other companies have followed).

Another issue with the lack of the circle in theory is that it allows designers/developers to believe that they have free reign over this space. The circle may be as much of a hint to designers that they are limited to these areas to keep the UI as clean as possible.</comment>


Monkey is a GitHub client for iOS,to show the rank of coders and repositories - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/coderyi/Monkey

<comment><AUTHOR> it is a open source project</comment>


Scientists Aging Faster Than Other Workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/17/science/ranks-of-scientists-aging-faster-than-other-workers.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront <comment><USER2> It's harder than ever for young researchers to get initial grants.

The pay is seriously lagging industry. In many cases, the resources at your disposal are substantially larger in industry as well.

Meanwhile, universities are increasingly run by administrators. Faculty have more service requirements and less autonomy than in the past. Overhead expenses are higher than ever, as well.

Furthermore! Tenured faculty are hard to fire, or even force into retirement. They draw large resources even after they retire in pensions and emeritus status. So open faculty positions are constantly hard to come by.

Last year I made a move to industry, from a research position at a well regarded program. I multiplied my salary by a nice integer, and I had multiple job offers from fortune 500 tech companies and a few of the HFT hedge funds that users are familiar with on this website. I wouldn't have had a shot at a faculty position at anything that I would have considered a tier-1 research organization.

Don't get me wrong, I loved my time in academia and I was very well treated, relatively speaking. But I was absolutely at a point of diminishing returns where I would have floundered around like so many of my incredibly talented and hard working friends who are still postdocs/non-permanent staff at these institutions.

<comment><USER3> >> ...universities are increasingly run by administrators. Faculty have more service requirements and less autonomy than in the past.

I teach one course at a local university. I have near-total academic autonomy but I also have six different bosses, none of which actually teach. A new term just started. I show up at the staff room to learn that I cannot get on the wifi or classroom podiums until I "accept" my latest contract, which has yet to be sent to me. I taught the first class on my laptop wired (hdmi) to the projector and tethered to my phone. Too many people being paid to creating silly rules and pointless systems.

I'm starting a new job in another city next month (government). After explaining to my students that a different prof will cover the last half of the course they couldn't care less about the subject of my lecture. They wanted to hear about how I actually "got a real job". Interview processes and resume writing are more important to them than actual knowledge.

<comment><USER4> > Interview processes and resume writing are more important to them than > actual knowledge.

This should be unsurprising. For many, many jobs, the actual knowledge requirements are dwarfed by the importance placed on interview skills and a polished resume.

<comment><USER5> and likewise, college's role as somewhere to learn stuff is dwarfed by its role as a mandatory credential for employment

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> We need to experiment with different ways of organizing our scientific endeavors.

Between postdocs forced to spin their wheels in the mud (or quit) for untold years, the replication crisis, generally misaligned incentives between doing the best work possible vs. advancing one's career, and of course, funding difficulties, I think it's clear that we aren't anywhere close to making the most of our opportunities to advance human knowledge and understanding.

I'm not saying that we haven't acheived mind blowing things in the past few centuries, or even that we won't continue to do the same in the coming decades. I simply mean we shouldn't avoid the hard, grueling work needed to make progress on some of the obvious problems.

We also shouldn't be afraid to be honest about the failings of current approaches and processes. Although, I suppose in some political climates that may be a little trickier, given the apparent propensity for damaging misinterpretations.

<comment><USER7> The current approach to science is pretty much screwed. In addition to the things you mention, everyone in academic science is silo'd and hyperspecialized, so there is very little cross pollination and new thought in a given domain. As a result, we're getting very good at picking apart the details of established domains, but very bad at coming up with big new hypotheses or different approaches.

I really think industrial R&D is the way to go, we just have to shift grant money there in the form of tax breaks in exchange for open access/patents that permit non-commercial use.

<comment><USER8> All fine, but which industry would fund research in e.g algebraic geometry or black hole physics?

<comment><USER7> Algebraic geometry research doesn't need funding, it just needs some spare time for people who are interested in it. Black hole physics on the theoretical side is much the same. Astronomy on the other hand probably would get short shrift in an industry based science program, since it is expensive and the gain is pretty much entirely intellectual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> When reading the title I interpreted this as being that scientists show signs of old age earlier. (aging faster). Due to stress or whatever it would have been.

Quite the misinterpretation there :-)

<comment><USER10> I almost thought that was a clickbait intention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> What an unfortunately brief article. The reason seems clear to me[+]: there are plenty of science _students_ but not enough entry level "professional" jobs. Hence the long post docs, the multiple post docs, until the poor candidate gives up. Either we need more research labs and universities or we need to age scientists out. I would prefer the former, but who knows?

\+ (but like many beliefs, a study is needed)

<comment><USER12> It is interesting to note two commonly repeated facts about academia, one of which you mention:

1\. It is very difficult to get rid of aging professors with a low output.

2\. It is fairly easy to get postdoc positions (but hard to get a permanent position).

In a way, you can argue that point 2 is a solution for point 1 -- with two postdoc positions (two years each, which is common at least in computer science) and a 4-5 year long PhD, you get 8-9 years of work from a candidate who is in his prime at the start and around say 30-32 years old at the end. After that, if you hired the candidate, you would only risk point 1, so why do that?

(I agree that it's incredibly mean to take 9 best years of a scientist while they work for a small wage, and then throw them away unless they are a genius. I think it's also important to keep in mind that while postdoc researchers face an extremely difficult challenge of getting a permanent position, they likely enjoy their academic work quite a bit. Postdoc/PhD are not exactly a "drain" in the same way a factory job might be.)

</comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash My dad's one of them. He retired a few years ago. The way he puts it, electrical engineering research isn't what it used to be, because all of the "big" discoveries in that field have been made. So aside from a fraction of the researchers it's largely a technician's job.

At the same time, he says that if he had applied to the same school he studied at and worked at for all of his life, there's no way he'd beat the competition these days.

And that's before factoring in the cost of college now. No wonder.

<comment><USER13> > And that's before factoring in the cost of college now.

Which brings us to the next question: can a modern college loan be repaid on typical academia pay?

<comment><USER14> No.

<comment><USER15> Well, grad stoonts and post ducks - not so easily, but profs and union staff do very very well

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Well, at least where I live the problem seems to be one of availability of positions.

Older scientists took all the positions and basically closed the doors to new entrants when it comes to any kind of contract (we work on scholarships), so most of us just changes jobs to industry (which is ratter easy) and don't pursue a scientific career.

Of course now that those older scientists should be retiring, there aren't enough younger scientists to do their work because they pushed so many of them away.

</comment><comment><USER17> Not surprising when you're past 40 before you even get tenure.

</comment><comment><USER18> The compensation vs time/effort required getting a PhD must surely have a lot to do with this. Wasn't the hey day of US science during WW2 and the Cold War, when government funding was much higher?

<comment><USER19> > Wasn't the hey day of US science during WW2 and the Cold War, when > government funding was much higher?

It's not so much about the funding as it is about a common, shared goal. Getting all the indians to shoot their arrows on the same target at the same time is quite powerful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> From the title I thought that I was going to read about why grad school turned me gray. =_=

<comment><USER21> Oh, it's not just me then?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _" The real question, she said: "Can you attract the future stars into this line of work?""_

Yes, but perhaps only the _next_ , and not this, generation of future stars, after supply and demand forces have worked themselves out.

</comment><comment><USER23> its bc these professors are tenured and get grants well into their 60s and 70s partly bc they are brilliant, and partly because they are well connected. peer review is in favor of its peers.

</comment><comment><USER24> Related: [https://priceonomics.com/why-nobel-winning-scientists-are- ge...](https://priceonomics.com/why-nobel-winning-scientists-are-getting- older/)

</comment><comment><USER25> I aspire to be a self-funded "gentleman scientist".

</comment><comment><USER26> Lack of sleep and publishing pressures probably play aml major role.

<comment><USER27> Title is confusing. The individuals themselves aren't aging faster, the median age of people is going up faster than for other fields.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Misleading title</comment>