Our business idea based on the CSS history hack: a new way to monetize web assets. - jjfarren- http://wozad.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> This hack can only tell you what sites a user has visited out of a list of sites you specify. A general ad platform based on this hack would presumably have a list of sites to query against, acting as a litmus test for determining a user's interests and socioeconomic status. I would argue that such a list would be difficult to compose (javascript/JSON size vs. generality vs. granularity) and no better than the cookie / flash cookie / geo IP lookup technologies currently being employed by doubleclick and others. Such a list would necessarily have to target sites in the top 500 whereas networks like doubleclick can mine niche sites that may serve as better indicators of a user's true behavioral profile.

<comment><USER2> It's not necessarily quite that bad. The list can be made modular.

One option would be to start of with a list of the top 500 sites and then determine from that information what demographic the user fits it. Then you could load a list of sites pertaining to that demographic and further narrow down the user's behavior.

Also, if you're talking about ads on a certain site, the publisher can make a list of the sites in their niche and then you could load that list and move on from there.

All in all, this has some very interesting potential. The question is, why hasn't Google done it already?

<comment><USER3> They have. I'm pretty sure Doubleclick does this. Without the CSS hack though(using the cookie method).

The CSS hack is only worthwhile if you don't have the kind of data sources that the big guys have. If this technique actually made money, you would probably want to sign up for something like Lookery or RightMedia because they'd get you better results.

<comment> jjfarren- If you read carefully on our website you will learn about the limitations of cookie based methods.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think someday that hack will be closed in the browser as a privacy violation, so I would be hesitant to build a business based on it.

<comment><USER5> but hang on, before you get all up in arms about privacy and rights, this is a possible google adsense / adwords killer and there is going to blood shed before privacy gets in the way of profits.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, because no way could Google have figured out how to do this.

<comment><USER7> Google should really also integrate this hack into google analytics -- that way they can give rough estimates of where else your traffic is surfing.

<comment><USER6> I believe there's something in Google's S-1 filing that might technically prohibit them from doing this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is the second post I've seen from wozad.com where clicking on the headline simply leads to their top-level site (where they try to sell you their service). Smells like spam to me.

<comment> jjfarren- Well, the first post title wasn't clear, it has been ignored. I decided to post again because i do think that the matter is at least "interesting".

<comment><USER9> Smells like spam. Tastes like spam. It is spam!

Your logic is self-serving, don't you think? You have no history of contributing to HN discussion besides posting your company link twice. A post title has little to do with the quality of content on the other side. I think people ignored it for a reason. Not to mention, how is this that much different from Schill's random hack back in 2006?

<http://www.schillmania.com/random/humour/web20awareness/>

<comment> jjfarren- Yes you are right,i should not have linked the post to the main page, this might look a bit rude.Anyway i do think that this application has some kind of value to share. And as i already commented the feedback of this community is very important for us. Finally our methodology is much more extended from the "random hack" you talk about, that random hack is something coded in one evening just to give a proof-of-concept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why aren't people going to chase you out of the market with pitchforks and torches? This is a severe privacy violation.

</comment><comment><USER10> If you want to use the CSS History hack - here is something to get you started: <http://pastie.org/343984>

<comment> jjfarren- I think you did not understand that much..

<comment><USER6> You really do have a knack for endearing yourself to this audience, don't you?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd say find a way to get in front of more mainstream publishers, not hackers, this is pretty obviously not your audience.

<comment> jjfarren- well, everybody here misunderstood the meaning of this post. It wasn't get instant userbase, but instead get the feedback of hacker news community. This is partly achieved and i say thanks to everybody who partecipated in this discussion.

<comment><USER12> Here is feedback: it's a scary privacy hole. Having a company trying to exploit this to make money will only hasten its closure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like a good idea. But it doesn't work if they have css turned off.

<comment><USER11> Who the fark browses the web with CSS off?

<comment> jjfarren- i think he/she meant javascript not CSS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> note about your site: turn off JS and it has your logo and your footer, nothing else.</comment>


Ask HN: Review our appointment scheduling app, OpenCal.com - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
Our small team (2 designers, 1 dev) have been in a thought bubble for the past 1.5 years. Looking for some outside perspective on our recently launched, bootstrapped online appointment scheduling app:
http://opencal.com/
Basically it's like OpenTable for businesses that sell their time.
There's a free plan you can test out. Any marketing tips or feedback would be appreciated! <comment><USER2> First thing: get a real SSL cert. One that's not for the Xbox marketplace. You don't want browser security warnings scaring off potential customers at the signup stage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Stanley - The setup steps show as secure with no warning in the latest versions of Chrome, FireFox, Safari, IE on both PC and Mac on my side, which platform are you seeing the warning in?

<comment><USER2> Chrome definitely complains as well. It puts up the red skull and crossbones and crosses out the https in the address bar. It doesn't pop up anything though.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think you may have visited a page that's not intended for https via https, then went to the https page and the domain is flagged in Chrome for the session. This is a known issue with Chrome. It wouldn't occur for most users... try clearing your sessions or reopening chrome and browsing the site regularly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Clickable: <http://opencal.com/></comment>


Ask HN: Modern "adventure game" worth playing? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Recent favorites:

\- Kentucky Route Zero ([http://kentuckyroutezero.com](http://kentuckyroutezero.com))

\- Sword and Sworcery ([http://www.swordandsworcery.com](http://www.swordandsworcery.com))

\- Machinarium ([http://machinarium.net/demo/](http://machinarium.net/demo/))

\- Botanicula ([http://botanicula.net](http://botanicula.net))

\- Psychonauts ([http://www.psychonauts.com](http://www.psychonauts.com))

List of good adventure games... [http://www.gog.com/games/adventure##sort=bestselling&page=1](http://www.gog.com/games/adventure##sort=bestselling&page=1)

</comment><comment><USER3> Not really "modern", but the remade Broken Sword 1/2 on android have been really entertaining and fun (but a little short and abrupt in the endings), and Broken Sword 5 (the new one) is not bad too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Try this

[http://www.gamestop.com/ps-vita/games/hyperdimension- neptuni...](http://www.gamestop.com/ps-vita/games/hyperdimension-neptunia- rebirth1/114988)

</comment><comment><USER5> Broken Age

Dreamfall Chapters (Grab The Longest Journey and [first] Dreamfall on GOG.com)

Almost all of Telltale Games' catalog

</comment><comment><USER6> Haven't played it myself yet, but heard great things about the Walking Dead game being a largely point-and-click puzzle-solving game that might be what you're looking for: [https://www.telltalegames.com/walkingdead/](https://www.telltalegames.com/walkingdead/)

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm currently playing through Pokemon SoulSilver, which is a remake of Pokemon Silver. IMO it's the best Pokemon (though I've not played X&Y).

</comment><comment><USER8> Wolf among us by telltale is awesome although pretty short.

</comment><comment><USER9> The wolf among us is fantastic!

</comment><comment><USER10> Skyrim. Many adventures to be had.</comment>


Jan 29: Heavybit's DevGuild: Developer Evangelist Event in SF - <AUTHOR> http://devguild.heavybit.com

<comment><USER2> This is an unconference that's targeted toward dev evangelists and dev community builders. If you're in the SF Bay Area, it's on Jan 29th starting at 1PM @ HeavyBit (9th & Folsom). If your company has a developer program, please share this event info with that team. It's basically free.. $15 and all proceeds to go charity.</comment>


How Todd Garland Bootstrapped an Advertising Empire While Working a 9-5 Job - <AUTHOR> http://thestartupfoundry.com/2011/03/08/how-todd-garland-bootstrapped-an-advertising-empire-while-working-a-9-5-job/

<comment><USER2> I wish when sites throw up a video interview, they would provide a transcript of the conversation. Particularly with interviews, I find video to be particularly inefficient - I can't quickly scan through to find out if there is anything of value to me, I can read through a transcript much faster than watching a video, I can't search, it's particularly annoying at work where they throttle the connection and often I'm in an environment where I don't have headphones nor is it appropriate to have the speakers on. And if I do have audio on, then in conflicts with whatever music I have playing.

Whilst I'll bookmark this video and hopefully get to watch it tonight when I get home, I can't imagine I'm on the only one who feels this way about video interviews and I wonder how many visitors disengage with content when videos are used.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a good point. Once I have a little more ad revenue coming in, I've considered hiring someone to do transcripts. Thanks for your feedback.

<comment><USER3> Even a partial transcript would be better to elucidate folks with the video content/tone. I am in the same boat as tobtoh. I usually never watch videos but will read (or reject) a 15 page article quickly.

<comment><USER4> I'll send a 15 page article to the Kindle and read it on the train, there is no similar feature and even if there was I'm not sure I'd take advantage of it. I'm not a huge video fan to be truthful. I'm too ADD for it I think, I can listen to music and read at the same time, with video I find myself listening to the video and reading something else at the same time. Doesn't work so well when it's an interview though. Apparently I learn better via reading rather than listening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wish he'd spoken a little more about the bootstrapping process other than that he's glad his wife's a deep sleeper.

</comment><comment><USER6> How he says he did it:

* "Get your shit together" * Work hard * Keep moving forward</comment>


New Yelp academic dataset and challenge for students - <AUTHOR> http://www.yelp.com/dataset_challenge

<comment><USER2> Would have loved to have had this during my thesis!

...plus the 18% boost in salary, for just being a grad student.</comment>


Ask HN: When should you make a business plan? - throw-away

A lot is changing around in the start up world.  Whats the deal with business plans?  Are those things still made?  Just before boot strapping or before your first angel approach or before vc?  What do you put in a business plan?  Do we still go by those decades old templates vc firms used to love?
I am in India.  I was talking with my first potential angel and he was quite surprised I didn't have a business plan already in place.  The whole idea of sitting down and putting all kinds of arbitrary anchors in my mind around pricing, growth rate, future revenue and all that feels a bit... premature.  I  feel like my first beta would be a much more appropriate place to do this.  In fact, it feels wrong.  It feels like I am being asked to be dishonest.
I will make up something.  Seeing this idea come alive is so much more important.  But I was wondering how is it over there at the valley.   When did you all put down your business plans?  What has your experience with them been? <comment><AUTHOR> Business plans can be extremely useful, or not useful at all, depending on how you use them.

The biggest questions they should answer are: "What are we doing, how will we make money from it, and how much money will we make?"

(It should also answer the question of "What do we do if everything fails?").

I found Guy Kawasaki's ten-part outline ( [http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_zen_of_busi.html#axz...](http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2006/01/the_zen_of_busi.html#axzz0ykt2Y2c3) ) to be pretty reasonable. I followed it for both of the business plans I wrote (freelancing), which both achieved their purpose, and will follow it again for future business plans I write.

Depending on who your potential angel(s) is/are, you may have to be more "optimistic" than you would for others, as far as your financial projections go.

That said, the real purpose of the business plan is to give potential investors some solid numbers such that they can decide the odds of them getting their investment back, and also to force you to sit down and clarify your plans so that you don't get sidetracked with nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm not in the valley, but Steve Blank is, and he suggests "business models" instead of business plans. They are a set of questions that your business needs to find answers to as it goes along: [http://steveblank.com/2010/05/17/no-one-wins-in-business- pla...](http://steveblank.com/2010/05/17/no-one-wins-in-business-plan- competitions/)

also, _plans are useless but planning is invaluable_ ; that helps with actual success, not so sure about getting funded.

</comment><comment><USER3> Having studied entrepreneurship as a master-degree, I learned that business- plans are important for the entrepreneur to verbalise what he is doing. If he can't do that in a plan, can he do it to outsiders, specifically his customers? However, running a startup for a year now, I find the act of writing a business-plan always comes second after doing what needs to be done to keep the business alive. Still, writing offers some reprieve from the day- to-day stress and I'm much better versed than my co-workers on the grander vision and how to get there.

Will a business-plan get you funded? It did in our case, from a governmental institution, but all the _real_ investors I met preferred two things: a working product ready to launch and a clear financial overview of the potential return on their investment.

<comment><USER4> A new startup should write a business plan. If nothing else you familiarize with writing about your ideas and products on paper. With that you make a clearer vision of where you are headed and what you want to do. I believe you are thinking about everything everyday and all the time, but if you have to explain it to someone, it can be easily done with a business plan. It also shows you have read through most of the 10 points that potential investors are looking for, so you did your homework.

No one is saying that you should make an ultimate one, its a practice to refine it on a monthly, or semi monthly basis, depending on the pace of your development.

And also a product by itself is great to show around, but the numbers in business plan can also convince a lot of maybe not potential users, but business partners and investors.

I vote for writing it just so you put all your thoughts and plans on paper and doing iterations forward from there, I believe it's useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A business plan is an exercise to both familiarize yourself with your market and explore your vision. It helps ensure that what you are doing is grounded in reality and provides you with a well thought out initial trajectory. It is not set in stone and is something you use as a loose guide to direct your company. You can and will carefully pivot based on ongoing analysis of the dynamics of the situation in the trenches. Although it is of more benefit to you and your company than to anyone else, it certainly helps show that you are on top of your game.

<comment> throw-away To be honest, I am not at the top of my game in that sense and no one should expect me to be at this stage. Enough data doesn't exist to make good guesses now. Generating it is exactly why I am approaching an angel and trying to get to demo and beta.

<comment><AUTHOR> Then figure out, in terms of expenses and whatnot, what you'll need to get to demo and beta and beyond (should this prove feasible).

From there, it gets trickier, but if you've built a good product that relieves some need without causing too much additional pain, you'll (possibly/probably) be fine.

Shouldn't data exist in the form of direct competitors? If there aren't any, then does this market exist? (It's entirely possible that it does, and no one but you sees it yet).

Data should also exist in the form of knowing roughly how many people could benefit from your product (and who might consider it a step up). If you're basing this on a market need, then that population should be at least a somewhat knowable quantity.

<comment> throw-away Oh, I was expecting a more general discussion about business plans so I didn't put in too many details. I have talked to quite a few customers during our customer dev and some of them really like the idea. They think this innovation will increase their revenue but no one is sure by how much (and there is of course the risk that we are all wrong about it or the idea needs pivoting before it does that). It also involves a little bit of hardware so I need about the amount of money an average yc company gets from yc to get to the demo from here. I can do some other somewhat related projects to slowly raise that money but that is just wasting time. Ideally I should just get on it and get the demo out and deployed. Once we see what effect if at all it has on our customer's sales and how much it cost us to get that, we can iterate, price, figure out the revenue and generally write a business plan we could honour.

So, basically my angel's roi is not clear and a convertible note with a reasonable discount sounds ideal but the system here is the system and I don't want to waste time fighting it. I will put in a business plan to get talking to the right guys and then try and convince the right angel to ignore it and do a convertible note and hopefully all will be well in the world again. This will have the unfortunate side effect of polluting my mind with fake figures and expectations which I wish I could avoid but that's just part of the game at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> At the risk of sounding incredibly patronising... re: "I will make up something." If this means you'll hack together some kind of bullsh_t business plan just to keep people happy, I'd be _very_ careful who I actually showed it to. They'll be taking that plan as what your genuine intentions, expectations and forecasts are, which may well not match the reality of what you are actually doing. If money's at all linked to a BS business plan, you're in for a world of hurt.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think a business plan is required almost immediately. It's just the size that differentiates. If it's for yourself, a single page or paragraph can do. It just helps founders focus on what they're trying to do. For me personally, it helps. If your looking for funding, then of coarse a larger business plan will be needed. I really think it just depends on the person or the situation. But like I said for me personally, I like to map my ideas on paper and have it easily read by others.

</comment><comment><USER8> A startup founder in San Francisco told me that if an early stage investor needs a business plan, it's a really lame investor.

</comment><comment> Asa-Nisse When you're in business class.

</comment><comment><USER9> It should be re-named Customer Plan!

Imagine yourself in a room full of potential customers. Describe the product to them and why they may need it making sure to anticipate their questions before they are asked , etc.

That is the first part. The second part is imagine the same room full of investors. Now expand the first part by describing how the business model to bring it into the world works.

Do not think of it was along plan made by some 500 fortune company. Think of it as a conversation about how your business works and will work.

The hardest part will be the model if there are very few competitors or no competitors. Its not a daunting challenge but a chance for you to take control and write the story.</comment>


Bill Gates Reads by Writing (In the Margins) - <AUTHOR> https://getpolarized.io/2020/01/19/Bill-Gates-Reads-By-Writing-In-The-Margins.html <comment><USER2> Notice: this is an ad for Polar.

<comment><USER3> this dude (burtonator) has been hawking this weird service for years on hn. I don't understand why his (and other tbh) content marketing makes it to the front page.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Managed bare-metal hosting recommendation - <AUTHOR> Looking for recommendations for bare-metal hosting providers in the USA. We're currently on the EC2, but the cost is becoming prohibitive and we're also not really using any of the benefits of cloud (elasticity etc.). We're not ready to buy/manage own hardware yet.<p>Who would you recommend? <comment><USER2> If you were UK I'd plug Bytemark - they provide bare-metal servers where they look after the hardware, you look after the OS/software ([https://www.bytemark.co.uk/hosting/dedicated/](https://www.bytemark.co.uk/hosting/dedicated/))

I've been a customer of Bytemark for 10+ years now with different products over time, and I'm continually impressed with the service (and what they give back to the community) time after time

</comment><comment><USER3> I currently have 6 bare-metal boxes on SoftLayer and 4 managed boxes with Rackspace. I think both are great but both have their pros and cons. You're mainly looking at a cost vs support trade-off.

COST

My 6 SoftLayer servers cost half of my 4 RS servers. So SoftLayer wins on cost. Also, Rackspace prefers contracts so keep that in mind. Don't be afraid to negotiate with them either.

SUPPORT

Rackspace on the other hand, excels with regards to support. You can call Rackspace at any time if you have an issue. They also seem to be more proactive with monitoring and preventative stuff (they will call you and say "Hey, this thing was failing so I fixed it"), whereas SoftLayer's monitoring is robotic and they don't do anything unless you file a ticket. RS also provides managed backup and it's been great for us (keep in mind we do traditional hosting, not a multi-tenant app).

I've only had one major incident with SoftLayer (swapping out a RAID controller went bad and resulted in 6ish hours of downtime). No major incidents with Rackspace. So, Rackspace wins on support.

OTHER

Both have multiple data centers and performance seems great (though I don't have actual benchmarks to prove that). Most of our servers are in Dallas.

One thing I like about SoftLayer is you can get things up faster. A new server is setup real quick (within hour(s)) whereas Rackspace can take a couple days.

SWAG

I have 2 Rackspace t-shirts and 2 SoftLayer t-shirts. So, that's a toss up :)

</comment><comment><USER4> I track a bunch of data on many of the providers mentioned here if you're still unsure.

[http://reviewsignal.com/webhosting/compare](http://reviewsignal.com/webhosting/compare)

There's data on LiquidWeb, SoftLayer, RackSpace, Linode and many more.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been using a dedicated server from liquidweb for about 3 years to serve several high traffic Web sites at work. The only problems I've ever had with it are ones I've caused. You can pretty much get any level of 'managed' that you want, which is nice. They are not a 'cheap' host though. My server is about $230 a month. But it's worth every penny, and more.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have had great experience with LiquidWeb. They offer fully managed dedicated / cloud / vps servers. They will even manage all software stack for you. They will even do things like "install Nginx with php-fpm and optimize mysql". If there is any problem, they will usually fix it before you notice it.

They usually post specials on WebHostingTalk deals forum.

</comment><comment><USER7> Softlayer.

[http://www.softlayer.com/bare-metal-servers](http://www.softlayer.com/bare- metal-servers)

They are the most used hosting service behind EC2/PaaS/Linode for startups.

It's not managed, but neither was EC2. You order servers, they build and put them online, then you are given the IP and root password and the rest is up to you.

</comment><comment><USER8> Do you want your own rented hardware and not just virtual machines?

I'd recommend looking into data-centres then.

I'm not sure what you mean by "managed" though. "Managed" (to me) normally means that they take care of the SysAdmin stuff for you.

As far as up-time and making sure the hardware works, that should be included in your rental price.

</comment><comment><USER9> Rackspace OnMetal? [http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/servers/onmetal/](http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/servers/onmetal/) I remember reading some not-so-nice things about Rackspace downtime recently though.

</comment><comment><USER10> HN runs on SoftLayer and I've been happy with them so far.

</comment><comment><USER11> EC2 becomes more competitive when you do reserved instances. You're mostly paying for redundancy, which is something you lose with bare metal servers.

</comment><comment><USER12> I would recommend checking out the marketplace section of WebHostingTalk [1]. You can find good deals and user reviews.

[1] www.webhostingtalk.com</comment>


Can you use a library from ajax.googleapis.com without an API key? - <AUTHOR>

Does anybody know if it's OK with Google's TOS to simply include, for instance, <script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.4.2/jquery.js">... without an API key? It's clear that you need one in order to invoke google.load("jquery", "1.4.2"), but Google may expect you to have it in any case. Thanks! <comment><USER2> I haven't read the TOS, but considering how publicly accessible they make those libraries, I can't imagine they'd have a problem with you using them. I know a number of tutorials and web apps use it just like you noted. I mean, read the TOS when you have time, but in the meantime, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. Part of their value is that the more people that use them, the more often the code is cached, and the faster the web is for everybody.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the answers. Out of curiosity, what is your standard practice? The direct-path, keyless approach, or the google.load approach based on an API key?

</comment><comment><USER3> No, you do NOT need an API key to use their AJAX CDN.</comment>


Check out the background CSS trick on this blog's posts - <AUTHOR> http://jarredbishop.tumblr.com/ <comment><USER2> He's using the background-attachment property:

<http://www.w3schools.com/Css/pr_background-attachment.asp>

Using it in a div like that is a fairly spiffy effect.

</comment><comment><USER3> My personal opinion is that I don't like it. I just dislike having things move when I don't expect them to -unless they are amusing me. But in this blog post, imho, it is subtracting from everything else rather than adding a pleasing design effect.

<comment><USER4> This amuses me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I first saw this done on the CSS Zen Garden a number of years back. Its still live here: [http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://www.timpelen.com...](http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://www.timpelen.com/extra/zen/zengarden.css)

</comment><comment><USER6> Up voted for creative design, and pics of the dentist-kid in the car freaking out in the last div.

Anyone seen practical application of this, or is it mostly for funzies?

<comment><USER7> I've seen it used for an effect where it looks like you are raising and lowering a flag on a pole as you scroll up and down.

<comment><USER8> Would you happen to have the URL for that?

<comment><USER7> Sorry no, it was an eBay auction of all things. But I don't remember what for.

When you scrolled the ebay page it had that affect, but it was not in the entire page, just in the description area of it.

Basically you attach the flag to the background (fixed).

Then the pole moves normally as the page moves. Use z-index and move the flag on top of the pole, and it's quite a cool effect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I read about it here: <http://www.unmatchedstyle.com/gallery/jarred- bishop.php>

</comment><comment><USER9> I have NoScript enabled and see nothing spectacular. This is probably more of a JS trick than a CSS one.

<comment><USER10> What is the motivation of NoScript in this day and age? You miss so much neat stuff now without out it.

<comment><USER11> So you can go on web forums and say "Well I really don't see it so you must be cheating with some JS stuff...".</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Zilinga.com – to help find balance in life - <AUTHOR> http://www.zilinga.com <comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to get your feedback on this - a little side project I've been working on.</comment>


Comcast taking action against Comcastroturf.com for trademark infringement - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6cvg82/comcast_is_trying_to_censor_our_pronet_neutrality/ <comment><USER2> Did I miss the thread where we are gonna discuss the actual issue addressed by Comcastroturf, that someone (maybe not Comcast, I'll concede) is spamming a gazillion comments using actual peoples' names and they are totally not legitimate?

I am not on the list, but I looked up 7 members of my family and four of them are, several of them showing up more than once. Including my 3-year-old nephew, who I am sure is very smart but definitely did not submit comments to the FCC in support of repealing Net Neutrality. (And if he did, he would not use wording identical to hundreds of thousands of other commenters. /totallynotrobots/)

Maybe there's nothing actually novel or surprising to discuss in it there, but I feel like covering the issue this way is absolutely burying the lede a bit.

<comment><USER3> Did you check the address on the comment to make sure it was the same person? Because I don't see how Comcast would even have the name of a 3-year-old.

<comment><USER2> None of the addresses matched at all, at least for my family members.

His parents post to Facebook, I don't know if that's the connection, but my nephew's name is definitely out there on the Internet, so I searched for him and saw two identical posts in his name from different states.

(It's probably a common name and I would concede there, but the comments match the regex formula[1] that's in the Reddit thread exactly, they are definitely not legitimate comments.)

[1]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6cvg82/comcast_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6cvg82/comcast_is_trying_to_censor_our_pronet_neutrality/dhxyjwg/)

Have you found one that matches exactly both name and address? Because I haven't found any, but I'm still convinced that something is rotten here in Denmark. (All of these family members never were Comcast customers or lived in Comcast service areas, so like I said, I'm not at all convinced this is some kind of Comcast data breach. Just that some kind of massive fraud is being perpetrated, by someone in favor of repealing NN.)

I heard a few people say that they found exact matches for names and addresses, but I haven't seen anyone say for sure that they simultaneously matched a real person's name with an address that they actually occupied. I don't think they're doing that.

I did see a comment from someone who looked up their town, found a lot of names they recognized, tried matching them to any county records and came up empty (eg. nobody by that name submitting those comments paid property taxes at the address.)

<comment><USER3> According to [http://kdvr.com/2017/05/14/7000-coloradans-names- addresses-u...](http://kdvr.com/2017/05/14/7000-coloradans-names-addresses- used-to-post-fake-comments-about-government-decision/) the addresses seemed to be real. Also I thought the comments were appearing to come from Comcast subscribers, but according to [http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc- filings.html](http://jeffreyfossett.com/2017/05/13/fcc-filings.html) it's coming from data breaches instead.

<comment><USER2> That's interesting. Thank you.

As a counter-example to the Comcast breach angle, I am a Comcast subscriber and my name was not used. But my wife's maiden name is more common and it was used, more than once. (I have a very un-common name and it was unlikely to be on the breach list unless it was a genuine match.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They should respond like slutsofinstagram.com did (slutsof in stagram) which was a children's story. I don't understand what Comcast is so mad about:

        Com C AstroTurf

Clearly Communications Companies Astroturfing was too long for a domain. so they shortened it to ComCAstroturf. What's the issue?

<comment><USER5> The claim of slutsofinstagram.com that it is just a coincidence is bolstered by the fact that the site's content does not mention Instagram and what the site purports to be about has no connection to Instagram. If Instagram did not exist, slutsofinstagram.com could still make sense.

Comcastastroturf.com's content is about the industry Comcast is in, and actually explicitly mentions Comcast. That makes a slutsofinstagram excuse much harder.

<comment><USER4> Comcast is a portmanteau of communication and broadcast. So:

> Comcastastroturf.com's content is about the industry Comcast is in

So yes "communications broadcast Corp" would be mentioned in a site about communication broadcasting corporations BUT to assume that just because they are the most user-hostile, anti-competitive and vile of the ComC's doesn't give them some sort of claim over Communication Companies Astroturfing. It's just a portmanteau of the above 3 words; only 1 of which is found in that other company ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Referencing for the sake of Criticism (e.g. Societal Benefit) is robustly protected by the First Amendment and Fair Use Doctrine, which, unless the Courts totally fuck it up (it's possible), should be above the basic Trademark protections.

This situation is basically Monster Cables vs. Blue Jean cables, but without a snarky, go-fuck-yourself response (yet).

[http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/](http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Only tangentially related, but some of you may be amused to learn that one legal standard for whether something infringes a trademark is the "Moron in a hurry" test: meaning, would a moron in a hurry confuse the thing at question with the thing claiming infringement?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry)

</comment><comment><USER8> Why all the hate for Comcast?

They "... continue to strongly support a free and Open Internet and the preservation of modern, strong, and legally enforceable net neutrality protections."

[http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast- statemen...](http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-statement- supporting-a-free-and-open-internet)

/s

<comment><USER9> Due to the obvious disjoint between what they say and what they do.

<comment><USER10> /s is the tag for sarcasm ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is net neutrality important again? Is anyone ready to respond with a defense of Comcast's monopoly on high speed ISP service? (edit: in many cities and locations)

/snark

<comment><USER12> I don't see how net neutrality regulations will stop trademark and copyright abuses, which is the case here. Now if Comcast were found to be _hijacking_ or _blocking_ the site in question, that's a net neutrality issue (as well as a likely civil issue in a US court).

<comment><USER13> But there is no trademark or copyright abuse here. The domain and website in question - comcastroturf - is protected under fair use. It's not impersonating Comcast in any way.

The concern is that if they're willing to be aggressive jerks in a situation like this, why make it easier for them to actually hijack or block the site? Of course, net neutrality is about much more than that, but that's how I understood the direct tie-in here.

<comment><USER14> The claim that the domain infringes the trademark can be considered abuse of trademark law.

<comment><USER3> Trademark fair use is narrower than copyright fair use, but this does seem to qualify. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_\(U.S._trademark_law\))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I mean, who can really say this isn't a clear-cut trademark issue? They're using Comcast in their URL. Any sane company would try to fight having their name associated with this debacle. If I registered "nytimeslies.com" and it got as much publicity as this site has, do you really think they'd sit idly by and let their brand be trashed by some idiot on the internet who has no proof that NYTimes actually, you know, lies?

Can somebody please explain why I'm wrong above, and Comcast is actually bulling the poor little guy throwing around baseless accusations? To be fair, I hate Comcast (and support Title II); but I also don't believe in defending crap like this just because it's targeted at a company I don't like.

<comment><USER16> There is no protection in the trademark law against people using your trademark to refer to you. Referring to you is the point of the trademark in the first place.

This is a clear-cut trademark issue, but it's clear that Comcast is wrong. Registering and publishing at nytimeslies.com without evidence that the New York Times actually lies could be a libel issue, but it can't be a trademark one.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use)

<comment><USER17> Exactly. Nobody is going to be confused and think comcastroturf is Comcast's website or a website that Comcast registered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That seems like more a trademark issue than the issue itself. I think they have to sue you to defend a trademark, and their lawyers are just overly conservative. So I don't really blame them for this, though they probably won't take it all the way to court and fight hard.

The company that sent the notice looks like they have some shell scripts running in cron that send out scary notices whenever they see a domain that matches a regex for a client that pays them money:

[https://www.lookingglasscyber.com/products/machine- readable-...](https://www.lookingglasscyber.com/products/machine-readable- threat-intelligence/new-domain-data-feed/)

<comment><USER19> Techdirt also has this story: [https://tdrt.io/gej](https://tdrt.io/gej)

Re: "have to sue you defend a trademark"

The bully will simply state the oft-repeated excuse that they must bully according to trademark law, which isn't remotely the case.

[https://tdrt.io/g8w](https://tdrt.io/g8w)

It's the same excuse we see time and time again and it's almost always false.

[https://tdrt.io/fZ5](https://tdrt.io/fZ5)

<comment><USER18> Your 2nd Techdirt article only provides evidence for my point: The brewery paid some firm to run a regex and file automated lawsuits, but didn't actually care about suing them at all. Comcast could be in exactly the same position.

Whether they're right or wrong about that doesn't matter: The topic isn't reforming trademark law, people are trying to hint that Comcast are specifically targeting this one domain to shut down the bad PR.

<comment><USER20> Do you think baseless legal threats are okay, as long as they're automated?

<comment><USER18> No.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why I Am Creating TCombinator - <AUTHOR> http://tcombinator.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-i-am-personally-creating.html <comment><USER2> I, erm, appreciate your attitude.

That said, what is so special about you folks? Business-wise, I mean?

I don't care if my website is hosted by queer folks. I don't care if my payments are processed by dwarves. I don't even care if my favorite news sites are generated by python scripts.

I care that they work, I care that they help me do my thing, and I care that they're cheaper for the value they provide than competitors.

Why do you believe that transpeople need to focus on anything other than being the best at what they do (and that is running a business, hacking code, design or engineering--not being transpeople)?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, going to have to agree here. Right now, you seem focused on accentuating the differences between "us" and "them" in an area where it doesn't matter at all. You should be pushing towards an ideal world where things like LGBT pride parades aren't necessary because the differences are inconsequential.

EDIT: It isn't to say there is exists no discrimination, but if you're running an e-business, the question of sexuality or gender identity does not come into play whatsoever, nor should it ever. I'm not sure how someone would be able to find out either of these to even discriminate against you unless you took the time to specifically advertise them. How you choose to invest the money you make as a business person (e.g. help other transfolk) is purely a personal concern.

<comment><USER4> think of it as affirmative action for transgendered people. this cartoon explains the need for affirmative action more tellingly than i could: [http://www.biculturalmom.com/2012/02/10/white-privilege- anti...](http://www.biculturalmom.com/2012/02/10/white-privilege-anti-racism- in-the-funnies/#axzz1sQzEd8QA)

<comment><USER2> First, I'm pretty sure that comparing the plight of the differently-gendered to that of slaves is somewhat absurd.

Second, your comic is open to interpretation:

In the first panel, the white and black are at the same level, with the black enchained. In the last panel, the white is up one level and the black is free.

So, clearly, the sum situation has improved for both parties. Where's the problem?

<comment><USER4> why is it absurd? it's comparing the plight of the transgendered to the plight of racial minorities; the whole point of affirmative action is to provide a helping hand to groups that face ubiquitous and often invisible-to-the- majority difficulties, to level their personal playing fields a bit.

as for the comic, the point of it is that inheriting a situation where, thanks to historical swings, things are easy for your demographic, and then complaining that more disadvantaged groups are asking for a hand when you made it on your own, is both wrongheaded and sadly common.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you're "on the brink" of "suicide, homelessness, and starvation", you're not ready to do a startup and there are a thousand things you need more than you need seed investment. This is absurd.

<comment><USER6> This is the most important comment in this thread here. It's not possible to start up a successful company when you're also on the brink of suicide, malnourished, and you're having deep internal conflict. Your startup is going to push those things on you by itself and adding to your personal conflicts and problems is asking for trouble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Politically incorrect rant here; brace yourself.

Put simply, I have a hard time taking TG issues as seriously as I take gay rights, which I support unilaterally. There is a long history of homosexual behavior both in humans and in nature. But the idea of altering sexuality with surgery is extremely recent, and I am unaware of any precedent in nature (feel free to correct me).

Now, bear in mind that I support anybody's choice to do just about anything to themselves. If you want to give yourself a face tattoo, attach a shark fin to your back, or give yourself fake breasts, knock yourself out. And I don't think such individuals should be judged or persecuted, to the extent that's possible.

At the same time, the TG community needs to understand that people _will_ judge you, not because they're prejudiced, but because judging is something that humans do in general. If someone laughs at you behind your back for a bad haircut or an outfit that clashes, it may be impolite and mean, but it's not out of hate. If you look ridiculous, whether it's for 50 piercings, or heavy makeup combined with an Adam's Apple, people are going to see you differently, period. And maybe I've received a bad sampling, but I can't ever recall encountering a TG person who did not look ridiculous to me. If that's my flaw, then I'll accept that. I still treated those persons with the same dignity I would give someone with a bad haircut.

I am sensitive to those who feel they were born with the wrong body, and absolutely believe that some people inherited a genuine genetic flaw with which they must cope. Even if the gender conflict is psychological, it is a person's right to deal with that how they choose. I understand what it's like to feel like a freak. (I'm still waiting on the possibility of species reassignment surgery...)

But be realistic. If you're going to switch to another gender, and you can't make it work so well that no one can tell the difference (ie, Carmen from It's Always Sunny), people are going to look at you weird. Everyone has their cross to bear, and if you are a TG person, this is yours.

<comment><USER2> _"But the idea of altering human sexuality with surgery is extremely recent, and I am unaware of any precedent in nature (feel free to correct me)."_

Eunuchs have been around for quite some time.

<comment><USER3> Well, if we're going to be technical, you don't alter sexuality (mindset) with surgery, you alter sexual organs. And that wasn't so much a change in sexuality as a change in ability to reproduce. :X Also, "surgery in a nature" seems like a bit hard a precedent for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Isn't Y Combinator already the Y Combinator for transgendered people? I can't see it affecting an interview or acceptance -- the bathrooms at YC don't even have gender assignment on the door.

<comment><USER5> My best guess is that, in the mind of this person, her transgender status, rather than the obvious inconsistency and absurdity of her business idea and whatever other red flags she managed to work into her YC application, is what caused YC to reject her.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, I really think this person would be better off moving to the bay area (which seems to be the plan) and getting a job at a reasonable tech company (where no one cares either way about your sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., except to the extent that you want to get the best candidates to apply/accept, and thus don't want to exclude pools of people intentionally or unintentionally), vs. trying to start an incubator (without money, without any experience or special skills, and in a saturated market...).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> >I'm doing this to save the lives of transgender people on the brink. Those at risk of suicide, homelessness, and starvation.

Those are all risks of joining a startup, not reasons to start one.

</comment><comment><USER10> You won't be taken seriously unless you can demonstrate your technical\business chops. If you fancy yourself a Steve Jobs then show the world something worthwhile. Build something that is impressive on its own merit and you will inspire your peers to do great things as well.

</comment><comment><USER11> What's a T combinator? Y combinator, i assume, was named after the Y fixed point combinator, but I don't recall a combinator named T ...

<comment><USER2> It's like a Y combinator, but straighter?

EDIT: Because, you see, if you straighten out the arms of the Y, it turns into a T. Nevermind. It was a dumb joke.

The serious answer is because it's a Trans-friendly YCombinator. I think.

<comment><USER11> I figured that T stood for trans, but I subconsciously hoped that it was a real thing ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm as ignorant as can be about transgender-ism and even homosexuality, but I wanted to reach out to say it makes me sad that someone would want to physically hurt you because of your gender reorientation.

But more on point with the post, I perceive you have three problems:

1) You don't have a simple, punchy business idea that can make a lot of money

2) The writing comes off as a bit outlandish and loquacious in this business setting. Sorry. Cut your prose down and stick with the cold facts.[1]

3) I said I had three? I lied. Yes, that's my third point: never lie.

Seriously though, I hope you address the first two issues and arrive at something you can be successful with.

[1] Then again, what do I know.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why I am not reading any blogspot blogs: I hate the design.

</comment><comment><USER14> Greetings.

I am Cheyenne Cartwright the co-founder of TCombinator, working in tandem with Allison.

I'd like to take the opportunity to address several matters here, point by point.

First, as callahad points out, there is some indirection going on. As people continue to debate the validity of our very existence, as transwoman, the point is being lost that we seek to give viable startups a helping hand by way of investment, a business model that has already proven effective in itself.

Second, our business is being mischaracterized as focusing on our identity. Our business is focused on viable startups, and it is targeted at trans folk. This is a very important difference which is easy to illustrate.

If our business were focused on our identity, especially within the boundaries set by culture at large and how it stereotypes us, then our business would not seek talent and solid ideas to fund. Instead, it would be, at best, a charitable organization aimed at meeting the basic medical needs of transfolk. Alternatively, and in keeping with the general assumptions about us, we would be exploiting trans folk as sex workers, something both I and Allison are intimately familiar with as our job opportunities, education, and even our families turned us out.

Third, generalizing a truth applicable to all humans based on one's own limited observations only manages to show how little observation was accomplished, and how poorly those observations were connected to a claim. Behaviors deemed "gender deviant" are as old as homosexual behaviors (as if we should even dignify the naturalistic fallacy with an endorsement). People say that "transgender" is new, and it is plain that it is only as new as "homosexual" is itself, since no one had that identity, or label, available to them until the late 19th century at the earliest. In any case, it does not mean that there have never been "trans" people until "recently". South Solowesi has, for many centuries, had 5 established genders, and both the kathooey of Thailand and the Hijras of India, along with scores of other peoples have been with us a very long time, and in some cases, before the Common Era.

Fourth, and very briefly, there is no arguing with people who unironically believe either that it is acceptable for everyone that one group be exploited to raise another group up, or that the simple act of being who we are, and daring to show our faces in the world by attempting to be citizens within it, means we deserve a subaltern place in society, that it is the cross we must accept.

Besides, we already do accept it, but we cannot be asked to accept it in silence, or accede to people's ignorant discomfort when it comes to whether or not we have access to housing and meaningful labor.

Beliefs like that are either hardened intractably, or lazy to the point where I doubt this comment will even be read, so I won't argue those points. That's me being realistic.

Even less attention is given to those who thought this post was an appropriate forum for dehumanizing jokes. I can only with you well, and that your companies are never embarrassed by having your identities linked to such talk.

What we want to discuss is business. We have a business model that is tried and true. It will be up to the market to determine the value of what our startups produce, and we accept that. We aren't particularly interested in apologizing for our efforts to move beyond survival sex work, or helping others to do so, nor are we going to have a discussion that assumes from the beginning that our identities, our selves, are up for debate. There are numerous comparable ventures for other minority entrepreneurs, precisely because of how discrimination impacts them, and how "the best person for the job" is often just a mask for the person who had the most privilege in their background to enable their own rise.

We welcome questions about what we want to accomplish and how we will do so, what we are doing now, even some questions about who we are. Just remember that we, like any of you here, are above invasive, cruel, dismissive, or inappropriate questions.

<comment><USER5> Here are some legitimate business questions for you, with perhaps one ethical question.

1\. If this project is an attempt to move beyond subsistence sex work, how exactly will you raise the funds you intend to invest in trans-founded startups? YCombinator's business model initially depended upon the personal wealth of its founding partners. After proving themselves, they raised further investment and received returns on their earlier investments. How does TCombinator intend to obtain this initial funding source?

2\. Founding a startup is an inherently risky and difficult task, requiring great skill and experience. Most successful startup founders have the experience and skill necessary to earn a comfortable living without doing a startup. You mention that the goal of your project is to help others to move beyond subsistence sex work. How can you, in good conscience, expect people with no relevant skills or experience to improve their economic standing by founding startups? Would it not be less risky and more reliable to focus on improving less risky opportunities for trans folk to earn a living outside of sex work?

2a. Founding a startup is also a profoundly stressful and emotionally difficult endeavor. Allison wrote of saving people "on the brink" of "suicide, homelessness, and starvation". As I remarked elsewhere, if you're already facing these stresses in your life, you are less, not more, capable of handling the stresses and responsibilities of a startup.

3\. The business model of startup investment is to maximize your odds of investing in a billion dollar company. How is that business model served by artificially restricting the pool of founders you're willing to invest in to less than 1% of the population?

<comment><USER14> This is intensely appreciated, thank you. I'll take it point by point.

1\. Obviously we intend to generate some measure of personal wealth, but it's important to understand what we were able to accomplish with what little we had. Allison will be in Mountain View very shortly, doing some work that I may not be allowed to disclose fully, but can say involves web development and innovation, after having made valuable contacts through her original post. They have expressed interest in funding, since she can show the apps we've received already for a few things, many of which are close to prototype stage. It's hard to say more without her or her backers go ahead.

We must start smaller by force of necessity. Just as micro-loans targeted at women have turned around communities in the developing world, we accept that we must start slow before we can fund enormous projects. That said, just helping Allison get pizza one week and agreeing to take on what work I can do in my part of the country helped her move forward with the infrastructure.

2\. It isn't only sex work, that's just something which disproportionately impacts our community. I like to joke sometimes that if the stereotype reflected reality more fully, it would say transwomen are mostly programmers. We want, in time, to be able to support a purely charitable branch, but right now we look to fund only those who have a real startup plan and some tangible work they can show us.

As for whether we can do it in "good conscience", neither of us, especially knowing what we can do and what others can do, are interested in giving people "just enough" to get by while still living at risk. We'll do charitable works, and I spend a great deal of my personal time in that area, but it's not enough, it doesn't change things. We can do both, but our focus is on startups people actually bring to us (5 so far in talks).

2a. Already addressed. We want to help prevent talented and driven people from losing opportunities, and that's the top priority. Allison is one of those. She certainly isn't someone with no skill or education or motivation. The question really is, why take away the hope that comes with believing you can make a difference in your own life by telling someone they shouldn't think about doing better until they get as lucky as many people here already are? With work, meaningful work, comes an anchor and dignity and purpose.

3\. That's one model, not the only one. See this: <http://www.grameen- info.org/> Further, it's strange to ask why we're so restricted, when investment funds already are seriously restricted to a fraction of the population. They have the same demands of talent and productivity we have, but discriminate based on what gives the absolute highest return, and in many cases sadly, discriminate based on the immutable characteristics of the person applying for the loan or funding. Those are two restrictions we do not have.

Someone I know once made a video diary app in her spare time, no funding. It wasn't unique, had no functionality other apps lacked, wasn't even user friendly, and she doesn't even support it. The app still makes her several hundred a month, and she made it purely as an experiment in her spare time. We don't want to fund poor projects that aren't supported, but that's an example of how we don't have to give up because we can't leap straight to the billion dollar idea.

<comment><USER5> "I like to joke sometimes that if the stereotype reflected reality more fully, it would say transwomen are mostly programmers."

So all the stuff about saving transwomen from a life of sex work was...bullshit?

"Further, it's strange to ask why we're so restricted, when investment funds already are seriously restricted to a fraction of the population. They...discriminate based on what gives the absolute highest return...."

Yes, that's the entire point of the business model. When you take that away, you can't claim it's the same proven business model.

I'm sorry, but none of this makes the slightest amount of sense.

<comment><USER14> That cannot have been in good faith. I merely meant to suggest I have known many who program. We cannot keep demanding that parts represent the whole. On the whole, there are serious problems with access, even for the very educated and talented (some of whom are lucky enough to create their own businesses, and some who protect themselves by doing so anonymously). But there are those who are very skilled and knowledgable and just need access.

And you're right, with those edits in place, it does make little sense. I want to assume good faith, but can't continue when it's demonstrably unavailable.

<comment><USER5> You can't have it both ways. Either there's a large pool of experienced and talented trans software developers (in which case they don't really need salvation from poverty and sex work) or the people you're trying to recruit don't have the necessary skills to succeed in technology startups. Furthermore, you can't claim you're following a proven business model while undermining that model.

I'm not saying any of this in bad faith. I just genuinely think this TCombinator concept makes no sense and that your and Allison's statements have been inconsistent and nonsensical. To whatever extent I quoted you out of context, it was to address specific points that the rest of the context still didn't meaningfully address.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One of the funniest things I've read all day. Thanks. Good luck with your incubator.

<comment><USER2> Hey, come on now, be constructive in your criticisms. Try to help them suss out a business model/market fit instead of just poking fun.

<comment><USER15> You're absolutely right. forgive me.

She's looking to fund a very niche market. To go after GLBT* is targeting a potentially disruptive market; to target the subset of only Transgendered people is to ignore the blue ocean the entire GLBT* community represents. Is there any real indicators of Transgendered people experiencing a problem with getting funding?

This business incubator positively reeks of sour grapes for not being chosen for YC. The thought of transgender discrimination so close to San Francisco makes me even more doubtful that it actually happened the way that's inferred. PG doesn't strike me as the homophobic type, either. I occasionally say "It's because I'm black/gay/asian/a woman, isn't it?" in irony, when something doesn't go my way, because I am none of those things. we are now witnessing "I wasn't chosen for YC because I'm transgendered", which I can't help but find hillarious.

In the post/announcement, There isn't an "I can do it better" mentality being discussed; if anything, all I can see is someone bitterly asking "How Hard Can It Be?". She'll learn soon enough.

Further down in her post, she states that she already has companies lined up before she has money to give them. Bad sign.

Given the timeline since rejection, I doubt she's had ample time to sit down with these potential investees and truly figure out if they're worth an investment. Makes it seem a bit like a jilted ex-lover texting "fine. leave. I have 10 men lined up for dates!".

all of the above was in-mind when I stated why it gave me a good laugh. I feel that nobody is going to take this seriously, and any support in-thread is mere pandering at best, so we aren't accused of being non-inclusive to someone that seems to be using the threat of non-inclusion as a weapon. I respect her determination and zeal, similarly to how I respect a kitten's determination and zeal when chasing it's own tail, and I wish her the best.

I really do hope she proves me wrong, however; judging from the original post, I'll be tracked down and passively-aggressively rewarded for being wrong. I love it when people send me free stuff to prove they're rich and I'm wrong. I get free stuff. I once had a corporate sociopath hand me a half pound of weed as an "up yours" present after he got me fired from a $10/hour job I hated. I can't wait to see what a reasonably-attractive tg could offer. I'll totally give my mailing address in a PM.

* GLBT* as in wildcard, not as a footnote. please ignore the recursion.

<comment><USER14> In fairness, what you witnessed was someone saying this is ultimately a good thing, not assigning any blame, and expressing their enthusiasm for its potential. There is a discussion of the business merits above this thread if you want to participate. Your earlier joke represents the very discrimination you say you do not see, so if those jokes are done now, you'd be a welcome voice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> lol, and I will do ACombinator, for agender people, that live outside borders of sexuality and are on a brink of extinction ! :D

or NCombinator for necromancers, that are feeling lonely and misunderstood by modern humans :D

</comment><comment><USER17> Well, I suppose transgendered startup founders is a bigger niche than bingo cards...

I don't know, I don't get the business angle, but good luck!

</comment><comment><USER18> the YMCAcombinator generator.

</comment><comment><USER19> We give positive feedback for posts about stopping discrimination against 'popular' minorities, and ending gender gaps.

But more unusual prejudices, biodiversity and genderism is hard for people to think about equally supporting.

I will keep following your posts because I sense you understand there are people who can help people, who are not being helped, in our community.</comment>


How to build a full-scale quantum computer in silicon - <AUTHOR> http://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-build-a-full-scale-quantum-computer-in-silicon <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10336675](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10336675)</comment>


Ask HN: What problems don't have a profitable business solution? - <AUTHOR> Are there problems that by nature can't be solved by businesses because they aren't profitable? What are they? How should they be approached? <comment><USER2> There are degrees of profitability. Some businesses aren't profitable from a VC standpoint but are by a lifestyle business standpoint. Some businesses aren't profitable from a small business workforce standpoint but are profitable from a single person workforce standpoint. Some businesses aren't profitable from a certain geographical and political standpoint but are profitable from a different geographical and political standpoint (United States vs. China, and visa versa, for example).

I'll give you an example. A friend of mine sells small (US Quarter sized) stickers in sheets to Walmart and Walgreens and a few other smaller retailers in a small geographic area. He makes right about $1,000,000.00 a year in net profit (in stickers, I kid you not). This business is very profitable for himself. His business would not be profitable to a VC or a Incubator because it does not scale well and has certain risks associated with it. But he's quite happy with it.

He had a problem recently. Packaging the stickers (literally pulling the sheets off of rolls and putting them into self sealing plastic baggies) was costing him too much. Not in actual packaging costs but in finding reliable labor that could complete the task in a timely fashion so he could make his production deadlines. Solution: I made a very small business packaging the stickers for him at $0.06 per completed package. Now he can worry about the sales of his stickers and other business needs he has and I can worry about making sure the packaging is taken care of on time. The whole business will make around $120,000.00 a year gross. I will net far less than that. Is that profitable? Not from a VC standpoint. Not from a single owner standpoint (I could live on that but I don't want to). But... my daughter and her friends who want work while being in college full time find the work very fulfilling and very profitable.

So, profitability is a bit of a weird thing to ask about. We need a lot more information if you'd like us to answer what types of currently unprofitable business ventures might be solvable by you.

<comment><USER3> "Some businesses aren't profitable from a VC standpoint but are by a lifestyle business standpoint. Some businesses aren't profitable from a small business workforce standpoint but are profitable from a single person workforce standpoint."

well said, the stickers anecdote is amazing by the way.

<comment><USER2> I was just as amazed when I figured out what he did. Talk about the literal "millionaire next door". Stickers! Who knew?

<comment><USER4> Does his name start with a B and he spent considerable time in Japan? If so, I may know him. If not, amazing to hear of multiple millionaires from stickers!!!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Almost anything that involves people NOT doing something.

For example: let's say you dislike the idea of people clubbing baby seals to death for their skins and want to reduce or eliminate the practice. If you start a business buying up seal habitats and selling them to ecological investors that derive utility from there being fewer seal deaths, all that happens is the price of seal skins spikes and (eventually) more and more people get involved in the business, bringing things down to equilibrium again.

It's the same reason that buying all the slaves in the world won't get rid of slavery - it will just encourage MORE of it.

</comment><comment><USER6> There are also problems that can't be solved by businesses because they ARE profitable.

For instance, a lot of aspects of poverty. Because people living paycheck to paycheck are desperate for cash and typically don't have enough savings to open bank accounts, they're easy prey for money lending at incredibly high interest rates - including payday loans and pawn shops; and for check-cashing services that take a significant cut of their paycheck. If your credit score is low, you may be able to get a pre-paid debit card (since credit/debit cards are necessary these days even to do things like open App Store accounts so you can get [even free] apps on your phone in order to do things like apply to jobs or know when the bus is coming), but it'll eat away at your money with monthly fees - whereas if you have good credit and pay your balance monthly you can be fee free.

<comment><USER7> There should be a line drawn between services that cater to lower income people that are blatantly exploitative and those that appear to be profitable but are highly risky.

Pawn shops and loan sharks are explorative. Yet, there has been much research done in recent years on the business of check-cashers and payday loans. They may appear profitable based on fees, yet the reason they charge fees or higher interest rates are due to the high cost of serving their populations. A higher risk of default means a higher rate of borrowing to compensate for the risk. Lisa Servon at Penn has done a lot of interesting work on this topic, and financial services for underserved populations in general: [https://www.lisaservon.com](https://www.lisaservon.com)

<comment><USER6> Yes, they solve one problem related to poverty. But because their motive is profit, they can do so only at a cost that exacerbates the underlying problem of not having enough money.

<comment><USER7> Sure, it certainly does. Yet there are also for-profit solutions that are helping significantly with poverty as well and helping people manage the cash flow and savings issues of being poor — take Instant Financial, for instance, which allows workers to get paid daily[1], and Walmart's MoneyCard app, which uses behavioral finance to trick people into saving money.

When we close ourselves off to the idea that financial insecurity cannot be solved profitably, we close ourselves off to a multitude of potential solutions.

[1] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/apps-let-workers-make-every- day...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/apps-let-workers-make-every-day-a- payday-1511528400) [2] [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/521421/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Medical and health are significantly harmed by most for-profit models. You pay your doctor and big pharma for treatment, not for a resolution of the problem. This is an inherent conflict of interest.

I have a serious medical condition. I walked away from conventional treatment. I have thought a lot about how to share information about what works. Even sharing that info comes with huge challenges. I am still trying to solve that angle and may never figure it out. Figuring out monetization is even further out and looks pretty hopeless.

<comment><USER9> That's because people will pay for a cure / treatment when they are sick. Unfortunately they won't pay for prevention so that they wouldn't get sick in the first place.

Besides doctors can't guarantee a resolution, they can only guarantee treatment. If doctors would get paid only for a cure, it would just create different problems. Some people would be refused treatment because the odds of getting paid would be too low, others would have their treatment stopped because continuing would likely be unprofitable and only large institutions would be able to afford to provide services since only they could play the numbers in order to statistically stay profitable.

<comment><USER8> Historically, we had a tradition of having religious types also provide health care, a la the tribal _medicine man_ who was both a spiritual leader and person who would treat medical stuff.

Doctors under a for profit model are not remotely the only possible approach to this problem space. Some good for profit health models include gym memberships and green grocers. Eating right plays a very important role in health and welfare and you don't have to wait until you are sick to wonder if your diet could stand to be improved.

<comment><USER9> Historical practices are not counterarguments against for profit models of medicine. Even if it was, historic non-profit models do not scale.

Doctors for profit might not be the only model, but I'd like to see you propose any other model that actually works.

> Eating right plays a very important role in health and welfare and you don't > have to wait until you are sick to wonder if your diet could stand to be > improved.

Er, you do know most people are either overweight or obese? It's once thing to know what's right to do, but people don't do it or spend money on it.

<comment><USER8> I used to weigh 245 pounds. I am a lot smaller these days.

<comment><USER9> Good for you! Not that I know what it has to do with the issue at hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere and the oceans, leading to global warming and ocean acidification.

There hasn't been a profitable way to reduce that excess. It doesn't appear like there will be a profitable way.

<comment><USER11> Actually someone has worked out a way of making a profit from reducing CO2 by causing algal blooms in the deep ocean via phosphate fertilization [0]. The basic concept is you use the blooms to support fisheries that provide the profit - fish are expensive these days.

0.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization#Phosphorus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_fertilization#Phosphorus)

<comment><USER10> I don't think it's economically feasible. The amount of CO2 reduction needed will drop the cost of fish enormously, such that there isn't the profit to make it be sustainable.

The world produces about 5 metric tons of CO2 per capita ("only fossil fuels and cement manufacture", says Wikipedia). 27% of that is carbon.

That's 1 ton of carbon per person.

Let's assume fish are pure carbon.

[http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/l-2/06-fish- consumpti...](http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/l-2/06-fish- consumption.htm) says "Preliminary estimates for 2006 indicate a slight increase in global per capita fish supply to about 16.7 kg."

That's rather smaller than 1 ton.

[https://www.popsci.com/were-catching-way-more-fish-than- we-t...](https://www.popsci.com/were-catching-way-more-fish-than-we-think) says we currently take about "130 million tons of fish out of the oceans".

Fish aren't pure carbon. In humans, carbon is 18% of the body. I'll assume it's about the same for fish. That's 7.5 metric tons of fish, per capita, per year.

Another way to think of the sizes, and realize how small the fish population is, comes from [https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/33/) :

> Marine fish biomass dropped by 80% over the last century, which—taking into > consideration the growth rate of the world's shipping fleet—leads to an odd > conclusion: Sometime in the last few years, we reached a point where there > are, by weight, more ships in the ocean than fish.

<comment><USER11> It is a lot more complex than this (more than a HC post), but the simple version is most of the carbon captured is due to carbon rich waste products falling below 200m (about 400t of carbon for every t of phosphate), while the money is made from selling the fish.

I did a rather detailed investigation into the scheme a few years ago. The end result is provided you have a cheap source of phosphate (phosphate-rich rock is fine) and a good slow release system (think something like pumice), then the whole thing is both a massive money spinner and will capture enough carbon to reverse the current CO2 rise.

<comment><USER10> I agree it's complex. I see I also made a mistake - my calculations were for "fish and fish wastes", not "fish".

I still don't see how the numbers work out. You need about 7 tons of fish+waste per year to keep CO2 levels as they are. Only a few tens of kilos of those will be extracted via fishing.

The numbers I see are something like 1.5 kg feed for 1kg of salmon, so there's not that much waste.

You're going to have to cover huge amounts of ocean, as otherwise you're limited by the diffusion rate.

And what's the supply curve for fish? If twice as many fish are harvested, would the prices be the same? What about 10x as many fish?

How much fish are needed to reverse the current CO2 rise?

Then there are other questions like, will it induce algal blooms? if there's a surplus of phosphate then what becomes the limiting nutrient?

<comment><USER11> I think where you might be going astray is confusing the biomass of the fish with the carbon fixed. The fish sit at the top of the food chain and account for a tiny percentage of the carbon captured - they are just the profit center.

Most of the carbon is fixed by phytoplankton and the next stage in the food chain. As these die the carbon in the water column increases and eventually the excess carbon settles below 200m where it is trapped for thousands/millions of years.

The limiting factor to primary productivity in most oceans is the phosphate concentration. As long as you don't release too much phosphate at once then you limit the algal growth. You get around 400 tons of carbon fixed for every ton of phosphate added.

Yes we are going to have to use a large amount of the deep ocean, but there is more than enough ocean to do the job.

<comment><USER10> Thank you. Yes, that was what I was missing.

"400 tons of carbon for every ton of phosphate added" ... how long does that take? It's diffusion limited, yes?

Ahh, I followed the Wikipedia link to [https://www.atmos-chem- phys.net/9/5539/2009/acp-9-5539-2009....](https://www.atmos-chem- phys.net/9/5539/2009/acp-9-5539-2009.html) .

> Ocean fertilisation options are only worthwhile if sustained on a millennial > timescale and phosphorus addition may have greater long-term potential than > iron or nitrogen fertilisation.

How long would it take a company to be in the black with phosphorous mining? First the phytoplankton, then eventually the fish, so that's a few years of waiting, yes?

Since fish move, isn't this the sort of project where one company pays to put the phosphorus in but other companies can profit off the increased fish? So it requires a change to the international fishing laws for the fertilisation company to make a profit?

<comment><USER11> You actually have to provide homes for the fish (floating structures) that act like a surface wreck. The fish then hang around the floating material and and breed and grow.

The response to phosphate addition is surprisingly fast - depending the fish you wanted to harvest you are looking at a couple of years at most before you had a harvestable amount of fish to sell.

The law in this area is uncertain. Under the various international treaties it is not legal to dump garbage in the oceans, but no one is exactly sure where phosphate fertilisation sits. Even if turns out to be illegal all you need to do is find a friendly pacific island nation and do all the phosphate dumping in their waters and let the ocean currents do the work for you :)

The nice thing about this idea is that it turns what appears to be an impossible dream and makes it possible to make a profit solving it.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for your patience with me. Your comments were quite informative. I'm now well beyond the point where I can make even somewhat relevant questions, much less comments. :)

EDIT: Oh, wait, I do have one more question. In order for this to be an effective form of carbon reduction, how much will the fish population increase? As the supply goes up, the prices will go down, and I'm still not convinced that the amount of carbon capture needed is economically justified by the increase in fish supply.

<comment><USER11> This is a rather hard question to answer as it would depend on how elastic demand is for fish and how efficiently the phosphate is converted to fish.

You could choose to run the whole operation semi-inefficiently where you chose to only catch and sell a portion of the fish, or use the fish as feed for other higher value fish like salmon and bluefin tuna.

My minor contribution to the idea was to workout that you don't need purified phosphate to fertilise the oceans. We could just use phosphate rich rock to make a slow release pumice-like fertiliser that floats on the surface (using a photo-degradable polymer). This gets the phosphate cost down from around US$1600/t to something under $50/t. I wrote a paper on this many years ago, but I never got around to publishing it. I might try and turn it into a blog post if I get a chance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My sister has a very serious, rare, disease. No companies have incentives to innovate in this field (pharma or whatever).

<comment><USER13> There are lots of rare diseases that need someone to find funding and push the research.

Saw this one in the WSJ:

[https://themighty.com/author/luke-rosen/](https://themighty.com/author/luke- rosen/)

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-the-way-to-a-rare-disease- cu...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-the-way-to-a-rare-disease-cure-parents- tackle-the-high-price-tag-of-research-1504094400)

And this one on ABC News tonight:

[https://donate.curecmt4j.org/campaign/cure- cmt4j-advancing-g...](https://donate.curecmt4j.org/campaign/cure- cmt4j-advancing-gene-therapy-for-rare-diseases/c117605)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Pure math, pollution, educating people with no money, income inequality, homelessness, universal health care, ...

<comment><USER8> Re: Homelessness. I have two profitable solotions for you:

1) Build affordable housing.

2) Create flexible earning opportunities that serve the types of people who are at high risk of homelessness. Ideally, make them accessible to both homeless and housed people.

A lot of homeless people have some income, just not enough to finance a middle-class life. The US has largely eliminated affordable housing, which can be profitable but probably has low profit margins.

<comment><USER3> If there was money in solving homelessness it would already have been done. If you tried to do this you would be rapidly discouraged. Just like some products don't have positive unit economics, some people don't have positive unit economics. The big "profit" from solving homelessness would be peace of mind and a better experience walking down the street. Hard to make money from these things.

<comment><USER8> I know of a writing service that works well for handicapped people (or single parents, etc) to make money flexibly. The service profitable and working for them helped me get off the street and back into housing.

They have no goal of "solving homelessness." They are just looking to be a successful writing service. People who sign up are 1099 contract workers. I am not the only homeless person who ever worked for them.

I am currently in the process of trying to figure out how to foster more of this locally. I would like to help people with the kinds of barriers to employment who are at high risk of homelessness to figure out how to make money online. I am going to public meetings and talking with folks. So far, I have been well received. It has not been a discouraging experience.

What I have to show so far from the little amount of time I have invested up to this point is a new website aimed at becoming a resource for Independent Digital Workers:

[http://independentdigitalworkers.blogspot.com/](http://independentdigitalworkers.blogspot.com/)

The cheap rental I currently live in that got me off the street is market based housing. It is a for profit thing. It is not part of some homeless services program or other charity. My landlord is making money off getting me off the street.

I have also applied for a job where I have proposed developing Independent Digital Workers further as part of that job. So I find myself sitting here wondering if there is any way to "take your bet."

If I get the job and some local organization pays me to help reduce homelessness locally, would that count in your eyes as profiting from my solutions? Or would you find some new excuse to simply be dismissive?

I suspect the answer is the latter. I am pretty appalled at hearing you say that some people _don 't have positive unit economics._ Pronouncements like that tend to be self fulfilling prophecies. There are myriad ways to sabotage someone's efforts to make their life work and see to it that they are incapable of having _positive unit economics._

People with such attitudes in online forums were the bane of my existence while I was homeless. They not only would not give me useful answers to my questions about "How does one make money online?" they also were contemptuous, dismissive and actively did what they could to undermine my efforts to figure out how to make money online. I firmly believe that if I had gotten genuine support instead of this nonsense, it would have taken me less time to build my online income and I would be in better shape financially.

<comment><USER3> If you are on Hackernews posting well written comments then I think you don't fall into this category of people who I would say have negative unit economics. But consider people with down's syndrome or severe mental disorders. Should we leave these people out to dry? I certainly don't think so. However, are they ever going to be able to contribute more to society than society contributes to them? Probably not. This might not be politically correct but I think the more we can accept reality the better we can do to improve it. There are no safety nets in the US, you are always a few disasters away from being homeless, this is a real problem that needs to be fixed, even if solving this problem costs more dollars than it generates.

<comment><USER8> Most people on the street do not fall into the categories you list here.

When I was homeless, my comments on the internet were full of typos and other problems. People dismissed me as a delusional lunatic. Etc.

If anything, I am absolute proof of how wrong you are, yet you will not acknowledge it.

My claim that there are solutions that can be both profitable and effective is not an assertion that we should abandon people with Down's Syndrome.

I think the best I can say is that you and I are talking past each other. That still doesn't make it a positive experience for me to have my ideas so completely dismissed, but I don't really expect that engaging you further will go anywhere good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I think you were looking for this

</comment><comment><USER15> Death. Oh wait, Nevermind...

</comment><comment><USER16> Racism

<comment><USER17> I would argue that racism is impeded by the profit incentive. If someone refuses to trade or interact with another on the grounds of race, they act against profit.

<comment><USER16> But racism isn't defined by or limited to refusal to trade with certain individuals. That is to say economics is only one intersection in the set of racist behavior present in our society, eliminating those economic inequality does not solve structural inequality.

Furthermore, it's so important to demographics in the midwest that they're able to refuse service to individuals they perceive as 'others' that laws have been created protecting economic discrimination.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_\(Indiana\))

Anecdotally, There's a pizza place in Indiana that went on the news and clearly stated they refuse to service to gay couples. The pizza store owners then raised $800,000 from kickstarter. While it's definitely an anecdote, I think it shows that discrimination can actually be quite profitable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There is gold in the ocean, in very small quantities. It's not viable to extract it.

<comment><USER16> That's not really a problem.</comment></comment>