No, I won't be your technical co-founder - <AUTHOR> http://martingryner.com/no-i-wont-be-your-technical-co-founder/ <comment><USER2> A sweeping generalization of business and product people. I'll offer a counter example.

This story starts over a decade ago. There was a high level executive at a large enterprise software firm. The guy was one of the best enterprise sales people in North America and highly valued by the organization. In reading about the trend of software moving online he realized that the industry he was in, selling large scale enterprise solutions to Fortune 500 companies, was eventually going to be replaced by software delivered online.

He attempted to get his organization to shift into investing in online web services, but they saw it as a threat to their traditional business model. He quit work and then went to find technical people who could implement the visitation. He ended up recruiting a group of 8-10 developers, all sold on the vision. He wrote up a quick vision for the company and raised a few million dollars on the back of it.

He leased out cheap and nasty office space down in the suburbs outside of San Jose. He spent two weeks writing a software specification for a new enterprise product that would be entirely web based. The spec was a couple of dozen pages long. He also wrote a marketing brief on how the product would be sold. He handed the spec over to the developers and then went on vacation in Hawaii for a few months while they built the initial version of the product.

A few months later and with a first version he went out to the media and announced 'the end of software' and introduced a new web services model for the enterprise: salesforce.com. Over 10 years later and the company has a $20 billion market cap, defined an entirely new industry and threatened the business of his old employer (Oracle) to the extend that they setup a clone competitor.

If the original developers who joined Marc Benioff had read this blog post, they would have questioned 'his contribution', especially the part where he took off on holiday. Product and business people are entirely undervalued. Benioff could have found the eight developers he required from any thousands of other developers to implement what he had in mind, but there was only one person who had the vision, perseverance and balls to do what he did.

<comment><USER3> This is well said (and, perhaps, a similar story could be told about Steve Jobs). But I think there's at least one point in the article that holds true: it's very tough to evaluate the credibility of a "business" co-founder until he's achieved success. A developer's talent can be measured and normalized; a business person -- before he becomes successful -- is a much riskier and more unknowable commodity.

One way to look at things is to say that great businesspeople are undervalued. Another viewpoint is that the valuation of businesspeople carries with it a much higher risk multiplier. Or that the valuation has far fewer knowable variables.

The article makes a variety of very unfair, broad, and naive generalizations about the role of a great business, marketing, or product person. It seems to conflate all business people into one bucket -- lumping the fly-by-night hucksters and phonies in with the true visionaries. And its point about how a business founder is 'only as good as his contact list' is a bit ridiculous. But unfortunately, that contact list is often the business person's best calling card. It's one of very few, knowable variables that he brings to the table. (A track record on paper is great, but can be unreliable, because anyone can spin a resume. Conversely, a list of impressive people who can vouch for someone, or even go to bat for him, is much more actionable).

<comment><USER4> > _great businesspeople are undervalued_

Nitpick: by definition, great businesspeople have lots of money (value).

You should say that business people with an unknown track record are _possibly_ undervalued.

Which is really not saying anything at all, other than it's hard to tell the future.

<comment><USER3> Actually, my point was more about businesspeople in general vis-a-vis the startup scene. Technical people may indeed undervalue the importance of business people (and, in many cases, vice versa).

The nitpick offers an interesting perspective, and it's well received, but I think it's orthogonal to my point.

In general, I think there's a common misunderstanding between these two camps, especially w/r/t their intersection in the software industry. Just as it's not fair for a businessperson to assume that all technical co-founders are interchangeable ("He's just a skill set"), it's not fair for technical co- founders to assume all business co-founders are worthless ("He's just a rolodex").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is going on like a broken record; No flack to the author, he got all rights to have his grievances. On the other hand, it feels like I've read this post before.

One thing that always comes up in these posts is: > If we fail fast you have lost almost nothing whereas I have lost months of intense work.

I don't get that...? Presumably, the guy you jump in a boat with will also have invested 6 months of his life in to this, and presuposing he, even the abstract random business guy he in this post, can't contribute _anything_ of value seems inflammatory at best?

Finally, I think that we should recognize that this is a fantastic problem to have. If you're approached weekly about new business ventures, you've probably made a good name and good game for yourself. Which is fantastic.

<comment><USER6> > ... have lost almost nothing whereas I have lost months of intense work

Well observed. The problem with good developers these days is that they have too high opportunity costs: a good developer earns as contracter easily between 130K und 180K USD, even more. Compared to a non-techie this is remarkable because there are many high priced offers in this range and developers don't need to present such a polished CV like their business counterparts (they can have white spots, breaks, stayed just few months somewhere, etc. and still get _easily_ high paid dev jobs because of the shortage). And business people usually cannot do contracting work that easily.

This paired with a generally more risk-averse attitude leads to statements like "If we fail fast you have lost almost nothing whereas I have lost months of intense work".

I remember those days when I had a high salary plus a full packages of perks—I was lethargic and haven't followed great biz opportunities because I thought they are too small and will never reach my current income. And comparing opportunities as a founder with your current income as contractor or employee is fundamentally wrong. Even the best brands like Google, free fruit and 180K+ salaries will never give you the same feeling and confidence as when you build own thing. But the most will never make this experience, they even won't realize that they are wearing golden handcuffs all the time.

<comment><USER7> You're "facts" are far from that.

The developers we have onsite with the customer (Department of Defense with Top Secret clearances) are paid roughly $40-50K/yr USD.

If there were companies that actually paid the salaries you're quoting there would be a line of people at the front door every morning wanting to get hired.

<comment><USER8> His numbers may be high but $40-50k/yr is pretty low. My impression is that software developer positions at top companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc) pay about 2x that.

<comment><USER9> 2x $40-50k? You are definitely off base, that would be maybe a starting salary for an entry level developer, if that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's the problem with silicon valley:

Engineers think they rule the world. But in reality, product people rule the world.

It doesn't matter if your other "non-technical" co-founder sits on his ass all day and you work your ass off...because you have to understand that one angle of perception--one simple spark of an idea--can create just as much value as your sweat work.

"Point of View is worth 80 IQ points"

When you wrote "Your are easily replaceable"...you are 100% wrong.

YOU are easily replaceable. You're just the coder who builds the thing. Once MVP is launched and the company raises funding, you could easily be replaced because I guarantee you there are thousands of engineers just as good as you.

The product guy, on the other hand, is the DNA of the company. He forms the vision, culture, management. You can't replace that.

<comment><USER11> Obvious butthurt is obvious

I bet you went to a meetup with your rackety ass idea for an instagram clone and nobody there even acknowledged you existed

Tell me if you are not easily replaceable then how come every time I ask for hackers I only get about 5 emails but if I ask for business founders or idea guys my inbox goes DDoS?

The "company DNA" is just another bullshit buzzword, as are "vision" and "culture" the fact you used this as your only point in your entire rant gives me a clear idea of what a douche you are.

And "management"? management ruined some of the best companies in America, why don't you try and defend CDOs too?

Good luck getting any hackers to join your imaginary startup.

<comment><USER12> Come now, I'm sure he has an awesome idea, but we have to sign an NDA to hear it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >Let's face it – good hackers are scarce resource. That's why you are talking to me. However conferences, meetups and other places where startup industry players gathers to escape the daylight are filled with available marketers and business monkeys.

I used to think like this.

Then I interned at Doublerecall.

Seeing those business guys do their jobs ... I was figuratively blown away. I mean _wow_. They worked harder on business development than I have ever seen a hacker work on even their most favorite projects.

Fact of the matter is, business work involves a lot of ... stuff. Everything is hands on, very little of it can be automated, you're dealing with people all the time and, to be perfectly honest, there probably isn't a hacker out there who could _really_ work as a business guy. We're just too lazy.

Nothing about taking tens upon tens of meetings a week says "replaceable" to me.

<comment><USER14> "However conferences, meetups and other places where startup industry players gathers to escape the daylight are filled with available marketers and business monkeys"

The fact that we have a "startup industry" is slightly unnerving, and "players" in that industry even moreso. I suspect that both 'developers' and 'business monkeys' who try to get involved in this 'industry' and hang with the 'players' too much aren't the sort of people you want as part of your team.

So, yeah, in one sense you're right to criticize the capabilities of 'business guys' attending 'startup conferences', but the same criticism might be levelled at non-business people at those same conferences. The truly capable - those executing in their chosen fields - probably won't be at too many of those events on a regular basis.

<comment><USER15> Are you trying to single-handedly exhaust the national scare quotes reserves?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Your are easily replaceable

Only thing you have is your network. As a "business guy" in startup I expect you to have Barack Obama as 2. level LinkedIn connection and Zuckys number on speed dial. Well, anyway much wider network than I have. If you don't – I probably don't need you."

This comment belies a stunning lack of understanding and respect for what actually goes into the business side of typical tech startups - the sales, marketing, user acquisition, hiring/team building, negotiations and every other thing that business co-founders actually do.

A very irritating blight on an article that otherwise had some good points.

<comment><USER17> So far, all the people who've approached me for startups have been "idea people". Those are the ones who think they'll get rich quick with a iPhone/iPad application/whatever, they just need someone to build it for them. Every single one of them, when asked what _their_ contribution was going to be, gave me a blank stare. And naturally, they want you to do it for free ("You'll get a share of the profits!") while they're off chasing their next idea.

The few truly interesting, reliable startup idea's I've seen are from _real_ businessmen. Men with the network, contacts, funding, good ideas and commitment. Those kind of businessmen, the kind you are talking about if I understand correctly, are indispensable in a startup. Unfortunately, they seem to be somewhat more rare than the "idea people".

<comment><USER16> Right. And I'm saying that there's no better way to chase away the "real businessmen, men with the network, contacts, funding, good ideas and commitment", than by saying, "you are easily replaceable", and if I don't judge your network of people to be valuable then "I probably don't need you".

For anyone with the experience of working 20 hour days on the business side of a tech startup, this kind of statement is somewhat infuriating.

<comment><USER14> It's infuriating on both sides, and I see where you're coming from with your comments here. I _presume_ the OP wouldn't ever say "you're replaceable" to someone who actually has (and demonstrates) a network of any sort - it's the people who have no network whatsoever, but are seemingly unaware that that's important, and instead want to focus on 'an app!', that are the real red flags.

Likewise, yes, many developers are also replaceable, though few like to think they are.

<comment><USER18> _I presume the OP wouldn't ever say "you're replaceable" to someone who actually has (and demonstrates) a network of any sort_

I think that the problem is the idea that "a network" is the only value that a business guy provides to a company...

<comment><USER14> True, if that's the _only_ value someone presumes the other party is bringing, that's a problem. OTOH, I think people _undervalue_ the value of a tech/dev's network - including developers themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The biggest problem I see in these comments and in this post is that the assumption that the skills described exist in a vacuum.

Product guys can only ever be product guys. Engineers can only be engineers. Business men can only be business men.

If you work at a startup, you better be prepared to be all three and more. If you aren't smart enough to be all three, then you can't be my cofounder.

</comment><comment><USER20> The TVM (Time Value of Money) aspect here is the one most often issues under valued by "business types".

That said it goes both ways, I've been a serial entrepreneur and a big corporate type. And it's clear that on the business side people work hard too if they are going to be successful and they too have a TVM problem.

The biggest failure I see tech people make is not properly communicating the real level of effort a project takes. In a room full of techs if we talk about a problem we all have a reasonable understanding of how hard it is. We might be off a bit in our estimates but in general we understand the difference in effort of various proposals.

When in a room of business people with no domain expertise we assume they understand what it's like to spend 100's if not 1,000's of hours working on a technical project. They don't understand it any more then most techs understand how hard it is to setup a company, get the business registered, shareholder agreements written, contracts developed, taxes handled etc.

That issue however is a failure on both parties part, techs have to learn to own their half of the "assumption" problem. They need to clearly articulate how much work something is going to take and convert that effort into real dollars and timelines.

True story a very famous musician friend of mine and I were talking one day and I asked him "How long did it take you to write that song XXX" (very famous song) and he said "Hmm a couple days here and there then in the studio.." we both agreed it must have been maybe a 60 hour commitment. Then he asked me about a project I had just finished with a major car manufacturer and I said "Oh that was 6 man years of effort". He asked me "What is a man year?" and of course I tried to explain in lay terms what it's like to have someone at a keyboard for 2,000 hours and do that with six people. He was blown away at the effort he literally would bring it up in future conversations for years when we would chat on various topics.

In tech we take for granted that we work on labor scales that are massive and our failure to explain that to other people only makes the "startup conundrum" worse.

</comment><comment><USER21> Dear OP,

I know you wrote this article thinking, man, it is time to get some HN karma action. They will eat this stuff up! And indeed, there are a lot of people who upvoted you. Congratulations!

And yet, this has to be one of the more egotistical, narcissistic, self- serving rants I've seen on HN. There are a lot of lately. They generally starts with the line, "Why I..." At least you didn't post one of those. Small favors I suppose.

I'm sorry you're so in demand that people won't stop hounding you to join them and that it is just takes too much time for you to politely tell them no! How awful that must be for you.

Engineers are not the center of the universe. The good ones are difficult to find, but good people of all disciplines are hard to find. I would chew my own arm off for a top tier sales guy who could build sales plans and execute them deftly. An bizdev guy who can maintain a large network and work them effectively and isn't a schmuck is worth their weight in gold. A product guy who actually talks to, understands and truly empathizes with customers? Far more rare than you are.

At some point in your career, I hope soon, you will come to realize that non- engineers have value too.

<comment><USER22> I think his point is non-engineers can only add second level of value. Meaning you still can't make things. No matter what your are selling, you are still selling stuff 'made' by others.

<comment><USER23> I'd agree...except Oracle exists. :|

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The tone is very harsh, but I agree with author's sentiment. Certainly there are exceptions, but in most cases I've seen the way "business" people approach technical co-founders is

Yesterday I had someone who claims to be a tech entrepreneur tell me that they "don't care about that sh*t" and that "this is why you're an engineer and I'm not" while I was using the webkit inspector in chrome. You can see this attitude a lot and it has lack of dedication/passion an entitlement written all over. I'm sorry, but I know tons of non-techies that are able to understand, pick up and use this feature within minutes.

Adults seem to have an unnatural aversion to learning. Kids are okay with not being able to walk, walk, do math, read, write etc and will spend years developing important skills. It baffles me why so many twenty-somethings already feel pigeonholed into the non-techie role and don't want to learn anything new, even if it allegedly is their greatest passion. If you spend only six months on it you'll be able to implement most webapps or mobile apps mvp. Sure, it'll suck, but you'll have an easier time finding a co-founder and the collaboration will be better.

I have never owned a car. If I wanted to make a car company, my first step would be to learn everything about cars. I certainly wouldn't fo from garage to garage trying to convince random mechanics to quit their jobs to be my co- founder with 30% equity and no salary just because I have a car-related idea. The same goes for hollywood. I wouldn't show up to a film-related event and tell everyone my great movie idea (after all, I HAVE seen many movies) and ask for one director, one screenwriter, some actors, a bunch of other dudes and a ton of money.

Disclaimer: I majored in Math AND went to business school. I also have a CS degree that I got mostly on the side, because I was interested in the high leverage of software businesses.

</comment><comment><USER25> Once I was talking to some ex-web1.0 "entrepreneurs" (if you could call them that) who wanted to build one of those no-funding accelerators and, get this: they couldn't make the website and wanted me to do it for them.

For FREE...

And these were supposed to be guys with experience FFS, one even had "computer science" on his resume, turns out he put that because his highschool had an above-average computer program.

I had physics in highschool, does that makes me a physicist? of course not.

There are biz-dev founders who really know their shit, can't even code a "hello world" but know a lot about how to get around problems, so they are a valuable asset. I talked to one during a meetup: he could answer any question you could possibly have about financing and banking.

If I were building a payments service I would give that guy a call RFN and ask him to join.

But lets face it: this gold rush has attracted a lot of me-too wantrepreneurs who can't even jailbreak an iPhone or make a Wordpress install, yet have no respect for IT and believe hackers are just the "kids" you convince to work for free and then give a fraction of a fraction of the pie...

</comment><comment><USER26> Christ, this was difficult to read. Completely delusional rant from someone who clearly has no concept of what goes into turning a start-up from a basement project into a commercial success. I'm not sure why you think an engineer has a lot more to lose than the business guy, the logic there is incredibly flawed.

It also seems to have a huge air of superiority, which seems somewhat unsubstantiated when looking at your resume.

</comment><comment><USER27> You talk like you already have a successful startup of your own. Do you?

Do you know how many great products backed by an amazing development team fail because they lack the skills in sales/marketing/design and/or strategy?

If programming was the only thing that mattered, then why aren't all competent programmers millionaires?

<comment><USER28> He didn't say that programming was the only thing that mattered. Of course it's not. However, there are tonnes of business people and not enough talented programmers.

I think this sums up a lot of business types and why technical people are somewhat hostile towards them: [http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal- img/comics/websites_stop/...](http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal- img/comics/websites_stop/6.png)

<comment><USER18> _However, there are tonnes of business people and not enough talented programmers._

What I see is:

* Tons of business people, not enough talented business people

* Tons of developers, not enough talented developers

... the thing is that it's hard for talented developers to spot talented business folk among the throng. It's also hard for talented business folk to spot talented developers.

I understand rants like this. I meet a lot of folk who don't have much of a clue about how much effort is involved on the development side.

The thing is - if you go talk to the business folk - they have _just_ as many horror stories of developers letting them down, not putting the work in, producing shoddy work, etc. Developers that come to them with what they think is a _wonderful_ product - with no idea about their market or channels. The folk who think "sales" are just idiots who cold call people. Etc.

Just a couple of months ago I was helping with a group who had spent £50k with what, to them, looked like a reputable development agency - and they essentially just threw that money away.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, true. I spend too much time on Hacker News and not enough time on thedailywtf.com I guess :-) It's easy to think everyone is skilled or, at the very least, interested - and forget that a lot are just monkeys slinging code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Speaking as a former startup founder, I can tell you that good business people are just as scarce as good hackers. It's just harder to evaluate business people (at least, it is for me).

Also: it's important that all co-founders can present themselves as humble and self-aware. Using terms like "business monkeys" and saying "you played around with excel spreadsheets" made me wince.

</comment><comment><USER30> > _Let's face it – good hackers are scarce resource. That's why you are > talking to me._

Oh, common. Get of your high horse already. Good business people are even scarcer and they are _not_ talking to you. And in an off-chance that one of them approaches you, you might not realize it, because your horse gets in the way.

</comment><comment><USER31> As someone who recently made this mistake (and in a big way) I whole-heartedly agree with just about everything you have said here. I had already sold a company, I had proven myself both as a hacker and as someone with at least enough business acumen to close a deal without too many lawyer fees and come out with a good amount of money in the bank.

Now that I have made this mistake I will probably never go into business again without knowing the person like the back of my hand. And they will almost certainly have to be at least as technical as me or be a domain expert of some sort.

I'm sure some see the author as biased or scorned but for the most part he is right. "idea people" are a dime a dozen, but your idea with no execution = 0

</comment><comment><USER32> Ideas are everywhere and most aren't unique. The average "business" guy's ideas on implementation are usually quite crappy.

If someone wants me to be their "technical" co-founder, I will want market- rate salary compensation and equity equal to the other founders and they better be well connected to sales & marketing and additional funding opportunities. They need me, not me them.

</comment><comment><USER33> Hackers can be great at running a business with a bit of effort. Ex: Google founders.

Now show me _one_ "product guy" who's coded and launched a million-dollar site/app.

Both sides view the other as replaceable, only one is right.

<comment><USER34> Yes, if only Kevin Systrom existed.

Oh, no, wait, your argument is flat out wrong.

<comment><USER33> I didn't know of his background, so I googled. He learnt to code while he was working a job and his first startup came later? Anyway, he doesn't seem to have done much of interest before his first startup.

The question rephrased: Show me a guy who has gone from being a success in management/finance to having a startup idea and then writing code for it (I think this is a fair equivalent of coder with no business experience founding a company and then continuing to run it when it becomes very profitable)

<comment><USER34> He worked in marketing and had ideas, so he learned to code to build them. Then the idea for Instagram came along, he built it, marketed it and sold it.

"Management/finance" doesn't mean anything, other than excluding Systrom as a specific example which disproves your theory.

You're asking to see someone who was successful in a non-technical role who had an idea for a startup and learnt to code to build it. Let me surprise you: very few people learn to code just to learn to code. Most people learn to code to scratch an itch. How many news stories have we seen in the last few years about people who learned to code simple addictive games for iPhone?

In that sense, I'd argue that almost everyone learns to code because they have an idea they want to see happen. A lot of them go on to become full time software engineers. A lot of them don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> If I may add a few other considerations...

1) Age discrimination

I am 40. You wouldn't believe how many "in urgent need of a tech co-founder" entrepreneurs recoil when they learn the fact. You won't fit in. You won't understand us. Blah blah blah...

Umm...I assure you, if I can deal with half a dozen programming languages in my sleep, if I can run a family, if I am strong enough to run 30+ miles a week (on top of weight training), if I can complete my day job without swearing or sweating, I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU and I WOULD NEVER JUDGE YOU based on your age alone.

I only care about what you got under your skull cap.

2) Do you know this? Do you know that? Can you solve that tricky trick we found on the Web this morning?

I don't care. If you have a problem, I will research it. Before you have 2 problems, I will have picked all the knowledge I need to give you 1 solution. It could be something I already know. It could be something I never heard about. I am a human being. Adapting is in my DNA and I adapt all the time.

3) We got this great idea/solution, will you help us build it?

I'm sorry, what is the GREAT problem (the GREAT problem someone will pay good money to address) you wish to solve?

Honestly, guys, ideas are a dime a dozen, particularly ideas in the consumer space where a business model seems to be optional.

What you need is knowledge about a tremendous pain/problem a lot of people want to spend money on solving.

4) Success is a conjunction of talents.

I have great respect for business people, sales people, consultants, customer service people, patent lawyers, finance gurus, etc. They all do things that are essential to growing a sound business. Things I should not do.

Everyone must bring something to the table and everyone must know and appreciate what everyone else brings to the table. Freeloaders sooner or later sink the ship.

</comment><comment><USER36> We (programmers/engineers/developers whatever you want to call it) have a LOT to answer for.

Evenly represented on the HN home page every few months are:

1) You don't need a programmer, you need a technical co-founder (aka. you can't pay someone to do this job because you can't possibly afford it)

2) I am sick of people asking me to be their technical co-founder

The engineering side of tech have spend a good few years recycling each other's kool aid and we're starting to _believe_ it. Hell we're saying the same bullshit over and over so much that even the non-tech side is starting to believe it.

The problems that 90% of companies solve are not difficult. There are literally millions of people crawling the planet that can solve these problems and yet our inability to work together has created an entire generation of primadonna's like the OP that swan around like the bell of the ball.

</comment><comment><USER37> Well said, I'm a co-founder from Verelo.com - we knew each other for a couple years. I can't imagine doing a start-up with a stranger... it'd never last. The amount of things that come up, and the stress... you need someone you know well. It's a roller coaster of a ride

</comment><comment><USER38> I am also approached like this pretty often and have many of the same biases. I was planning to write a similar (though less scathing) post myself.

While the author makes some grand generalized statements that he probably doesn't _really_ mean, I think they are born of frustration. There are just too many people who try to skip straight to being the "business person" without any experience to back it up. The typical person who just needs "a technical person" to build their vision... ugh. They ask to meet you for coffee, but then want you to sign their NDA. It's because they think their idea alone is their contribution of 50% of the business (or more), because frankly they have no idea what it takes. But they can't match my own skills and experience on the business side of a startup (and I'm the tech guy).

The story of Marc Benioff in the top comment, that's the story of a credible co-founder. A successful person with years of knowledge and experience in a lucrative market... I salivate over that prospect. For me that's a no-brainer.

So to you would-be biz-folk (talking to the n00bs here), just don't forget to pay your dues. Get a job at a startup and learn what it's like. Take some courses in programming and give it a shot. Learn all that you can about lean startups and customer development. Validate your product with a concierge MVP. Hire some college kid or cheap company in India to build your prototype. Show me that you have some traction and something to offer and can find ways to move forward even without the "tech guy". Then we can talk.

</comment><comment><USER39> Once I had a mad crush on this girl in my neighborhood. I spoke to my dad about it and he suggested I write her a letter. I told him I was nervous about what to put in it and I suggested that maybe I should write it, leave it, read it in the morning and see if I felt I could send it.

My dad said something awesome that day. He said: "Mark, if everyone in the world thought like that-there would be no love letters."

...I can't help but feel that if everyone in the world thought like this guy- there would be no startups.

</comment><comment><USER40> I must be reading this differently than a lot of people. I don't think he's talking about actual business people. People with demonstrated experience, skill, and/or ability.

It sounds more like he's talking about the idea tourist. The guy who truly believes that the secret to start-up success is:

1\. Have an idea. 2\. . . . 3\. Make money.

I think we can all agree that the idea tourist is annoying. If all you bring to the table is something as ephemeral as an idea, just keep walking. I've got no time for you.

</comment><comment><USER41> >>>After all, I have make an investment and actual work while you played around with excel spreadsheets and send out a few press releases?

I don't even know where to begin... Such a gross misunderstanding of what a competent business development person can bring to the table. I know a couple of guys that I would gladly sign up with for equity, knowing they can take a product and bring in millions of revenue.

</comment><comment><USER42> These posts (of which there are plenty) rely on the extremely common and (I think) extremely flawed assumption that company = technology + marketing/sales. Hence, great tech + great network = $$$. A company is first and foremost a product. Which involves understanding in a novel manner both your users and the technology to build it. Great product people can be techies, designers, "business people" (whatever that means), sales people, doctors and housewives. They are those who define the company. Secondly, a company is a team of individuals. Getting many people to work well together is very hard. Then there is technology, marketing, and finance and HR etc. Of course there are many "nontrepreneurs", but it gets boring to gripe about them. More importantly, I feel like an engineer who pidgeon-holes himself as a techie (and that's it) lacks ambition, and is unlikely to get senior in a successful startup. All techies I can think of who started a big one seem to prove this. (Signed: engineer AND business person)

</comment><comment><USER43> I've been around long enough that I've had many, many such pitches. Some from serious business people and some from people with just an idea and no experience at all.

I feel it's good to keep an open mind, but I do insist on an equal commitment from all parties involved. One way for the business person to do that is to raise the capital that pays our living expenses and operating costs for the initial development. If I'm on board, I'll tell them to use my name to show that we have a tech team in place. But if they can't raise any money then I don't usually see a point in beginning the development phase. This sometimes is a wake-up call to the person pitching. But even if the idea takes off, they will be spending a lot of their time raising money. So if they can't do it now, it's unlikely they'll be able to do it later when we need to grow the company.

Of course like the OP I have to be at least interested in the industry or idea as well.

</comment><comment><USER44> After having read his reasons of why he wont be my tech co-founder I'm almost sure I don't want him as a co-founder neither.

You are only in it for the money: If you can make 60k in 6 months consulting, than do that. I can't pay that much, I can't even pay myself that much. And if your only contribution to the next FB is only worth 60k you aren't good enough.

You undervalue me / overvalue yourself: 50 % of equity aren't enough? I invest the same amount of time (which, by the way, also means money to me. Without a start-up I would make 90k a year as a employee...). A start is like a child, you know? 50-50 if it wasn't in-vitro.

I don't know you: Who are you? Well, we just met...

You are replaceable: Since you don't know the industry I want to develop a new product for I can take about just any developer. As an employee you may fit but not as aco-founder.

I haven't proven myself: That's why I want to do a start-up. Proving yourself in business in a big corp means becoming a middle pointy haired manager. I'm not going to be one, hence my missing entrepreneur track record.

You aren't passionate about it: I am, you not. Well, it is all about passion so we may just not match in this particular endeavour.

Disclaimer: I don't even belief half of what I just wrote. Whoever finds irony can keep it :-)!

Seriously, If you approach a future partner-in-crime like that nobody can help you anymore. Everything is to late and you REALLY are bad in business. But if you put any non-technical guy (general question: do you consider mech. engineers as non-technical, too? If yes, I don't like you anymore ;-)) in that category you aren't much better. And if you are that good that you don't need the a idea / business guy why don#t you just go ahead yourself?

I already wrote things like that before, I'll repeat it now: You are looking for a person you will spend more time during the next couple of years than you own wife. Be carefull about who you pick, it is hard. Every party is risking the same, time, money, career. Youare in this together, so respect youself. And damn it, value your collegues! Respect them, as a professional AND a person. That's one of the reasons lot of peopla start start-ups, a lack of respect as an employee. And respect goes both ways.

Mind that, if you don't the only thing you will be is cocky first and business or tech second.

EDIT: In y erlier post ([http://martingryner.com/how-i-screwed-up-my-first- business-m...](http://martingryner.com/how-i-screwed-up-my-first-business- model/)) he wrote that: "Technology wont solve all your problems", I think he is right about that.

</comment><comment><USER45> The take-aways to pay attention to here are the upbeat and less snarky parts. Like that a _good_ business guy is worth his weight in gold.

I've been networking like a lady-of-loose-morals trying to find one, and it's just as hard as finding a good engineer. (Fortunately as to the latter case, I already are one.) As a result I've been doing the business development, customer seduction - sorry, acquisition - and networking required to get this done myself.

 _It's really hard._

Yes, there's a lot of idiots with business degrees and the first socio-loco- mobo-deals app idea that popped into their heads. There's also a few business minded geniuses hiding out there too. Don't dismiss them out of hand because of the oversupply of the others.

</comment><comment><USER22> Good people are difficult to get in any profession. Good Hackers, product guys, business guys, sales people are all difficult to get.

The problem starts when every Joe at the end of the street thinks merely having an idea merits him to become a millionaire and guys who work that to happen are fundamentally easily replaceable slaves. This works the other way around too, if you are a bad programmer and you think selling is easy, and sales guy is unable to sell you bad product then your wrong.

Execution is a art, no matter what is getting executed. Great execution is difficult in any walk of life.

Just like how good hackers are a scare resource, so are good business people. In general good people are difficult to get.

</comment><comment><USER46> It feels like this was written out of frustation.

I understand the problems and points you have raised however, this post is probably not a very good idea if you value your reputation.

When people google your name they might interpret this post as coming from someone rather arrogant.

Just sayin' :)

</comment><comment><USER47> I always find it odd when I talk to a VC or someone about my startup and they're surprised that we've known each other for 5-6 years and have worked together before.

I can understand having an idea and not knowing how to implement on it, but I can't understand trying to make a business out of that. I have many good ideas I'm not qualified to have. I either take the time to become qualified (how I learned programming in the first place), or just shelve them.

I think that's the same reasoning which caused YC to do the no-idea thing. Ideas are cheap, the team is what's important. I guarantee someone had the idea of Twitter before Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm sick of this sort of crummy linkbait. The exact same thing crops up every few months on HN. "Ideas are a dime a dozen! Engineering is the one true way! Execution is paramount! Reddit, here's a picture of my cute cat!"

It's not black and white (the cat, or the matter in hand here).

As a community, we all nurture fragile ideas. Some of them are big, bold ideas (like beating Google at search), but almost all of them are very fragile. People shouldn't labour on in delusion, but if you say the wrong thing to the wrong dispirited guy who has been thinking about a brilliant idea for three months, then you're going to harm rather than help. And you can help without investing your asshole consulting time.

Nobody needs more assholes reflecting on their status within the startup landscape ("I'm a scarce resource") and denigrating people who presumably are coming to you to share ideas they're excited about ("available markers" – whatever that means – "and business monkeys"), whilst simultaneously insinuating that the work engineers do is somehow more vital or worthy ("I have [to] make an investment and [do] actual work while you played [sic] around with excel spreadsheets and send [sic] out a few press releases?").

Engineering is vitally important. But that alone does not encompass execution. An MVP (or a P) is the sum total of the amount of sheer thought that has gone into it from everyone who has worked on it or cares about it. Your asshole consulting code doesn't mean anything if it's a feature which nobody needs. A great software engineer contributes code and creative ideas which push a project on. A non-technical co-founder should protect their engineering team and contribute creative ideas which push a project on, whilst doing the grunt work required to push the project on (pay your taxes. Find an office. Do an angel raise. All the crappy ephemeral stuff that goes with a new startup). But most importantly they are there to care and nurture fragile ideas.

The thing which I sincerely loved about this article was the last paragraph. And it's probably a charge which could be leveraged at this comment, but you should have reconsidered your entire post around the final paragraph. Instead of making it a polemic against curious people with ideas who want to share them with you, and telling them just why you're not interested in working with anyone ever, you should have helped people be more persuasive with those ideas in talking to highly technically literate individuals.

Yes, there are countless people who believe they have ideas which can change the world. Yes, there are fewer engineers who can help them get there. What these ideas people need is someone who is prepared to help them realise they are at step 1 of 1.5m, and the most critical thing to do right now is get to step 2. That takes five seconds. It takes a pertinent question. It takes making them stop and think for a second. It doesn't take a list of vaguely offensive barbs and generalisations.

Context: I am a semi-technically literate cofounder (HTML/CSS/JS, competent PHP).

<comment><USER20> I always love to piss off my tech friends by reminding them that Microsoft didn't get to where it was by having the best engineering in the world.. Sales, Marketing and making hard deals that put their products in front of the most customers.

I'm not saying I love their tactics but the "Build it and they will come" really is a field of dreams and young engineers are all dreamers thinking Sales and Marketing is a waste of people and money.

<comment><USER48> Yeah, but technical credits are easly demonstrated. Sales and Marketing are squishier.

I've been through half a dozen startups. They each go through several Sales teams before they're done - try some guys, sorry not working, get some more. What does that tell you?

<comment><USER20> It tells me the leadership of those companies don't understand sales performance. :)

Sales people have the greatest jobs really! They either perform or they don't.. Its easy to measure and easier to take action.

<comment><USER49> Sales people, assuming commission is a large portion of their compensation as is common, are the absolute easiest to measure -"Show me your w2 form from your last job".

<comment><USER50> That isn't how it works.

What if the person had a compensation package which paid really well for selling a product which could be sold by over promising? Their W2 would look awesome but the company would be screwed. I would be most cautious of business people leaving a job with a strong w2. Also it is important to see relative performance. What if they are making 100k and their coworkers are bringing home 500k? Are they still good then?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This discussions (which seem to happens as frequently as sunsets) are so petty and generally worthless. Lots of great businesses are driven by sales as well as code. One is either building or selling a product. And great talent in each department is hard to find. Yes, some consumer apps definitely require less "sales."

But I'd wager there are lots more indignant engineers complaining about how much in demand they are than there are engineers who are actually building great companies.

Stop publicly complaining and go do something successful.

</comment><comment><USER52> It's so true, but in both directions and also in the direction of the design department. The thing is it's hard to find the real deal with all the people out there who are quite confident about being the real deal, while they actually aren't. Sometimes it's even hard to see yourself, if you are the real deal or not, because it's just so easy to talk yourself into believing it, while doing it is actually quite hard, right?

</comment><comment><USER53> I agree for the most part of this article. That's why I advice entrepreneurs to go all-in and validate their idea before trying to find the perfect tech- cofounder. I recently wrote a post about "I don't find a technical co-founder what options do I have? ". I think you might enjoy it <http://jefreybulla.tumblr.com/>.

</comment><comment><USER54> I thought the author was smart enough (still do, actually) until I read this gem:

 _"I am considering making separate business cards for people who want me to be their technical co-founder. They will only have a QR code on them – to this article."_

I don't know if I'd still be interested in a technical cofounder who used a QR code to tell me why _I_ was mistaken.

</comment><comment><USER55> Could bare only reading this half-way through.My man,you come off as pretentious,while at the same time you make mistakes like 'if that's the case,forgot about startups'and'track recors' just to point out a couple.

And that would be fine,if you were not deluding yourself that you are some type of a hot shot master of the universe.

<comment><USER56> You made a mistake. "Could bare" - I think you mean "barely".

Also: You forgot a space after the comma every time you use one.

So what where you saying about his article mistakes again? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Basically this boils down to: If you're looking for a technical co-founder to complement your skills, make sure you have built trust with someone, have done your research, and understand why your building something. So pretty much like every other position.

</comment><comment><USER58> Ha, you inspired me to write this:

"No I won't Be Your Business Co-Founder"

[http://arnoldhur.tumblr.com/post/22794390635/no-i-wont-be- yo...](http://arnoldhur.tumblr.com/post/22794390635/no-i-wont-be-your- business-co-founder)

</comment><comment><USER59> @gryner: I checked your FB and noticed that English isn't your native tounge, so straight up I give you props for being able to communicate in a 2nd language waaaaaaay better than I ever will. However I found this article difficult to read. It was thought provoking though, so I just did a quick fly by edit.

+++++++++++++++++

NO, I WON'T BE YOUR TECHNICAL CO-FOUNDER

Hackers are becoming more and more like VCs, they often have to say "no". Last summer, just before the 500 demo day I attended an event which required me to fill in "company" on name tag. As I was there just to help out Zerply for less than 2 months I didn't feel adequate enough use their name. I didn't bother to write my consulting companies either as obviously it wouldn't have said anything. I decided to go for "Hacker". I don't think I would have been forced to listen to as many pitches had I chosen "writing checks".

Every week I get approached by someone with a "game changing" idea. All they need is someone to execute it. "Hey, I've heard you are good at IT stuff, let's start up!". Well, no.

I don't know you.

Startups and babies have one thing in common; you don't do them with someone you just met. We will have to work together for years, sometimes 24 hours a day. Chances are we just met and you just handed me your card or at least I don't know you well. How could I trust you with part of my business?

There are thousands of issues that can ruin the relationship between startup founders, many of which can be foreseen. It might not even directly be your fault. Perhaps you have an over-controlling spouse that wants you home by 6 every day? If that's the case, forgot about startups in general.

I'm not passionate about the subject.

Passion is the fuel that powers startups, it helps get through tough times and get things done. My passion is games. It isn't a hard and fast rule, but unless your idea has something to do with games I probably won't be interested. People often approach me with a random idea they had, but without the spark in their eyes. That's a sure sign of approaching failure and I'm not going to buy first class ticket on the Titanic.

You expect me to invest at least 60 000€

It's reasonable to for MVP to take 6 months. We could release an earlier version, just to be ashamed of it, but 6 months is probable. If we consider just 8 hour work days 5 days a week it totals about 120 000€ by my normal consulting rate.

Time is money; why should I invest mine in your idea? And if I do, why should I accept only 50% or even less of the equity? After all, I have made an investment of actual work while you played around with excel spreadsheets and sent out a few press releases? Sarcasm aside, during first few months of startup development, hackers are doing all the work and taking all the risk. If we fail fast you have lost almost nothing whereas I have lost months of intense work.

Your are easily replaceable.

Let's face it – good hackers are scarce resource. That's why you are talking to me. However conferences, meetups and other places where startup industry players gathers to escape the daylight are filled with available marketers and business monkeys.

Only thing you have is your network. As a "business guy" in a startup I expect you to have Barack Obama as a 2nd level LinkedIn connection and Zuckys number on speed dial. Well, anyway much wider network than I have. If you don't – I probably don't need you.

There are exceptions of course, people who have already proved themselves, but that's an entirely different ballgame. Experience in other fields does not matter – even if they come from tech industry, startups are nothing like your average business plan.

"I don't know the IT stuff"

I don't know anything about construction, medicine or farming. Common denominator here is, I'm not planning to do business in any of these fields. If you say outright that you know nothing about IT, it means you won't respect nor understand my work, will set unreasonable goals and probably won't be pleasant to work with. At least get some basic knowledge of the technical side if you want any hacker to take you seriously. And lose the darn tie.

How to make me consider it.

I can think of two cases where I have seriously considered taking the role and might actually do it at some point.

One of them was a guy approaching me with an idea for a piece of software he desperately needed himself. Not desperately, but enough to invest money into it. He was straightforward from the beginning – he knew the industry, knew the problem and could provide the first clients and testers. Later on he hoped to sell it to some bigger player – not change the world/cure AIDS or eliminate hunger. It was barely a startup as he wasn't hunting millions, just a quick cash and to scratch his own itch.

Second case was a team of 2 developers asking me to be the third. They had a better business model and market research than most MBAs that have asked me to join. They also acknowledged that the task was so big they would benefit from having another set of hands. I can respect that.

What did these two cases have that others haven't? First of all, I knew the people for some time, one of them for about 10 years. Secondly they had well defined goals and business models. You are not Steve Jobs, you do not have a reality disorientation field. Vision is not enough. I want to see numbers and research before I decide to make the investment of my time and effort.

I am considering making separate business cards for people who want me to be their technical co-founder. They will only have a QR code on them – to this article.

<comment><USER60> Thanks for doing this. I thought about doing exactly this but was worried I'd come off snarky.

Sometimes I'm a little too much of a grammar snob for my own good.</comment></comment>


How many computers should a programmer have? - <AUTHOR> http://mindstudies.psy.soton.ac.uk/dmitri/blog/index.php/archives/117 <comment><USER2> Hm. It depends on the sort of programmer. The writer uses C# (bulky Microsoft tools) and codes in a language that requires compiling. So his assessment is fitting for an ASP.NET or Java programmer, definitely.

I program in Python and PHP mostly, and my two-year-old Macbook is more than enough. 2GHz, 2GB RAM, 60GB harddisk. I run two Virtual OS (XP and Ubuntu) for cross-platform testing using Parallels virtualization, although never both at the same time. I've found that my computer runs just fine with my tools of choice: The usual day-to-day apps (Thunderbird, Firefox, Office 08, etc.), a local MAMP stack, TextMate or MacVim, Photoshop, Transmit (FTP), and a grab bag of other processes (Python, IDLE, Komodo Edit, etc.).

Never needed anything else. I have every browser, the major OS, a great local development server, the choice graphic tools, and good editors. The only other component is my shared hosting account with HostGator which runs twenty sites or so, has unlimited bandwidth, and generally is a very good production server for small-to-medium client sites and my own side projects.

</comment><comment><USER3> "I don't like to admit it, but even I am sometimes forced to use virtual machines." Who is this guy?

<comment><USER4> He's your standard Microsoft stack developer.

Microsoft has historically done a very poor job of virtualization, so Microsoft focused developers generally have a poor opinion of virtualization.

<comment><USER5> If you're writing lower-level network stuff working inside a VM can often create subtle timing issues (and conceal others) that need to be debugged on host OSs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6>
        One for the Black Hat on his dark Aeron,
        In the Land of Mordor where the Lurkers lie.
        One Sun to rule them all, One Mac to find them,
        One router to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
        In the Land of Mordor where the Lurkers lie.

</comment><comment><USER7> The correct answer is "as many as you need".

Personally, I use a MacBook and a Linux server over SSH. Between the two I get the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like my development environment. Dell Small Business makes this easy, too, because they almost always have _great_ deals on 'slightly older' server hardware; I picked up a PowerEdge box about a year ago, with a three-year on- site warranty, for $600.

You know, if Dell had OpenBoot, I don't think I'd ever need to look at another platform again...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> As much as one needs. For me, I need more monitors than I need multiple computers.

</comment><comment><USER10> I have two physical machines, but I use virtual machines all the time for testing purposes, I think most people do. I have no idea what he was talking about with being "forced" to use virtual machines, virtual machines have made testing a hundred times easier than it used to be

<comment><USER11> That's what I was about to say...

Still the answer might be 3: one slice of a server, one desktop, one portable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> As many as you need. I am not a full time programmer, but in recent months I have gone from 2 desktops (one for audio/video and one linux desktop) and a work laptop to one personal macbook pro with an Ubuntu VM, Slicehost (Ubuntu) and EC2. Works fine for me, at least till I get gear acquisition syndrome again.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've gone a bit over the top lately. I have my laptop for most tasks, a Mac Mini for development, a Mac Mini for crawling, and then a suite of servers for further testing.</comment>


Laziness isn't why people are poor. And iPhones aren't why they lack health care - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/08/laziness-isnt-why-people-are-poor-and-iphones-arent-why-they-lack-health-care/ <comment><USER3> For years, my father would say "that guy using the food bank has an iPhone! I don't have an iPhone, and I'm not poor. How can these people afford iPhones?"

It's a generational thing, especially. iPhones are seen as glamorous luxury items, not as an essential tool for living. I always remind my father that the people who have little money but also have iPhones likely don't have a home phone number, home computer, or Internet service in their house. Their iPhone is their only connection to the modern digital world: The one asset they have to get themselves a job, assistance, information. It's arguably one of the most important items for a person to own, today, right up there with a car. Without a good phone and a car, people in the US are basically beached on a shore of unemployment, or low employment, especially in rural towns.

It's incredibly hard for people to get back on the horse when they've fallen off, economically. Even harder if they never had a horse to begin with. At the local library, people are constantly coming in to ask for help with digital literacy problems that affect their lives heavily: paying bills, responding to emails, seeing pictures of their grandchildren that were sent to their email. Having a phone with Internet is literally an essential part of modern life, and the generation that thinks poor people shouldn't have iPhones are the same ones who generally view all this technology stuff as magical hoo hah. Like my dad...

<comment><USER4> iPhones are luxury smartphones.

There are other smartphones that fulfill the same purposes (that you outlined above) which are much cheaper.

If someone in poverty buys an iPhone instead of a budget alternative, it's an indicator that they lack a basic ability to evaluate a handful of economic choices and choose the most appropriate (and thrifty) one. It's the smartphone equivalent of getting chrome rims on your car wheels.

EDIT: I was disappointed but not surprised that the article didn't even acknowledge this fact, nor really make a case at all for what it was saying. I couldn't find any attempt to convince at all in what was written; it was simply a declaration of how right the author's view is and how obviously stupidly wrong the concept of someone being responsible for their own outcomes is.

<comment><USER5> The article addresses this exact form of argument in a manner that I find compelling:

> There's one final problem with these kinds of arguments, and that is the > implication that we should be worried by the possibility of poor people > buying the occasional steak, lottery ticket or, yes, even an iPhone. Set > aside the fact that a better cut of meat may be more nutritious than a meal > Chaffetz would approve of, or the fact that a smartphone may be your only > access to email, job notices, benefit applications, school work and so on. > Why do we begrudge people struggling to get by the occasional indulgence? > Why do we so little value pleasure and joy? Why do we insist that if you are > poor, you should also be miserable? Why do we require penitence?

<comment><USER4> Doesn't work, though. An iPhone is not an "occasional indulgence".

Fancy chocolates, or a meal at a mid-tier restaurant are an "occasional indulgence".

An iPhone is a massive class-signaling purchase that requires expensive ongoing payments to use.

<comment><USER6> Uh, no. Ting supports iPhones and they have $6/mo plus pay as you go. That isn't an "expensive ongoing payment" at all.

[https://ting.com](https://ting.com)

<comment><USER7> Most people buy $200 iPhones with massive monthly bills, at least in the US. I don't know if that changed yet.

<comment><USER8> Do you think it's possible that most _poor_ people don't do that, though? Who do you think the $6/mo deals are made for?

<comment><USER7> I would have thought poor people are more likely to do that because they can't afford the upfront cost of the phone.

I mean, I don't have any data, feel free to prove me wrong. But when I was a poor student, I wouldn't even dream of buying a smartphone outright, yet alone an iPhone.

And I had a look, those $6/month contracts barely subsidise anything. I don't really get what's relevant about them.

<comment><USER6> You can buy a used iphone cheap and get ting. As a bare minimum of needing a phone to get a job anymore this is one of the cheapest options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I work with the poor often, and I think this article is off a bit.

I work with a group of homeless shelters in my job, and my local religious congregation regularly volunteers at homeless shelters, food shelves, multiple times a month. And one thing I've found is that while many poor aren't lazy, some most certainly are. Some people don't want to work.

Here's one example. A man whom I've never met contacted me through my congregation. He said he had no money for groceries. We met him a few times and sure enough, he was unemployed and living bare minimum on welfare. So we helped this guy. I bought him groceries every week for a few months. All the while, we tried to help him get a job so that he could stand on his own feet.

But what we found is that this particular man always found excuses not to take a job. It didn't make enough money, it wasn't what I wanted to do, etc.

Eventually, we saw he was merely using our limited resources to live and eat for free.

When you're living on the charity of others (or the government), it's wrong to be picky and choosy about employment.

Bottom line: While not all poor are lazy, I'm absolutely convinced that some poor are poor _because_ they don't want to work. Some are more comfortable living off the charity of others. And I wish this weren't the case.

<comment><USER4> Thank you very much for adding some useful experience here.

Obviously there are poor who really don't want to be.

And there are some who really do just refuse to do the basic things one needs to do to not be poor.

Too many people act like one of these groups can't possibly exist. So many people seem to think it's evil or unthinkable to even suggest what you're saying is real to any degree.

It's really just a question of how many.

Considering how well some refugee groups (e.g. Viet boat people) have done starting from absolutely nothing in America, I'm willing to believe there is a path up for people willing to take the basic actions required to climb it.

<comment><USER10> The path is getting narrower every day with low skill jobs being centralised and automated away.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Going against the grain, I don't think Chaffetz meant it literally.

While he may or may not have been taking an extremist Right ideological view of poverty, the OP article takes another extreme ideological view, that poverty is inevitable and individuals can do little to avoid it.

While it sounds heartless, I think there is some truth to the assertion that sound financial choices can lift you up from poverty. Duflo, Banerjee, etc. from the randomista economists crowd have shown that poor people are sometimes likely to spend extra cash in suboptimal ways (TV ownership when they need extra calories, etc.). [http://economics.mit.edu/files/530](http://economics.mit.edu/files/530)

This includes buying health insurance. That health insurance is too expensive is unfortunate, and I think GOP earnestly believes that their plan makes it cheaper for people to buy health insurance. This is not unlike how Obama and Democrats implemented their healthcare overhaul with the best of intentions, yet it lead to expensive premiums, etc.

While we are loathe to admit it, poverty is a result of both poor choices and unavoidable bad-luck. Like the common debate of 'nature vs. nurture', it is hard to delineate bad-luck and poor-choices as causes leading to poverty.

At the end of the day, we should have compassion and understand that many things that affect our situation are beyond our control, and yet not be afraid to consider honestly and objectively, the various causes of poverty.

<comment><USER12> I guess you missed the part of the article where it explained that the largest group of poor people are children. Do you think they made poor financial choices?

And you also missed "Rates of intergenerational income mobility are, in fact, higher in France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and other countries in the world than they are here in the United States."

Governments can do a lot to help people get out of poverty. Blaming them isn't one of them.

<comment><USER11> > I guess you missed the part of the article where it explained that the > largest group of poor people are children. Do you think they made poor > financial choices? And you also missed "Rates of intergenerational income > mobility are, in fact, higher in France, Spain, Germany, Canada, Japan, New > Zealand and other countries in the world than they are here in the United > States."

Are you suggesting that I am not acknowledging bad-luck (the sole reason for childhood poverty) as a factor? Because, I do.

As to Germany, Japan, etc. there are many reasons why those countries are better off. "Germany does this, their poverty is lower, so America should do this," isn't a valid argument for anything.

> Blaming them isn't one of them.

Blaming them (i.e. chiding them) doesn't serve any purpose. But helping them modify behavior, educating them, etc. does. The Government should acknowledge this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The essential problem is that most people can't accumulate, synthesize, and understand the requisite knowledge to appreciate that fact. We're strongly limited by our perspectives, which tend to become more rigid with time, just as we're having maximal influence on the lives of others. We're tribal, we're competitive, and we find it difficult to relate to distant strangers in vast numbers.

As a result people eschew the attempt to gain a broad view of the world, and its history, and instead decide to trust an ideologue, ideology, religion, or just as likely these days, invent their own bullshit and find others with similar flavors of crap. "Oh you think the universe is crystals and orgone? Me too!" "Oh you think that black people smell funny? Me too!" "Oh you think the moon is an illusion created by God?..."

You get. At the top you have people with enough money and time, power and education to appreciate these factors. Most of them seem to be in it largely for themselves, and even those who later come to some kind of humanitarian spirit do so in a fractional way compared to their total wealth. Exceptions exist, but they are so rare we all know the names.

Is it any wonder that in a world of such massively "Haves" and brutally "Have- Nots", that each group invents a largely specious narrative to explain the actions of the other?

</comment><comment><USER14> No, but wealthy libertarians with vast amounts of political power believe it. According to adherents of this belief system, poverty is a symptom of laziness, full stop, and government can do nothing, and more importantly _must_ not.

<comment><USER13> I doubt that they believe it, as much as they see it as a convenient philosophy to propagate. It really is the philosophy of the exceedingly short- sighted, arrogant, or just plain uneducated. You can't have even a passing knowledge of history and think that philosophy has merit. You could very easily think it has merit as a cultural sword and shield though.

It's ironic that the people with the resources and power to rapidly alter the self-destructive course humanity is on, are the most invested in maintaining that course.

<comment><USER4> You think the idea that people are generally responsible for their own outcomes is "exceedingly short-sighted, arrogant, or just plain uneducated"?

<comment><USER15> Much of what determines outcomes is socioeconomic or race based, much less is determined by hard work or agency.

This honestly is the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal political ideologies; conservatives feel that they earned their place in society based on hard work, liberals understand more often than not, that place was the result of something akin to a lottery, and many people are less fortunate by no fault of their own.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If people woke up to how unearned things like intelligence and circumstances of birth are, and how much they affect life outcomes, they'd be beset with guilt. Thus it's psychologically imperative that they can blame some other factor for poor people. They'll pick out one thing, and load it up with all the meaning.

What particularly disgusts me is judging people for their choice of resource allocation, for using their very freedom. If a poor person chooses to invest in a high-end phone, it's probably because they really really want it; because it will transform their lives more than can easily be appreciated on the outside. It's the same thing with a luxury meal; being poor doesn't mean you ought to live on water and gruel for the whole of your life with the aim of saving a small bundle of cash in case of illness - such a life would hardly be worth living. Flourishing demands peaks, local maxima of happiness, and to deny poor people that is almost inhuman.

<comment><USER10> I'd add that this extreme would make them essentially less well off than ancient slaves most of the time...

"Sure, we banned slavery, but instead you get to live in the same conditions!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the reason people here don't have health care is we don't require and provide it, and we make it more expensive than any other country.

60 countries have universal health care. Some have a basic national requirement that all insurance companies are required to cover everyone with no exceptions, and that for the most basic health insurance they are not allowed to make a profit, but can offer supplemental plans. Some countries have a dual models of both state and private insurance providers. Some make non-elder care private and compulsory while elder care is provided by taxation. Some require co-pays, some are free. Some are centralized, some decentralized.

What is clear is that in the majority of modernized countries around the world, _they figured out how to do universal healthcare a long time ago_ , and here we are looking like fucking country bumpkins who can't figure out how to give people a basic public service. One of our many national embarrassments.

</comment><comment><USER18> one thing I haven't heard mentioned is that a lot of poor people DON'T have iPhones. they have cheap flip phones with prepaid cards. And guess what? They still can't afford health care.

<comment><USER19> It's yet another sign that they have no clue about how much healthcare actually costs (likely having had employer-subsidized coverage before their cushy Congressional coverage).

I'm on the exchanges, and my family of four pays $2,001/month plus a $4k max out-of-pocket (that we're guaranteed to hit). That's about three iPhones _a month_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> To the arguments focused around "An iphone is a flagship smartphone", please consider the highly driven narrative of thus..."the iPhone is the only smartphone". I realise this perspective may appear delusional, but in reality we enforce immensely strong ideologies...with our silly marketing budgets... yet we are unable to relate with the precariat all that we have affected...When we elect a president like this it's, honestly, time for a thoroughly investigated reality check.

</comment><comment><USER21> Even if it was true that the cost of iPhones and other minor indulgences could buy a year's worth of quality health insurance (as mentioned in the article, it's not even close), I'd still have a hard time seeing the Republican side. My past flirtations with right-libertarianism make it hard to cringe at the idea that society doesn't have to save people from making bad choices, but it's not that simple and the Republicans obviously know it. They're trying to stop a budget review of the Obamacare repeal because they know that the government, hospitals, people paying insurance premiums, and so on, will see a sudden increase in the financial burden they bear for ER treatment of people who lack health insurance (not to mention the wider public health implications and the complicated cost calculations on that). That's what Obamacare was really about, and by some standards it was very effective at addressing the issue. Once again, Republican voters shoot themselves in the foot by cheering for the poor to suffer.

</comment><comment><USER22> Huh. Colour me controversial, but I always thought it had to do with low IQ, traumatic childhoods, and not being able to defer gratification, etc.

<comment><USER13> That's not controversial at all, about half of the country seems to believe that. It's just... wrong.

<comment><USER23> Is it entirely wrong though? Dumb people who impulse buy things aren't poor?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> America is the land of opportunity; rich people in America took advantage of the opportunity. Therefore taking advantage of this opportunity can make you rich. Says nothing about the arguments for the causes of poverty. Also valid modus ponens but unsound. Also potentially suffering from Hume's "problem with induction".

<comment><USER10> Opportunity makes opportunity.

As it is now, many low key opportunities have been taken and/or removed, it is now much harder than ever to break through for an enterprising person - <USER2> much more up front investment.

In the past, you could indeed go from a paperboy to a writer. Try doing it today.</comment></comment>


The future of programming - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Azeirah/A-new-wave-of-programming

<comment><USER2> The future of programming is a language of the seventies: Smalltalk. Smalltalk tooling and interactivity is years ahead of actual platforms.

<comment><USER3> What are some good current Smalltalk implementations? The only one I've really heard of is Pharo.

<comment><USER2> Try Squeak [http://squeak.org](http://squeak.org) It is a good implementation and has a very friendly community.

<comment><USER3> Looking at that (and Pharo) it seems like all applications run inside the development environment. Is that correct?

<comment><USER4> That's at least some of the reason Smalltalk is useful. It's also probably the main reason Smalltalk has never taken off.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kottke:  Avg dude vs. pro football player in 40 yard dash - <AUTHOR> http://kottke.org/10/04/average-dude-vs-pro

<comment><USER2> Average dude being Rich Eisen, of the NFL Network, who in fact trained for this sprint:

[http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl- combine/09000d5d816ad7b3/Eisen...](http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl- combine/09000d5d816ad7b3/Eisen-trains-for-40)

</comment><comment><USER3> It's amazing how fast even the big dudes run. That's what blows my mind.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hell - compare the Avg Dude to a Marathon runner. A 42.195km marathon in 2:03:59 - is about 5.67m/s or 20.4km/h. That is a 17 second 100m, or 70 seconds for a 400m lap of a track. Plenty of people couldn't run that one lap at that pace.

<comment><USER5> Plenty of which people? Middle aged guys in suits? As I recall, most of my 10th grade class could break 70 seconds--the guy who took 90 was overweight and a smoker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It would be cool if they actually gave his time. Also, if you put Tebow in a suit and him in running clothes it would be (a little bit) closer.

<comment><USER7> > It would be cool if they actually gave his time.

The guy in the suit?

The fastest player was Jacoby Ford with a 4.28s 40-yard dash. <http://www.nfl.com/combine/top-performers?tabIndex=0>

<comment><USER6> Yeah, the guy in the suit, for comparison. I know that very fast NFLers are in that ~4.3 range, so it would be cool to know that he got a 6.8 or whatever for comarison

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm assuming there is an entirely different stride that lets them run so fast (aside from tons of training, of course)?

<comment><USER9> Yep. The stride of the guy in the suit is _way_ too long. When you're sprinting, you want to be taking short, fast strides that propel you forward and not rely on your momentum to carry you there.

The general idea is that you raise your knee with your lower leg pointing downwards, and then rip backwards, extending your leg as you do so. You don't want to go up at all, just forward.

The other thing to do that he's not is move your arms more efficiently. Your elbows should be locked at about a 90 degree angle, and your hands should be relaxed. Your arms drive your legs, not the other way around.

(I ran indoor track when I was in high school. My main event was the 55m dash.)</comment></comment>


Mathematics writer Martin Gardner has died - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/05/martin-gardner-remembered-october-21st-1914-may-22nd-2010/

<comment><USER2> Other articles with discussion:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1372045>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1371335></comment>


Microsoft Patented Cryptocurrency System Using Body Activity Data - <AUTHOR> https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606&tab=PCTBIBLIO <comment><USER2> 00109] Concept 24. A device, comprising: one or more processors communicatively coupled to a sensor, the sensor configured to sense body activity of a user; and memory storing executable instructions that, if executed by the one or more processors, configure the device to: receive a task; generate body activity data based on the sensed body activity of the user, wherein the sensed body activity is associated with the received task; and transmit the generated body activity data to a system or network which verifies the body activity data to award cryptocurrency.</comment>


Google power 'less than thought' as eBay starts boycott - <AUTHOR> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1940506.ece <comment><USER2> "The data suggests that Google may be less powerful than people thought, at a time when the search engine is seeking to widen its empire – and drawing fresh criticism almost every day as a result of its perceived growing dominance."

Analogies to empires and the military are a little silly in the business world. Businesses have very little legal power to force anything. The customers and consumers have all the power when they choose to buy or not to buy from a company.

</comment><comment><USER3> It seems more to indicate that eBay's marketing department should be fired. Come on, who really clicked those ads anyway?</comment>


Google Chrome Extension Gallery Live - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/extensions

<comment><USER2> Does anyone know the backstory of why webkit browsers don't pretty-print XML, necessitating plugins like this: [https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gbammbheopgpmaag...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/gbammbheopgpmaagmckhpjbfgdfkpadb) ?

<comment><USER3> I think it's assuming that anything served as text/xml is XHTML.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, will there be an adblocker soon?

Edit: There is, but it doesn't work due to a syntax error in the installer:

[https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/fkkedmmdcjakdoef...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/fkkedmmdcjakdoeffbpakigjpjgkkfjj)

Edit #2: Found one that does work:

[https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpk...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb)

<comment><USER5> you can have an adblocker that works for every browser by editing your /etc/hosts file :)

this guy has a collection of blocked ad sites in this hosts file :

<http://zelut.org/projects/misc/hosts>

btw windows has a hosts file too ;)

<comment><USER6> I agree that editing the hosts file is by far the best thing for actual adblocking, but I like to have a manual adblocker in the browser, too. Not actually for ads, but so that I can "turn off" parts of pages that I don't want to deal with easily (for example, annoying, gross or animated avatars at forums).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is there an extension (could there be) for privacy protections similar to SRWare? I like SRWare ok but it'd be nice if these protections could be dropped into the latest Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER8> Woah, the install process is absolute bliss.

Something for Mozilla to look at.

EDIT: and we have Xmarks! Chrome is now pretty much unbeatable for me now.

</comment><comment><USER9> No extensions for Mac yet.</comment>


Assange stands 'real chance' of election in Australia - <AUTHOR> http://www.france24.com/en/20120519-assange-stands-real-chance-election-australia

<comment><USER2> Here's hoping. Under the Westminster parliamentary system you can say anything in parliament and not be held liable. Everything said is then transcribed and made available as a public record. It's the ideal soapbox.

<comment><USER3> Not quite "anything" - parliamentary privilege doesn't extend to anything deemed to be "unparliamentary language". For example, you can't call a fellow member of parliament a liar:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unparliamentary_language>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm all for Assange's senate bid, but given he doesn't seem to have declared/decided which state/territory he will be running for the Senate in, I'm curious as to how these data can be considered accurate/representative of any actual electoral outcome.

<comment><USER5> True - the closest analog I'd see is Nick Xenophon who won a senate seat in 2007 as an independent, with 15% of the primary vote.

If Assange did get 25% of the primary, then he'd be a shoe-in, probably at the expense of a Green.

However, the article is a bit woolly. "25% would vote for" does not necessarily mean the primary vote.

<comment><USER6> It's pretty easy for a minor party (well, 'one of the', not 'a') to pick up the last senate seat in a state, given the way they're allocated. It all depends on which way the preferences flow.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, you're probably right -- I went and had a look back at 2007. Xenophon won, but a Green also picked up a Senate seat (in SA). The Greens polled just 6.5% and picked it up off preferences.

I was figuring his vote would come at the expense of the Greens, but even in that case the major parties were marginal enough on the 6th seat to get the Greens in.

(Plus the DLP won a seat in Vic in 2010, off just 2.3% of the primary).

I expect the next election will be quite a shake-up, especially in the Senate - certainly can't see the major parties gaining. So, you're probably right that preferences will dominate the 5/6th seats.

<comment><USER7> Given the current political climate I think his seat might come at the expense of a Labor senator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Th government is on the nose at the moment. So is the opposition! A dead fish has a good chance of being elected right now, if they aren't a member of the major Liberal or Labor parties...

</comment><comment><USER9> Running for the Senate would be an interesting move, to say the least, and would probably create a headache for the Australian government that they don't want.

I imagine Assange's lawyers have done their homework and have established that from being on house arrest in the UK he could run for the Senate (contrary to what 1-2 commenters here have said).

There's probably few better elections to run in than the next one. It looks like the current Labor government will be decimated in the next election (in some ways history is repeating itself from the Hawke-Keating years, which is interesting).

Yet the population seems disillusioned with the opposition too. My biggest problem with the opposition is their pointless continued opposition to the NBN.

Anyway, the big potential headache for the Australian government here is Assange would go from being a citizen possibly being extradited to the Sweden (and potentially the US) to being a sitting Senator being extradited. While he wouldn't be a head of state and enjoy those protections, I'm not sure if there's any real precedent for extradition of someone in the government like this.

Australia should be standing up to the US over this however so it's a headache I would invite and welcome upon our government.

That all being said, I'm not sure I buy the theory that Assange's extradition to Sweden is to get his extradited to the US. I seem to remember reading something saying it was just as easy to extradite him from Britain so who knows.

<comment><USER10> How many times does Turnbull have to say he isn't going to rip up the NBN?

He has two main problems: He doesn't want labour getting credit for something liberal can. He doesn't believe labour is managing the project in with best financial interest of the public and feels up to $10 billion could be saved.

This is the BS that is ticking him off: [http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news- national/new-homes-dudd...](http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/new- homes-dudded-over-nbn-turnbull-20120517-1ysus.html)

35,000 new homes built last year had fresh new copper laid by Telstra instead of fibre.

That copper isn't old, damaged, and incapable of fast speeds. It is brand new and was a complete waste of money. Except for Telstra shareholders who get to profit even more off the labour government once tax payers buy it all back to replace with fibre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would certainly make it a lot more interesting to see how the US Government deals with him.

<comment><USER12> I would love to see a wikileaks alternative leaking assange classified documents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Would this get him some form of immunity from civil/criminal prosecution? Would it apply internationally? (diplomatic or consular immunity)

<comment><USER14> Despite what the movies tell you there is no such thing as true immunity.

If you commit a crime in another country under "diplomatic immunity", your host country must decide to waive your immunity and allow you to be prosecuted, or have you expelled back to your native country. The receiving country could then request extradition for a criminal trial (so you essentially get kicked out as a diplomat, and drug back as a citizen).

In the specific case of Assange, professional activity outside official functions isn't protected at all. So if Australia did come to his defense and claimed he was acting in a professional capacity for doing something like leaking US military secrets, it would be an act of state sponsored terrorism.

<comment><USER15> _> it would be an act of state sponsored terrorism._

How would that be, in any way, shape or form, terrorism? If anything, it might be espionage or something in that vein. Calling whistle-blowing terrorism is disingenuous at best.

<comment><USER14> Terrorism is loosely defined as actions by an individual or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Almost word for word the mission statement of Wikileaks.

<comment><USER15> That's the stupidest definition of terrorism I have ever seen. You could call pretty much ANYTHING slightly subversive terrorism under this definition.

Movements for social change? Terrorism.

Peaceful demonstrations against government policy? Terrorism.

Any sort of activism? Terrorism.

I stand by my opinion: calling whistle-blowing terrorism is a ridiculous appeal to emotion, and anyone who even dares to attempt it should be laughed out of the building.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> He has no chance. He needs to be in Australia to be elected or he will be charged with electoral fraud.

Good luck to him but by the time he has dealt with his current legal "issues" most people would have forgotten about him.

<comment><USER17> Can you provide a source for this?

As far as I know (from an interview with Geoffrey Robertson, Assange's lawyer, but also known as a respected senior lawyer and public figure in both the UK and Australia) this is incorrect. It is possible to be elected when overseas, however there seems to be a grey area as to what would happen to his seat if he was unable to return to the country to occupy it in parliament.

<comment><USER16> It's not really a grey area. There have been politicians who have failed to be present enough days in their electorates in the past and suffered the wrath of the electoral commission.

<comment><USER18> This is quite simply untrue. There is no requirement to live in an electorate to represent that electorate in Parliament, and in fact in the past it was very common for country electorates to be represented by city politicians. Antony Green has a great post debunking this myth:

[http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/02/local-seats- for-...](http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/02/local-seats-for-local- people-who-should-be-allowed-to-contest-elections.html)

(and Senators don't even represent electorates).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cap-and-trade bill to pass house energy committee within a week - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/12/waxman-confident-cap-trade-pass-house-memorial-day/

<comment><AUTHOR> Obama's plan was to reduce emissions 14% by 2020 with a 100% auction. The new plan is tentatively to reduce emissions 20% by 2020, but with partial allocation of credits in the beginning. So better for the environment, but with less cost to businesses, and less of an increase in energy prices. (But also with less money raised for taxpayers.)

Other sources are saying they will compromise at 17% with partial allocation.</comment>


Containerizing in the world of Minecraft - <AUTHOR> http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2015/11/containerizing-in-the-real-world-of-Minecraft.html <comment><USER2> This is a series of articles designed to teach you the basics of containerization, but it sounds like you'll come away with some pretty powerful knowledge. Kudos to the author.

<comment><USER3> Thanks! I had to make some tradeoffs in efficiency in exchange for clarity in explanations, but I think it will get people started.</comment></comment>


The weird and wonderful feline world of Louis Wain - <AUTHOR> http://www.anothermanmag.com/life-culture/10560/the-forgotten-artist-who-changed-the-way-we-look-at-cats-louis-wain <comment><USER2> I remember seeing the psychotic cat picture as an epitome of painted madness. I get from this article we really don't know it was schizophrenia, but I also get it seems a given he was in some mental decline.

Late Van Gogh have similar radiating jaggies. Munch has a different affectation.

El Greco's astigmatism is also contested.

<comment><USER3> It's worth knowing that his family had made their money on textiles and rugs. Many of the most out there paintings Wain did are not denovo, but based on synthesis of Persian rug patterns and his cat drawing.</comment></comment>


Heatwave reveals England's lost prehistoric sites - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45170581 <comment><USER2> Why are all these drought archeologial reports coming from England? I would guess the site density to be simillar in France, Netherlands, Germany etc. Is it a difference in awareness? a difference in funding / drone rules? a difference in reporting policy (i.e. are they making a many finds, but not communicating to prevent artefact hunters from raiding the sites?

<comment><USER3> We have a lot of history. :-)

To be fair, I have also seen reports from France and Denmark as well.</comment></comment>


CSR8510 Chipset Fries MBP 16" Bluetooth Module - <AUTHOR> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250944058?answerId=252394171022#252394171022 <comment><USER2> Why does Apple seem to ignore that the issue even exists. For me this is serious enough to call for a recall. The computer has a major flaw somewhere. And Apple don't even seem to care. The issue is several months old. No response other than replacing logic board, and this without fixing the real cause of the problem.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Discussion on Reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/eaihtz/strange_bluetoo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/mac/comments/eaihtz/strange_bluetooth_issue_with_16inch_macbook_pro/)</comment>


The Job Title Blacklist for the Self-Employed - <AUTHOR> http://putthingsoff.com/articles/job-title-blacklist/ <comment><USER2> I generally sign emails "Founder / author", which feels a bit kludgy but is at least somewhat clear. What titles do other HNers use (creative or otherwise)?

<comment><USER3> Multiple phony names and email address just to give a Big Boy illusion. Works.

Cold call one day "on behalf of your VP of foo", get the details of the contact person, wait 2 days, call as "VP of foo".

<comment><USER2> That might work for a while, but eventually someone is going to figure you out.

I would never work with someone who played sleazy games like that.

<comment><USER3> I am in advertising.

<comment><USER2> Roughly a decade ago, I had the good fortune to be present at the retirement party of my university's Dean of Business. In the requisite speech, he commented that the hardest term of teaching he ever had was when he had to go from teaching "Ethics and Corporate Responsibility" to "Introduction to Marketing" with only a 10 minute gap in between.

That said, I don't believe that working in advertising gives you a free pass to act dishonestly. Advertising should be about making people aware of a good product -- not deceiving them about your product's quality.

<comment><USER3> Theory is one thing, practice another. I arrived at this after repeated trial and error; most big advertisers will not talk to a little guy no matter what. I do this just to crack the corporate shell and reach someone, after that we're on first name basis.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Covid-19, your community, and you - <AUTHOR> https://www.fast.ai/2020/03/09/coronavirus/ <comment><USER2> This is a brilliant work by Jeremy and Rachel. While celebs like Elon Musk are calling this Covid-19 panic dumb, what we really needed is a scientific explanation for a common man which is what this post from FastAi delivers</comment>


Postgres CLI with autocompletion and syntax highlighting - happy-go-lucky https://github.com/dbcli/pgcli <comment><AUTHOR> Original post here - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8844723](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8844723)</comment>


Ask HN: Thoughts on One Founder Company? - <AUTHOR> What do you think about investors who reject those startups who have just one founder? Are they correct in doing so? Given the founder has decade of experience in that field. <comment><USER2> Do they have experience building a company?

They aren't out right rejected, the bar is higher because there is only one of you to do all the things. You have to show that you can hire and delegate and make positive progress.

<comment><AUTHOR> 10 year experience in industry and 2 year experience in running a startup with 8 employees

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think it's a bad blanket rule.

Founder conflict is a major risk for an early-stage startup failing, so having the wrong co-founder is more dangerous than going at something solo.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly my thought. Why should the founder be forced to give 50% of equity to someone for doing something he can do himself alone.

<comment><USER2> Are you worried about dilution? Why does it need to be 50%?

<comment><AUTHOR> Usually the idea goes 50-50 split between founders. Unless the guy with the idea has an upper hand in terms of traction or mvp built.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Is this yours?

[https://linkish.io/](https://linkish.io/)

Looks like yet another bookmark app

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah it is yet another bookmarking app but much more than that. I am not sure if I am allowed to market the product by listing its features here but I can connect with one-on-one and tell about it if you are interested. I am very new here so don't know how HN works yet.</comment></comment>