Ask YC: Who is a founder? - <AUTHOR>

I'm heading a small startup that's looking to get funding. Despite our lack of money, I've managed to recruit a programmer, a finance person, and a marketing person; we're moving ahead with development and marketing plans, even as we look for angel or VC funding. I have a separate agreement with each team member, giving them options in the company as well as some compensation if we get funding but don't work together. I'm happy with all of the agreements we've reached to date.
It's pretty clear that we need a graphic designer. We think that we've found a good and talented one, and she seems inclined to join us, once we negotiate exact terms. But she has asked to be described as a "founder."
Now, I was developing the business idea, including market research and technical analysis, for about a year before anyone else joined me. It's clearly my vision, including my overall marketing plan and technical architecture -- although clearly, there's no way that I could have gotten as far as I have without the other (amazing) people I've recruited. But we've now been working together since October, including meetings with each other, VCs, and angels. None of the other people have asked to be called founders; as far as they're concerned, it's fine for me to be the only founder.
My question is this: Should I call this designer a founder? Would that mean calling everyone else, who has been working with me much longer, a founder as well? Or should I just keep things as they've been so far?
My gut feeling is to keep things as they are, with me as the only founder. But if it's typical for all of the pre-money people to be called founders, then I'm happy to share the title. I just want to know what's typically done, assuming that there is any typical case. <comment><USER2> My next statement might go against the grain of YC startup programmers but in my opinion; Design should be at the core of the entire business... think Apple. If you've found a great designer make her a founder. It could be the best move you'll ever make.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good design will make or break our product; while we're doing a lot of cool things, simplicity is key. I myself use a Mac, and had a NeXT machine oh-so- many years ago, and agree that design is a key differentiator.

The question isn't whether the designer is a key person we need, but rather whether joining six months after everyone else entitles her (or everyone) to the "founder" title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think what you are trying to do is extremely dangerous. 'Founder' is not just a title, its also a role - that role does not exist in your startup - understand that and let her also know the same. Otherwise you will just be lying to her and both of you will figure out in sometime which could lead to a major disagreements which is the biggest startup killer. If she is willing to take as much risk with as much commitment you can offer her a huge percentage of stocks which is something that she will value as much. Also, incase she thinks that your setup is a good match and understands the extreme difficulty of getting a committed startup team together she shouldnt have a problem with it.

Getting a committed and talented team which can work together is the hardest part of a startup.Everthing else almost always works out. Consider this the biggest opportunity as well as the biggest challenge you face.

</comment><comment><USER4> By definition, the "founders" of a company are the people who "founded" it. If you join after the company is founded, you're not a founder. That said, there's a lot of pressure to interpret this liberally: Early hires (such as the designer mentioned) want to be called "founders" since it sounds far more impressive, and potential sources of funding (YC included!) are happier if people are described as "founders" because it suggests a greater degree of commitment.

My personal view is that the set of "founders" should at very least be limited by the set of individuals who have worked for a company while receiving any cash compensation. If you're paying someone a salary plus stock options, they're an employee as far as I'm concerned.

<comment><AUTHOR> For the record, everyone working with me on this startup is currently getting options, plus the promise of a job when (not if!) we get funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> First, unless you have a prototype, you shouldn't be worried about this. It's this type of stuff like LLC v. C-Corp that startups focus on and they shouldn't.

Second, think of founders as your YC group (if you were to apply). If she would be part of your YC group (the group that is the core of the company at this stage), then she's a founder. Usually being a founder also implies a class of stock.

Third, you should always hire people smarter and give them compensation that makes them happy and aligned with your company. If she's worth it to moving the company foward, then go ahead and call her "founder." She's got to be in it for the long haul though. Meaning getting paid peanuts banking on those options/equity.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think if anyone is willing to work with no income for options, it's OK to call them founders. Anyone pre-VC is basically a founder anyway. There will never be any doubt about who the 'real' founder is. In the end, it's more important for you to know that you're the majority shareholder than for others to know who the founders are. You get to sit on the board and you get to have the most control.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you are unsuccessful and the only founder it won't matter. If you are successful and there are many founders, it won't matter. Since you are paying everyone with equity only at this point (at least as I read your post and comments) it's entirely legitimate to describe everyone as founders from my perspective.

</comment><comment><USER8> "I am the Co-founder of a growing company" is fine. You really don't need to get hung up on this.

Call her Queen Amidala if it'll let you get back to creating value. Sounds like you've got a well-balanced team, an idea you all believe in, everyone's happy with their shareholdings - move on!!

</comment><comment><USER9> Does she want a founder's share of the company or just the title? If she wants a larger cut of the shares, it seems like you'll have to decide if you're okay with that or not.

</comment><comment><USER10> I personally think that founders have a more sentimental value. These are the people that strongly believe in the vision of the company. They will be their working with you when the cash has dried up (or even before you have funding). If the people that are working with you where to stop getting paid (in cash), would they still be their? If not, I would consider them to be employees, not founders.</comment>


[youtube] Playable Angry Birds Birthday Cake - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hwVRzaQNkA

<comment><AUTHOR> You shouldn't play with food but this is a great gift for a 6 year old and really shows how far you can go in DIY.

</comment><comment><USER2> Amazing where this generation is going. When I was 8 my cake was about the Count from Sesame Street</comment>


Tell HN: How to Get Your Profile Back If You Remove Firefox - <AUTHOR>

I have just left an scathing flame on the firefox forums and can't find the link anywhere (forgot what support site it was on.)
I made a habit of trying the latest bleeding-edge Firefox builds, called "Minefield". I removed one last night, and it took with it 3-years worth of highly curated data; bookmarks, tags, passwords, browsing history and other stuff. It's absolutely paralyzing to go back to zero. I was shocked and horrified and let the Firefox folks have it.
I didn't need to. Here is how to get it back (on Windows XP at least.)
C:\Documents and Settings\user-name\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\
The directories in there are your profiles. Copy them to somewhere for backup. Firefox will have one of them as its active profile, and if you delete the active profile Firefox will never start, thinking it's still running.
List the directories by details, and one with the freshest timestamp is the active one. Move it out. Then change the names of all the remaining directories to its name, one by one, launching Firefox after each rename. Always check your bookmarks and your history.
I got my work back quicker than it took me to write a flame for Mozilla and trashing them in public. I feel horrible.
And yes, I am getting a Firefox t-shirt to make up for it. <comment><USER2> You use Windows?</comment>


Pre-branded domain names for startups - <AUTHOR> http://stylate.com/ <comment><USER3> No! A $7.99 domain name and what looks like to me a $99 logo thrown is not a steal or a good deal. Let me come at this way: Can I get the domain off of you for %80 off the $250 price ? I presume that the answer is no, because it's a lipstick on pig product designed to glorify domain squatting.

All the power to you for finding a niche market, but suckers be warned that it's highway robbery!

edit: downvoted within 2 minutes of posting this without a reply. i guess you guys were looking for a AAA+++ , would buy again review. what a joke

edit2: Sorry for coming off as harsh, but this sort of domain related shit has been plaguing the net for a long time

<comment><USER4> Everybody "domainsquats". People joke with each other about how many names they have in their registrar account. These particular people chose an extraordinarily reasonable price point _just for the name_ , and added design services on top.

They could charge 4x as much and probably close just as much business, because $1000 is a rounding error for a serious 2-person startup.

I don't see why you're bagging on them.

<comment><USER5> I think a reasonable argument to make against domain squatting is that those who do it as a business… are just charging you a fee solely because they thought of it first. It feels very much like a pure wealth transfer from me to a more entrenched player.

It's somewhat analogous to say most software patents, in that their sole purpose seems to be enacting a social cost. You're not going to _do_ anything with that patent/domain, you're just going to wait until someone else thinks of it as well.

<comment><USER4> Why are we entertaining the idea that there's an argument to be had about domain squatting?

I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s. But Internet governance did very much the opposite thing. This argument ended a long time ago. Why piss in the wind about it? In the post-domain-squatting world, this is a great offering.

<comment><USER6> "I wish we had enacted policies against squatting back in the '90s."

What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped domain squatting?

I can't think of a scenario that you could have that would allow someone to purchase a name but then not allow them to sell the name. So what you would end up with is names that are registered but have not found their way (through the free market) to the best possible use.

People tend to think that if the name they wanted wasn't owned by a squatter who was trying to sell it it would be available when they decided they wanted to use it. It would just be sitting there and not in the hands of someone else for a non squatting purpose.

As recently as 2001 I remember attorneys asking if they could use the domain law.com because "I type it in and nothing comes up". As if nobody thought of using that in the prior years or something (and this happened with many names actually).

I'd really like to know your thoughts on this.

<comment><USER7> > What would your suggestion be as far as a policy that could have stopped > domain squatting?

I've often thought of this. I think $500/year or $1000/year is an entirely reasonable price for a .com domain, and would immediately clear out mountains of cruft. Even $50 or $100/year would get 50-75% of it.

<comment><USER6> True it would certainly cut down significantly on people registering domain names on speculation.

But it would also prevent many people from getting their own site because of the cost. I don't think you would have many people taking as many chances as has happened with the current pricing.

Lowering costs has helped the net even though there are undesirable consequences as with anything.

<comment><USER7> Sovereign countries would still be able to do whatever they wanted in their own gTLDs, so I doubt it would actually reduce the number of sites people have.

Some .ly domain works just as well as a .com, technically.

It would just get rid of all the noise in com/net/org.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm not sure I agree that this is such a 'superb idea' ...

As a founder, I want to personalise my domain, and design, and that means coming up with different concepts, and searching whois until I find a good match that's available ... The design then has to represent what the product is about in a non-generic way ... The designs on this site are far too generic for my taste

I can't imagine myself going to that page with a concept and saying 'AHA, that's exactly what I wanted' ... Possibly it could in reverse if someone is looking for inspiration for their next startup ...

<comment><USER9> When you're at the beginning stages, trying to get something built and possibly seeking seed money, spending your time naming, designing logos, and branding is sort of like spending all your money on a nice office before you have a product.

By all means, do the things you talk about when it's time--but that time is usually not at the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I love it. It's like themeforest for startups. Don't listen to the haters.

I have a lot of ideas I put on the backburner 'cause I'm busy with other things. The value in this isn't just the domain, it's the "packaging" of the entire first part of the process. I do this on themeforest too.. browse landing pages for one startup, but maybe buy a landing page that happens to be suited to another random startup idea, if I saw it.

Good luck to you, sirs / madams.

<comment><USER11> Totally agree - I actually just lucked out and found a simple temp name for a startup I'm working on. Trying to find a name has been a pain, and now its sorted in 2 minutes. I won't use the branding, but FINALLY we have a domain.

I'm sure they'll be sold out by the end of the day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You should seriously consider reserving handles on twitter and other services and providing it to the user of your service, else a squatter can easily register handles on these services for the domains you list on your website.

I am not too comfortable with this service though, i don't like the thought of you squatting away hundreds of good startup names. Partly because the price point of $250 sounds very expensive to me, at least as someone sitting in India.

<comment><USER13> Totally agree that they should be reserving handles on the major services. In addition, it doesn't look like they've registered the .net and .org versions of the domains, which also seems like a no-brainer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I despise the blatant profiteering of domainers - they're sucking value out of a system that in some sense should "belong" to society, and providing nothing in return.

But these prices aren't completely unreasonable, they come with (generally quite decent) logos, and they would save a startup countless hours of faffing over domains.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is domain squatting pure and simple. Just because it's dressed up with a pretty design doesn't change the fact that these guys are the exact sort of bottom feeders that we should be blackballing from our industry.

Flagged.

<comment><USER16> 1\. Not using copyrighted names.

2\. Adding value

3\. Not using means such as using expiring names

4\. Not using "bottom feeder" tactics like parking page advertising.

From wikipedia: cybersquatting:

" or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else"

What goodwill or trademark are they misusing?

[Edit: For formatting, but couldn't get it to look like I want.]

<comment><USER17> It appears that they are using parking page advertising - go to any of the available domains and you'll see that they don't just redirect to Stylate.

<comment><USER18> Point is it's not their primary profit model. In fact, they'll make next to nothing on parking ads for these domains, being made-up names...unless their customers promote the domain before actually executing the transfer (which would not be a smart thing to do).

<comment><USER19> Not pointing the domains was an oversight. We will fix this soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The amount of controversy here means that you must be on to something.

The absolute worst thing that can happen is that you show your idea to someone and they're totally indifferent.

That some people love this and others hate it, and that you've generated hundreds of comments, shows that this is worth pursuing.

Bookmarked for next time I get stuck thinking of names. My usual process is to think of an idea I think is great, spend 2-3 days thinking of names, set up a domain and landing page. Saving that 2-3 days for $250 is something I'd seriously consider.

Often these ideas are impulses that consume me for a week or two, then I get bored of them or find someone else who's already doing a great job of filling the need.

I would experiment with pricing - at $250 it's not an impulse buy. It is a fantastic price for someone who is seriously starting a company, but I have a hunch that people like me (who have a day job but regularly come up with ideas they love and obsess over for a week or two, that then fizzles out to nothing) is a larger market and has potential for repeat purchases. If you can tap into that you may find more revenue, cashing in on the empty dreams of dilettantes like me :)

</comment><comment><USER21> I like the concept but I'm not a fan of the domains you have now. Can I suggest you open it up to consignment for anyone with a domain? So you increase the value of my domain mydomain.com by giving it a brand / landing page and for that I agree to give you $250 or some percentage of the sale.

<comment><USER22> Wouldn't that just be a straight up design/branding firm?

It is far easier to pick a random name and match it with some random generic branding, than to be given MySpecificProduct.com and build a brand around that. Branding companies charge a lot of money because it (generally) takes a lot of time, effort and expertise to build good brands.

There is also the fact that it would become a designer-client relationship than a merchant-customer one. Clients get to dictate what they want (to a certain extent), customers see what they are getting before they buy. What if they built a brand around MySpecificProduct.com and you didn't like it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This is a really great idea. One of the things which young startups often spend too much time on is picking a perfect name + brand. This is a great way to get started.

You can always iterate later if necessary, but this gives you something to use NOW, and put the discussion away and get back to real work.

Also, I love the layout. Very straightforward. I currently subscribe to the <http://justdropped.com/> mailing list which has daily domain names that he buys as they expire.. I could see something similar for your site, but with logos attached.

Also, a NewsLetter would be a great way for me to keep up with the (weekly?) new designs you add to the store.

Keep it up!

<comment><USER24> Great idea for them, yes. For us? Awful. Most of the time I bet the logos (which are ok but a bit generic) won't match what you have in mind for your site. These people are no better than domain squatters - they're an unnecessary tax on startups. A number of times now I've abandoned ideas after being unable to find a domain name as they're all taken by squatters, it's saddening :(

<comment><USER25> From all the possible names and extensions that are available, you've been unable to find anything that fits? And it was the lack of suitable URL that led you to abandon these ideas?

A URL alone does not makes a site or a success.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The moravo logo[1] is a blatant copy of the Aperture Science logo[2] with a couple of segments coloured Portal orange and blue.

[1]: <http://stylate.com/portfolio/moravo-com/>

[2]: <http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Aperture_Science>

<comment><USER27> And Picasa: <http://picasa.google.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This would presumably make a great party game for YC meetups. You deal out a card with the logo on it and then everyone in the circle has to describe what they think the company or product is.

I'm trying to figure out what "TweetBump" is. The obvious answer is: It's Twitter, plus Bump. You wander around a party bumping phones with folks, and every time you do that both of you automatically Tweet "I bumped into [X] at [Awesome Location Y]".

(No obvious business model, though. ;)

(And I'm not a Bump user, so I wouldn't exactly be surprised to learn that the app has already supported this for years. ;)

</comment><comment><USER29> I like this a lot.

Sometimes you can spend 3-20 hours trying to figure out a name, domain, and branding. I'd pay a couple hundred bucks to skip that step. I wish this existed all those previous times I was stuck grinding on names!

<comment><USER25> There is no name here that suited what we were looking for, but it has the potential to save you loads of time, plus the logo costs.

If I was starting out something new I'd def check here, and use this as a starting point, use the logo to start a basic site, get a letter head made and some business cards done - bang, hours save, cost of a decent logo save, headaches saved.

Plus, you can change your name when ever you like - people get so overly stressed about names, as though the .com is the most important thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Instead of leaving the godaddy parked page, maybe you should put the logo on the page, with a "This domain is for sale at stylate.com" link

<comment><USER25> Quite shocked they haven't - with a little strapline for each.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> My goodness! A startup with a purpose, a product, an interesting business model... and no ads. Is this a freakin' mirage?

Love the fixed $250 price.

Great work guys.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's a bit more expensive but there's also <http://brandbucket.com>.

<comment><USER33> Also excellent (I would claim more excellent) is <http://brandstack.com/>

<comment><USER34> I agree. I bought ZippyKid.com from Brandstack last year. I would never have thought of it myself, even though all my initial customers had said how fast I was in responding to emails, and how much faster their sites were after they switched to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I picked one domain, parabis.com and typed that domain name into the address bar of my browser. It is for sale, but the asking price is $2,000. Odd that it's going for $250 at stylate.com.

<comment><USER36> Good old fashioned price discrimination? Why not try to sell a domain name to a struggling startup for $250 and the same domain name to a random BigCo for $2,000?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> There are some lovely domains in here. Very cheap in comparison to their worth! It sucks that when this post becomes more popular, most of them (if not all) will be taken.

Serves me right for having worked almost 4 years for a very large mobile games developer here in Argentina and having seen 40% of my paycheck being eaten away by inflation in the last few years.

I simply can't afford these domains, I would have loved to have them turned into full blown sites, just for fun!

Congratulations to the people that purchase them... please treat them nice :)

</comment><comment><USER38> I misread the price when I looked the first time. I thought it said $2,500. I didn't bat an eye.

$250 it too cheap.

</comment><comment><USER39> Most of these domains are names of types you can easily find using tools like nametoolkit, and purchase for $10.

Nonetheless, this is a superb idea, which can become easily profitable.

</comment><comment><USER40> Looks like a great idea, very clever, but I'm not sure about the pricing. I would love to use something like this as a small developer, but $250 is a bit much for a domain and a logo given my small-time budget. On the other hand, companies with a larger budget would probably just have something like this done in-house. So I guess I'd ask: who do you see being the target market here?

<comment><USER19> We are testing different price points. What would you feel comfortable paying?

<comment><USER24> How about £10? You know.. how much you're __supposed __to pay for a domain.

<comment><USER41> In hind-sight everything is obvious. Everything is easy if you already know it. You already know the perfect domain for your uses that's already available - more power to you.

The interesting aspect of this service is as a set of triggers. You'll find some people will immediately spot a matching domain in that list - they may not have thought of it themselves, but seeing it there triggers off the lightbulb.

Sure you can do the exact same thing with a command line whois, but then you don't get the benefit of serendipity. Someone else's list of brandable domains shows an item you weren't expecting to see, and that triggers off your own creative process into a different direction, and you find an end result you may not have arrived at without that serendipitous discovery.

You are seeing the results of someone else's creative process of discovering brandable domains. You don't have to pay for that effort, but you can be motivated by it. The $250 charge is if one of those domains is a perfect match, not for the process of finding an available perfect match and brandable domain.

The route that satisfies your expenditure expectations is watching expired domains lists - that's another source of someone else's creative inspiration. But you either have to scan tens of thousands of junk entries, or have a keyword list of some sort to focus on. Even then, because of the volume, you'll miss excellent domain names that are slightly outside of your current thread of ideas.

Then there's <http://impossibility.org/> \- generating available domains centred around a keyword. It's interesting, more serendipitous than expired lists, and purchasable immediately by registration. This is probably one of the better "suggested domain name" tools around, though it's just sticking words before or after your keyword. Sometimes an good domains does pop out, but it takes a bit of a graft, or a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Or sit there typing one domain idea at a time into a whois. It depends on your own level of innate creativity as to which approach will reap dividends. Personally, I use several different avenues. This is one more to keep an eye on.

Don't underestimate the creativity and inspiration. This is perhaps a better source of quality domains than Sedo/GoDaddy auctions, ebay/flippa/digitalpoint. Better, because of it's focus on brandable names rather than generic keywords / keyword-heavy / geo-targetted domains that are the current vogue in domainer/internet marketing circles.

These guys won't know what matches perfectly for you, only you do. If the price upsets you, you are not forced to buy even if it's a perfect match, you can just find another perfectly matching domain that is available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> That's a symptom that startups possibly became a new fashion.

Now the following is a bit offtopic, but the thoughts are what I have in mind for quite a time.

Look how many startups are there around whose only purpose is to connect or extract information from other startups whose again are build on the top some previous startups. Where is a stop for this? Where's the creativity? Where's the thinking of making things that people _really_ need?

This looks like a rant but please think of it analytically:

1\. People start to use product A because it fills some temporary niche.

2\. The conditions of the niche vanish, but the product is still used, the user base grows because of inertia, marketing, whatever.

3\. As the initial conditions dissolved the product A isn't exactly what people need at the moment, so there emerge products B & C built on the top of A with even more fragile conditions: only to support momentary lack of desired features in A.

Any similarity with existing startup scene?

Well, what if all these products were build based on some more _unconditional_ needs of the users in the first place?

<comment><USER20> "Where's the creativity? Where's the thinking of making things that people really need?"

Startup owners are people that need things too - often really good customers to work with as they understand the time involved in building a product and will pay for services that save them time/money.

If anything, startups selling to startups is fantastic news as:

1\. It's creating an ecosystem of small, independently owned businesses - <USER2> vibrant self-contained economy.

2\. Good marketing is selecting a niche that is small enough to compete in but large enough to build a profitable business. It validates that startups are a successful enough business model that there's enough people in that community to constitute a profitable niche market.

3\. It doesn't matter if the need is not permanent - all customer needs are transient given a long enough timeframe. If I have a problem I'll pay to solve then I'm not thinking about whether I'll have the same problem in 10 years, just that I want it solved right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm so-so on this concept.

I'm sure it'll be a reasonable success and generate you some cash, but on the other hand, seeing someone holding a creative grab bag of interesting domains and concepts that they're only hoping to flip for a profit makes me uneasy.

There are a lot of clever, interesting names here though, and I can definitely see someone who has a concept without a a title seeing a lot of value in paying $250 for something like this. It's more than likely a hell of a lot cheaper than most domain squatters (which isn't exactly what i'd call this) would charge for the domain alone.

My major fear - the owner of this content might find someone who uses a similar name as one of their concepts-for-sale, and attempt to sue them without being able to properly verify if said person actually ripped them off, or just themselves came up with the idea coincidentally. It's one of those slippery slope endeavors.

I'm torn over whether I like "Feastable", "WhamBox", or "PixelKeg" the most. Definitely some great names here.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm just impressed to see a decent sounding, 5 letter .com domain for $250 (Vueta) - tempted to snap that one up myself.

<comment><USER25> Plenty of great short domains on other extensions - I got whi.im and om.gd for a couple of projects I am working on. Issue is whether the people who need to know, know that .im or .gd are domain extension - or if it will just confuse them and send them to whiim.com (which we don't own).

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Yes, you are paying a premium. Yes, they are making a profit on this. But hey, they are solving a pain point, why not charge?

I just paid $1650 for a domain. That was a ton of money for me, but when someone already has it, you don't have a lot of leverage.

If I was starting another company, I would use this in a second. fueza.com anyone?

</comment><comment><USER46> This could be an interesting tool - along with Unbouce, LaunchRock or KickoffLabs - when doing MVP web sites.

</comment><comment><USER47> This is quite a good idea, and the site itself is very nice and easy to navigate. Congratulations.

Seeing a domain name with an MVL (Minimum Viable Logo, haha) is really much better for imagining how strong it could be than just seeing it listed in text.

However, I found the selection too limited. So I think an interesting model for you would become a marketplace: 1- invite squatters with domains to sell to post their names on your site 2- invite designers to freely create logos to un-logoed domains 3- sell this wider selection to your audience, sharing the revenue with both squatters and designers.

Good luck - with more selection, I would easily find the service worthwhile at that price point.

</comment><comment><USER48> I think this is really good for people in certain situations, e.g., you're going to pitch an important event with a new idea and you don't have a name or a logo. The design is nice and clean. My only suggestion would be adding share buttons.

</comment><comment><USER49> Until these pre-branded domains are actually bought and used, it seems like such a waste. There have been so many domains I would have loved to purchase that are blocked by some "value-adding" gimmick.

At first, it's interesting. But think about it. Pre-purchasing domains throwing a brand on top is really as bad as implementing a software/web application without doing any market research. Chances are it's really not what people want. Unlike dead software/web apps, however, these domain names become worse than useless by block others from making something great.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think this is cool, and if I saw one that suited a project I was doing, I'd drop $250 for it no problem. You can't please everyone, but some people will think this is cool, and that's all you need.

</comment><comment><USER51> I like this idea. I think for smaller companies that can't afford a graphic design artist and a whole kit for their company, this is an attractive, fairly inexpensive option. It also has a kick start element to it. At the beginning lots of companies spend time and effort on their branding when they should be concentrating on their product, marketing and growth. Pre-branded domains give them a starting point to jump off from and is a timesaver.

</comment><comment><USER52> These are not branded domain names. They are brandable domain names with a sample logo. A logo is not a brand.

The title here is misleading but the site does a good job explaining what they are offering. And I think that they are providing good value. When you are starting out the last thing you need to do is waste a lot of time and money on a name and logo. With this service, you just pick one and forget about it then move onto more important matters.

</comment><comment><USER53> There's definitely a market for this, and it saddens me.

Choosing a name is supposed to be difficult. You're supposed to brainstorm for hours, bounce ideas off your friends and second guess yourself. Having to go through this pain to get to the right name adds character to the business through authenticity.

Choosing a name from a list of pre-created brands, clever or not, is a cop out.

Best of luck, though. I'm sure you'll do well.

</comment><comment><USER54> I think it's a very genuine idea. I don't think your intention is to squat on domains, I think it is to help people with the non-trivial process of finding names and logos. If nothing else, yours is just a great place for people to get ideas of their own. $250 is very reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER55> Just in case someone wants one of your names but doesn't know of your site, it would be a great idea to have some quick info (link and price) under the 'get info' section of domain registrars like godaddy (since thats where the majority of people will be looking).

</comment><comment><USER56> The names of the domains are more creative then the logos.Most names sound like a mid size start up website but the logos very high quality clipart.

I think they should create a tool that does this name and custom logo creation then doing it themselves. Dont see how they sell much

</comment><comment><USER57> The vuaro logo is amusing. Nothing communicates usability and ease of mind as well as a labyrinth :-)

Other than that I am not that impressed, the logos look pretty generic/standard. Maybe that kind of thing could work for small businesses (like restaurants), though.

</comment><comment><USER58> I don't think it's good for startups. A startup is something that you spend time on, launch, test, connect... It needs more than a $250 logo, but a complete strategy for launching.

But what about small web apps? This should work very well for them.

</comment><comment><USER59> If a hypothetical person (not a HN user) thinks of a domain name and find that these guys are squatting it, is not interested in the design, he'll be thinking they're domain squatting assholes. He'll be right.

</comment><comment><USER60> A lot of people are talking about domain squatting.

I own LunchMeet.com and paid 5 figures for it when at the time I intended to develop a startup.

Now I want to sell it. Is it squatting if I am just trying to get my money back?

</comment><comment><USER61> They should make sure to grab the twitter user name too, that's an important part of branding. I noticed that some of the twitter user names for the brands are free - how long will that last?

</comment><comment><USER62> This is a terrific idea.

Feature request: I'd love to subscribe to categories and get updates when you add new domains. E.g. "Please email me when you have a new domain related to health or hardware."

</comment><comment><USER63> It looks like someone might have already nabbed unhacker.com: <http://stylate.com/portfolio/unhacker-com/>

</comment><comment><USER64> Clever. Do you scale the prices with number of clicks?

<comment><USER4> It's flat pricing.

<comment><USER64> Seems it does state on the sidebar that all domains are the same price.

I guess some people may see it as exploitative, but I would consider increasing the price of domains that a lot of people have clicked on and reducing the price of others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> This is an okay option but there are other ways to get good cheap domains. The main problem with these domains is that they have no history.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'll visit the site if not to buy a logo, but a great place to start when thinking about a name for a startup. Good food for thought.

</comment><comment><USER67> I think this is great, if only because it shows you don't need to name your startup something that ends in -li, -ly, and -r.

</comment><comment><USER68> Would love to see the Twitter name included as well. That's a must-have for some businesses. Otherwise, very nice site.

<comment><USER69> That's against the Twitter's ToS, under "username squatting" rules: <http://support.twitter.com/articles/18311-the-twitter-rules>

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Is anyone else looking at the names/logos and coming up with business ideas to fit? This is great!

</comment><comment><USER71> Quick question: why tags with no listings? ie. Health and Jobs. Did you create the tag list first?

<comment><USER19> Some of the domains have sold out so we had blank categories. We will be releasing a new bunch in the next 24 hours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Cool idea. Sometimes you would be willing to pay $250 to just get started.

If you have free time, do it yourself.

</comment><comment><USER73> Had a similar idea with startup branding in a box.

Currently not using HeyBTW with Heybtw.com, heyb.tw, @heybtw

</comment><comment><USER74> Curious, how many domain names did you sell since posting on HN? (If you dont mind answering)

</comment><comment><USER75> This epitomizes what packaging and convenience to provide to a simple concept. Bravo!

<comment><USER19> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hey if you are looking for updates on Stylate.com, we just put up a twitter account--->

@stylater

</comment><comment><USER76> Risky business model since they aren't generic now.

Though a reverse hijacking costs more than $250

</comment><comment><USER77> I think it's a great idea. They need way more domain names though (100x).

<comment><USER19> Coming soon (like in the next 24 hours)

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> unfortunately a logo and 2-syllable odd-sounding name don't make a brand. however, as a cost-effective way to get a name and image, it's relatively pragmatic, especially for those who need it NOW.

<comment><USER19> We are trying to add to the lean startup ecosystem, not replace $xx,xxx keyword domains that venture-backed startups can afford.

<comment><USER78> lean startup ecosystem = not paying for things you don't need. plain language wins over every time. if a new business with little money needs a name and a logo for a fixed price, this can make economic sense. branding considers the audience and not the founders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> Domain speculators selling at a fixed 'low' price.

</comment><comment><USER80> To me, this is idea is akin to having a 3rd year creative writing student write a love poem for your bride-to-be.

Nicely designed site, though. Looks great.

<comment><USER81> Dunno how to interpret that. Surely the love poem would come out better than if I wrote it...

As I see it you get a working logo matched with a domain you like, even if it's not your final visual identity it's at least a start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Genius

</comment><comment><USER83> Count me in the group that finds $250 to be a steal for this sort of thing. Your mission page is spot on.

The amount of time/headache it takes to brand a startup should not be underestimated. I think that the logos are fine to get started quickly but probably would all need to be changed in the long run, but no big deal, you've provided a decent enough starting point where it doesn't look shitty atleast and can allow someone to build their product while still having a decent looking thing on their site.

We spent several WEEKS of all hands on deck and lots of $$$ (Well over $10k for the domain name, banners, stationery etc) as a company rebranding from Transparent Financial Services (<http://transfs.com>) to FeeFighters (<http://feefighters.com>). Had we started with something better than transfs from the beginning we wouldn't have had the problem (btw, it's still a pain in the ass because google apps doesn't let you change your name, so we still only have a duct tape solution where our google apps are still @transfs and I occasionally still send an email from @transfs - embarassing!). Plus, we lost all the google juice we'd built up over that time (which was considerable - TransFS was a PageRank 5 site and FeeFighters had none).

At that point (post-funding), our time and pagerank were a lot more important than the money.

More on our rebrand that might be useful to people (you now have to pay to see the video but can download the audio and read transcript for free): <http://mixergy.com/sean-harper-feefighters-intervie/>

<comment><USER84> Agreed. The time and money you can waste doing domain search and logo design far exceeds the $250 price they're charging. Having done this a number of times myself, $250 is a major bargain for something that is vetted and pretty much ready-to-promote.

Looking through the brands, nothing really fits any of my current projects but I would definitely consider coming back to check again and again.

<comment><USER85> I'm all over your point but _strictly_ only in theory.

These logos are for the most part gobsmackingly awful. I'm genuinely surprised that there's no Comic Sans among them. Robogenerating words with free fonts you dug up on some website is _not the same thing_ as a 'Design Service'.

[http://stylate.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/burntfood_smal...](http://stylate.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/burntfood_small.png)

[http://stylate.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/usante_small.p...](http://stylate.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/07/usante_small.png)

 _REALLY?_ Those are worth more than a cold cup of coffee?

I thought it sounded like a great idea from the link title, and I'd have no issue with the price if there was any actual value in the value-add.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> FYI: Brandstack.com has better logos. Speaking as a designer & a person who's hired logo designers, as well as somebody who bought a logotype off Brandstack.com. I didn't use the name/identity but used it for my next SaaS, Charm.

That said - most people put too much weight on a name, but it's really important to be sure the name is A) memorable (this doesn't mean weird or unique), B) easy to spell and C) easy to Google.

Names that are weird spellings or made-up words are NOT memorable, basically because they don't fit into a ready-made slot in the readers' head. (Plus if they are hard to spell, you're SOL.)

It's far better to have a memorable name like "Charm" and then append crap to the end of the domain (e.g. CharmHQ.com) to ensure you can grab the domain, than it is to have a short, unique name where you get the regular name.com.

This conclusion is based on my extensive reading of cogsci research about memory, word association, etc.

</comment><comment><USER87> while I am sure that someone out there can use the service, taking the time to come up with your own name and design should not be given up lightly. I do take issue with the "branding" implication that these domains purportedly have. Before starting my own company I spent years in an ad agency, and I can tell you that unless there is an unusual amount of serendipity involved you probably won't find a name and image that fits perfectly with your company goals and vision. A brand is a promise to the public which conveys your intent your services and your commitment to your product. Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Disney all do this very well for example. If you're not a designer I can see gaining design inspiration from this site. But in my opinion, take a little time try to come up with your own ideas to implement.

<comment><USER25> I agree in some ways - but sometimes names can delay launches. I can see a small start up using this site to 'just get out there' - and worry about branding later.

Depending on what you are doing you can change your name/brand later.

Since /most/ start-ups fail, why not get to market quicker, with less cost, and less time/brain power wasted.

<comment><USER87> Everything in balance. You definitely should not delay the launch of a product because you can't think of a name. But getting to market and changing your name/brand later defeats the whole purpose of branding. In fact it's the opposite of branding. For the latest example just think about Netflix and what they did by naming their DVD mailing service qwixster. That name change is arguably a colossally bad move. I'm not saying your design has to be perfect, you can always update the image like Howard Johnson did for their motel chain. I tend to think that small businesses make a huge mistake when they gloss over the branding/marketing work. I am not advocating the necessity of bringing in a huge ad agency and market research just to get a logo. Just put in a little effort, use the same ingenuity you use when you started your company and come up with a brand identity that ties into what you do. At the very least you can go to logo tournament and get a custom built logo starting at 250. It's the same amount as this service plus you have are reasonably high degree of customization. Your name and your logo will be the most visible part of your company. You want it to instantly signify all the best traits and qualities you have, even if it is just subliminally. Some of the best brands out there who do this well, can just with their logo conjure up a long list of attributes/adjectives in a potential consumer's mind. A super simple one is Rolex… It's just their name with a crown over it. Even if you did not know that they were a watchmaker, by looking at their logo you would assume that whatever they do it's of high quality befitting of royalty or at least made the connection with royalty in your mind. I just think there are many more options that for the same amount of money and minimal effort you can put together something that is closely related and much more beneficial than an off the rack name and logo solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ugh! These are just glorified domain sitters disguised as a trendy start-up. Please don't give these people your money - they ruin innovation by taking up massive amounts of domains then selling them for huge amounts. These people RUIN the internet.

<comment><USER19> Very rarely will you find a domainer selling a .COM for less than $1000. If anything we are forcing down the price floor. Right?

<comment><USER88> I know a lot of domainers (who own thousands of domain names) and all of them will sell a .COM for less than $1000, just because its a .COM doesn't mean its instantly worth at least $1000.

That's not to say they won't sell some domains for more than $1000 because, they own premium domains, as well as LLL.com's NNN.com's etc but your generalisation that a .COM is worth $1000 is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Now all we need is a place where you can put brandless but fully implemented tech solutions. e.g. "sms to e-mail technology".

That brings us to the final piece of the puzzle: a site where you can invest in a "team" that has no idea and no technology.

Then the guys who walk around with bags of money evaluating teams and business propositions will finally be able to just mix and match to whatever they want, thinking (as they already do) that they're the ones adding all the value. Which, to be fair, under capitalism they probably do.

</comment><comment><USER88> I tried 5 of your domains and they all point to Godaddy parked pages. You should really place a lander on them - which shows the logo and either a link to purchase the domain or a contact form to get in touch. Personally, I would add something like [http://themeforest.net/item/hanbai-multilanguage-domain- for-...](http://themeforest.net/item/hanbai-multilanguage-domain-for- sale/151728) which only costs $5 but even a logo and a link would be better than a Godaddy parked page which your domains currently have.

</comment><comment><USER90> Now combine this with some programmably generated content with a landing page, just change out variables like "social", "local", "recommendations", and "analytics". And then fire off auto-generated submissions to Y-Combinator, TechStars, and a slide deck to Sequoia.

You could condense the entire Silicon Valley startup funding scene into a single transaction.

</comment><comment><USER91> Needs more choices :)

</comment><comment><USER92> WineCoffer sounds like Wank Offer</comment>


Ask HN: Why has visual programming not caught on? - <AUTHOR> It seems like the concept of visual based programming (think visual basic, or drag/drop components that make code...) keeps on reappearing, do other hacker news visitors ever think it will truly succeed? It always seems to be limited imho, but the idea never seems to die, wondering what others think... <comment><USER2> It already has succeeded in one very limited area: GUI component layout. People use XCode/Netbeans Matisse/DreamWeaver all the time to build their UIs.

It fails in other areas because code is remarkably info-dense, and if you split that out into individual components, it takes a huge amount of screen space and visual manipulation for even simple subroutines. I encourage you to take a simple function and draw out the parse tree for it. It's surprisingly large, with lots of different node types all strung together in unusual ways. Think about how much people complain about the parentheses in Lisp; now imagine that each set of parentheses is a box on screen.

<comment><USER3> GUI layout is not programming; it's GUI layout. (Or, more concretely: it's specifying a dataset.)

When software construction is finally "solved", visual representations and interfaces will be common. Our current mechanisms are simply too crude, lacking sufficient methods of abstraction, to work well. In fact, they do the opposite and point out what deep flaws exist in the current state of the art.

<comment><USER2> HTML, CSS, XML, SQL, JSON, YAML, and other configuration languages are also not programming; they're specifying a dataset. I can basically guarantee that any large project will have large quantities of them, though, and that code will have bugs.

For that matter, Lisp is not programming; it's specifying a dataset. Except, well, it actually is programming, because you can execute that dataset. When you push it far enough, the distinction between code and data disappears.

This is probably an indication that software construction will never be "solved": once an acceptable representation has been found for one level of complexity, someone will quickly build on that and take it to the _next_ level of complexity, and then the abstractions will once again prove inadequate.

<comment><USER3> If I draw a picture, did I program? Are artists programmers? What if I try to execute that binary of a digital image? I would say: no to the first, yes to the last. I think it's a big difference: the aesthetic and basic syntax qualities of markup, the completeness of a list of invitations to a party, and executable code.

To me, HTML, CSS, XML, etc. are not code and do not have real bugs; they have design flaws and syntax flaws, just as a picture may need more red or blue. (But note that I'm not sure there's a right answer here, and I certainly respect you and your opinion.)

I also think that it's not about abstractions but better abstraction _mechanisms_ which work to reduce complexity at any level. It may get more complex, but you can manage that complexity much more skillfully. I am absolutely confident that we can find better abstraction mechanisms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Customer- Friendly_System...](http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The_Customer- Friendly_System.aspx)

<comment><AUTHOR> Very nice :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> We find visual based programming in the form of CAD used in construction, aviation, semiconductors, etc. They are big complex programs and, of course, expensive. If you can use visual tools to layout billions of transistors, then you could use it to write programs. But ... the techniques for moving between levels of abstraction in software haven't been understood yet. Systems like Scratch and Alice provide visual programming, but quickly become tedious for all but the simplest programs because they don't allow us to introduce multiple levels of abstraction. The CAD systems used for semiconductor design encompass hundreds of different views, each for addressing specific engineering issues.

There is quite a lot of research going on with visual programming, but the return on effort in most cases is most discouraging.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't the reason you use visual representations in CAD, construction , aviation and layout is to be close to the domain ? i.e. visual objects.

A second reason is that higher level languages for mechanical design hasn't been successful. my guess it's because mechanical objects are very cost sensitive, so people use low level tools, similar to embedded developers using c+asm.

On the other hand , if you look at fpga and chip design , where complexity has exploded and transistors price really plummeted , you see a move to higher and higher level textual languages, from the schematic systems used in the past.

Another interesting use case for visual languages is visual domain specific languages. metacase has some success with this. my guess is that visual languages can be much easier for domain experts to use and understand, in some cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Because it is a crock of shite, that's why. Ask anyone who ever used an actual (general-purpose) "visual programming system" for any (nontrivial) real life task. I have extensive experience in one, and a little in another, and both suck balls. The problem is that, while the diagrams you are constructing might look fancy and intuitive to a layperson (i.e. your pointy haired boss), they do usually not help you to structure the complexity of the task at hand in any meaningful way. Usually, they make everything worse. Having said that, there is a rather big exception: Domain specific visual programming systems, if they are well designed and the problem domain lends itself to it, can be quite useful.

<comment><USER8> I think this is part of it. The people who would have to write/design the visual programming system think that it is for losers and are thus not interested in working on it. Most hardcore coders I have met are quite proud of their chops and kind of brush off those who can't cut it (which is fine imo).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Syntax is the easy part. The hard bit is abstraction, as proved by FizzBuzz[1]. The core syntax of a language like Ruby or Python can be learned in a couple of hours. Learning to write useful, maintainable software takes years.

How do you create an intuitive, visual representation of recursion? Iteration over an array? The task isn't creating a visual representation of current programming paradigms, it's creating a whole new conceptual approach. I'm not sure that such a thing is even possible.

[1] [http://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find- dev...](http://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-developers- who-grok-coding/)

</comment><comment><USER10> A visual language called G exists. It is forms the backbone of LabVIEW (a product of National Instruments [NI]). You could use it like any other programming language to solve problems. IMHO it is quite powerful. However, LabVIEW's real strength lies in providing an easy interface for data acquisition from cards, again by NI, specifically built for the purpose. LabVIEW is pretty much ubuquitous in university labs.

Edit: There is also Agilent VEE.

</comment><comment><USER11> I like the idea of using a web-based interface for tasks that are normally done in framework code: Altering data structure/models, etc. Drupal already has this (CCK), but it's not exactly a lean/small framework, so it's not the ideal solution unless you actually need the CMS feature (the ability for non- techies to edit content on the website).

Anyway, I think a framework that includes a web-based data handling thing might be a success.

</comment><comment><USER12> The same reason visual writing hasn't caught on. Our brains are wired for textual language. It's generally hard to express highly abstract ideas with just pictures.

<comment><USER13> The Egyptians would like to disagree with you. The Chinese, Japanese and other ideographic cultures are right behind them in line.

<comment><USER12> Ideographic writing is still sequential text.

<comment><USER13> In the same sense that picture books are sequential text.

<comment><USER12> I've never seen a visual programming system that was anything like a picture book. Rather, every one that I've seen uses some sort of graph visualized in two or occasionally three dimensions.

In contrast, every natural language that I've seen, along with every remotely successful programming language, uses a one dimensional sequence of words and/or symbols with an implicit grammatical structure. That is probably no coincidence.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Problems with Proposed IP Cryptography [1995] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/papers/draft-rogaway-ipsec-comments-00.txt

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't seem like there's a chance in hell this will get voted up (what? no arguments about software piracy? no social bookmarking angle?), but since a couple people follow my posts:

I found this while researching one of the recent OpenBSD crypto fixes, and it is fan-freaking-tastic. This is Phil Rogaway, a world-famous cryptographer, addressing weaknesses in early proposals for IPSEC. There is no better way to learn about this stuff than to watch an expert beat the crap out of an early, flawed system.

More importantly, it's incredibly readable! It could just as well be titled "Nine Lessons For Designing Cryptographic Protocols". And it's written for IETF-types, protocol designers, not cryptographers.

I think this is a gem, I'm glad I stumbled across it, and I hope you get some value out of it.

<comment><USER2> I don't follow anyone's posts, but I've seen your name on lucid comments. Thanks for the find!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I haven't studied IPSec closely. How much of this advice actually got implemented?

</comment><comment><USER4> High point: Recommending encrypt then mac. Still an issue today.

Low point: Saying MD5 is too slow. We have the opposite problem today.

<comment><AUTHOR> In what sense do you mean that? That MD5 is breakable or that hash functions are generally too fast?

<comment><USER4> That it runs too fast now. I've not heard many complaints about hash functions being too slow recently. It stood out as a not particularly sage comment (to somebody with the benefit of hindsight).

<comment><AUTHOR> That's not a problem we have with hash functions; it's a problem we have with naive password storage schemes.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google researchers are teaching a robot how to walk via reinforcement learning - <AUTHOR> https://nuadox.com/post/612542849124270080/google-robot-walk <comment><USER2> That's how we learn, right?

I am learning to be ambidextrous: I can _feel_ my brain "doing shit" while I'm working hard on the left side.

It's pretty cool.</comment>


Seed Fundraising Tips That You Won't Get on Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://www.kapwing.com/blog/13-fundraising-tips-you-wont-get-on-twitter/ <comment><USER2> Jeez, don't lie to people.

And don't listen to blogposts that tell you to lie and call it fibbing.

It's not ok to be a liar.

<comment><USER3> And this is now running thru my brain

"Here on Fibber Island We strum rubber guitars Our friends live on Mars And we sew buttons on our cars"... ;)</comment></comment>


Wanted: Male teachers in U.S. schools - <AUTHOR> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/07/22/male-teacher-shortage-affects-boys-who-need-role-models/103585138/ <comment><USER2> This article ignored the fact that male teachers are discriminated against by many parents. Simple behaviors that female teachers can do without any batting an eye, like being hugged by a pupil, can result in fear, or accusations of pedophilia when a male teacher does it.[1] A single accusation can be career ending[2] When you couple this with the average pay it's a high risk job with no commesurate reward so of course you're going to find less men going into the field

[1][http://abcnews.go.com/Health/men-teach-elementary- school/sto...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/men-teach-elementary- school/story?id=18784172) [2][https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fairfax- teacher-sean-la...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fairfax-teacher-sean- lanigan-still-suffering-from-false-molestation- allegations/2011/03/04/AFVwhh3G_story.html)

<comment><USER3> and such accusations are easy to level and can/have been used as leverage by unscrupulous students. men have become easy targets in education.

[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/30/one-in- fiv...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/mar/30/one-in-five-school- staff-victims-of-false-claims-survey-shows)

[https://www.nwpe.org/index.php/legal/false- accusations](https://www.nwpe.org/index.php/legal/false-accusations)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > While pay can vary greatly by location, according to the most recent > statistics from PayScale, a crowd-sourced database, the median salary for an > elementary school teacher is $43,737.

And that is the end of the story. Most men HAVE to provide for the family. A reasonably intelligent man can make much much more money in another field. So he would be silly to be a teacher for anything other than raw passion. For a job there are many thousands of openings, I am not sure you are going to fill them all with passion...

So what do we do, double the pay of teachers? Most school districts walk a very fine budget line. Some like Chicago are a mess. Some in smaller towns have to pick which of the three leaky roofs in the district they can afford to repair that year.

So not seeing any reasonable path out of this.</comment>


"All this happened, more or less." - <AUTHOR> http://americanbookreview.org/100bestlines.asp <comment><AUTHOR> American Book Review's list of "100 Best First Lines from Novels"

<comment><USER2> What a pleasant surprise, given the thread title...

As an avid reader, working my way down the list was like a pleasant walk through my the years of my life...remembering approximately when and where I read the ones I've read was a pleasure...making notes to myself to take a look at the ones I've yet to read was well worthwhile...

Thanks for posting this!...</comment></comment>


Restaurant offers a 5% discount if you eat without your phone on the table - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/16/technology/restaurant-cell-phone-discount/index.html

<comment><USER2> I keep my phone in my pocket unless I am answering a call. (I used to keep my phone in a holster unless I was answering a call, but "smart" phones have an inconvenient form factor for that. So I've modified my wardrobe to include more shirts that can hold a smart phone in one pocket while all the usual things I've put in my primary shirt pocket for years can stay in that pocket.)

One of the most enjoyable aspects of dining with other people is the conversation over dinner. I would hate to miss out on that for telephone calls that I can answer later. Voice mail for the win.

AFTER EDIT:

Other comments here mention using phones in movie theaters. The response of the Austin Drafthouse theater in Austin, Texas is famous. The theater's video with a recorded comment from an ejected customer became a viral video on YouTube,

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs>

reported on in various news outlets. (The language of the video is rather crude, but it makes the theater's point that it doesn't want customers who use their phones in the theater.)

</comment><comment><USER3> I get really annoyed when I eat with someone and they have their phone on the table. There's something about that behaviour that seems to say "I'll pay attention to you for now, but I'm really hoping for a distraction.".

I'd much rather go to a restaurant where phone use is discouraged as it seems to have become socially acceptable to fuck around with phones even during face-to-face conversation with someone.

Regarding ROI: if I were to run the restaurant, I'd have opaquely added the same charge to all the menu items and remove it for good behaviour. I guess that rewards for not being a dick are more popular than explicit punishments for being a dick?

<comment><USER4> Shoot. I often eat with my phone on the table, but I never field a call or text - I just put it there along with my keys because it's uncomfortable to sit with it in my pocket and I usually don't wear a jacket.

I can see how just putting it there could send the wrong message, though, that I'm open to distractions. Argh. Just one more reason to get a "european carry all", I guess. Or maybe I'll just wear a jacket.

<comment><USER5> I do similar. We need to develop a new etiquette. Perhaps placing the phone beyond your reach (in the center of the table) signifies that it's not a distraction, but just a bauble.

<comment><USER6> I usually place it to the edge of the table, and upside down.

<comment><USER4> I do that, and I put my keys on top of it to indicate that I don't plan to pick it up or answer it.

Funny, I didn't realize until just know that I was doing this.

<comment><USER7> I make a small show of putting it on silent mode.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      <rant type="indignant" intensity="105%">

Mind your own damn business and I'll do the same. If I'm carrying a phone to a nice restaurant, it's because I'm on call. No, I do not raise my voice to talk, because I've mastered the arcane art known as "volume settings".

If my phone rings, there's a high likelihood I won't be there for long anyways. And in the meantime, if me texting at my own table bothers you, or a couple of low volume buzzes bother you, I highly suggest you disinvolve yourself in the actions of other people's personal lives. Failing that, I invite you to attempt airborne fornication with a gyrating piece of pastry.

      </rant>

More on topic, how much do you want to bet this is just an excuse to raise prices by 5%? Furthermore, the day I give my phone away to some random in a restaurant is the day I've taken full leave of my senses.

<comment><USER9> The proprietor of the restaurant is literally _minding his own business_ since a business is just a vehicle for achieving the ends of its owners [1].

In this case, the owners want to create a world in which dining is a more sacrosanct activity. If you don't like it then you don't have to dine there thus it is, in fact, _none of your business_.

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3392357>

<comment><USER8> Considering they're penalizing me to the tune of 5% to give up a very expensive device containing untold amounts of personal and business data to an unknown person of questionable trustworthiness, I wouldn't be caught dead there anyways.

I'm a little shocked that people seem okay with this on a site full of people that regularly berate companies for privacy gaffes.

<comment><USER10> when you go to a restaurant, aren't you implicitly trusting most of their staff? if i couldn't trust some company to take care of my phone for an hour, i certainly wouldn't trust them to serve me food.

<comment><USER8> You'd trust the people at an average fast food joint (predominantly minimum- wage teenagers) to keep track of your phone? You have much more faith than me...

<comment><USER10> Maybe it's just a difference in interpretation of language, but for me, a fast food joint is definitely NOT a restaurant. The tone of the story also clearly implied it was an actual restaurant, nothing fast about it.

<comment><USER8> Ah, I'm kind of used to conflating them. Still, the average restaurant worker, at least around here, is very young, and by definition, unless you're going to an upscale restaurant, likely not getting much money.

I'm not sure where you're from, but in the united states, employers can pay an hourly rate of $2-ish to people who are expected to collect tips. The stereotypical fast food kid actually has a better hourly rate.

<comment><USER11> > _Still, the average restaurant worker, at least around here, is very young, > and by definition, unless you're going to an upscale restaurant, likely not > getting much money._

Since when is the definition of a restaurant worker someone who does not make much money? Especially those not working fast food?

<comment><USER8> Note "likely". Remember what I said about minimum wage for tipped employees?

Naturally this only applies to the waiting staff, but then again, the chefs aren't going to be the ones handling your phone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When I'm dining with someone, and I realize that I'm being rude and looking at my phone, I will put the phone on the table -- face down -- as a sign that I am consciously putting the phone away. The other people can see that I'm not able to discretely look at my phone, and that it doesn't rule me. If the phone was face up, I can see how people would think my attention is being diverted to whatever incoming text/msg is on my phone.

<comment><USER13> I do the same, but mainly because my 3GS in an Otterbox barely fits in my pocket.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hmm.

I very very rarely use my phone during dinner, but it's always on the table.

This isn't because I want to use it, it's because it's relatively uncomfortable to keep it in my pocket.

<comment><USER15> Then you should be fine with this restaurant, since they let you put your phone in a box at the front desk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> That box doesn't exactly look safe to me. Not just vulnerable to theft, but also to mistakingly taking someone else's phone. And for phones with NFC, it's a great way to have your mobile wallet emptied.

<comment><USER17> On sites with classified areas, they'll often have little individual cell phone lockers right outside the turnstile to the limited area. Drop in your phone, lock it, take the key. That would be a much better way to control the phones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow. This is awesome. Any way to encourage being more present with your family or whoever you are eating with is a great idea. And by doing something different, this could give them some nice publicity.

</comment><comment><USER19> Hmm, I often find myself using my phone in restaurants in ways that don't exclude the people I'm with (See this photo I took of you earlier? Oh I think that movie is playing, should I check the showtimes? I can stay a little longer, let me just text my wife.) I know it can be tempting to use it in ruder ways but I'm surprised that defense hasn't been raised by anyone else yet -- maybe I'm giving people around me too much benefit of the doubt.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I find this really interesting. I wonder what other restaurants would make out of this. Is it really that important that the diners do not use their phones while dining ? Does that make them orde rmore food ? How will this 5% discount create more ROI for the restaurant?

<comment><USER20> By improving the experience for the surrounding diners. Busy restaurants are noisy enough from the quiet conversations being had between the diners themselves. Ringtones, or even the reverberations of a wireless phone's buzzer on a wooden table, only add to the noise level.

<comment><USER21> I'm _far_ more distracted/upset by large groups of people laughing or yelling - teens/adults/whatever - than I am by someone talking on their phone. Even _multiple_ people on their phone is much quieter than a group of coworkers from an office out to let off some steam before the weekend. But... large groups of people tend to order more and have 20% gratuities tacked on, so I doubt they'll be asked to leave.

<comment><USER22> _I'm far more distracted/upset by large groups of people laughing or yelling - teens/adults/whatever - than I am by someone talking on their phone._

People really have a highly selective ability to be annoyed by things that they are judgmental about/think that they are better than -- or even worse that they think make people better than them -- especially if it triggers their jealousy/resentment. If someone is getting texts or calls, that's incredibly annoying to someone who gets no texts or calls for obvious reasons.

Some years back we took our young children out with their grandparents to a _family_ restaurant. It was mid evening on a Saturday night and the place was full and _very_ loud, with escalating conversations, people having fun, etc.

My infant daughter dropped her fork. I happened to catch a woman nearby -- likely barren and fervently vengeful -- giving the most hateful, glaring look I've ever seen, and I would imagine she went forth to declare how her night was ruined by our much quieter than average table. I recall this experience whenever I hear some railing about children on airplanes, etc -- I imagine that much of it is selective, desperate clutching for offense, and it's much the same regarding people and their anti-smartphone spiels.

<comment><USER23> A lot of the children on airplanes complaints might be down to the way children are loud and you're stuck near them for hours on end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Since then, the chef estimates that 40% to 50% of customers have opted in > and ditched their phones.

Less than half. So _most_ of their customers are willing to pay 4-5% more in order to keep their phones during the meal. Amazing.

</comment><comment><USER25> My wife recently bet me $5 that I couldn't go through a meal without looking at my phone... I lost.

Interesting idea though. They know what sort of atmosphere they would like to have, and they're incentivizing people to make it happen.

<comment><USER26> I should do that with my husband! I need some new tech.

I keep my phone in my purse...if I get a notification (email/text), I'll glance at it and act on it only if it's important. If it's a phone call, I'll only answer if it's my mom (who only calls if it's something important) or my husband. Every one else goes to voice mail.

<comment><USER27> Using a different ring tone for important contacts takes care of the need to even glance at the phone.

<comment><USER28> But doesn't really help if it's on vibrate. And you'll probably still need to interact with the phone to at least turn of the ringer if its not somebody you want to answer, lest you annoy everyone around you by letting it continue to ring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> People who use their phones in any social situation, whether in a restaurant, or movie is annoying. It's like you're trying to subconsciously tell others you're popular and have lots of friends.

<comment><USER30> first sentence I agree.. Walking on the streets these days, it seems the amount of people I see bending their neck over some electronic device is growing everyday. A sad evolution if you ask me. Second sentence: I doubt that is the reason, however I have not yet figured out what the reason is. Firstly because I hardly ever use my cellphone, nor feel the need to, secondly because when I ask people that do, they have no clear idea themselves why they cannot keep it in their pocket. Which is even more sad.

<comment><USER31> I think evolution is the right word. When I was little I often played a game where I would imagine I'd found a genie who would grant me three wishes, and I'd try to think of what to wish for. Most often, two of those wishes would be to be able to talk to my friends with telepathy, and for a book that would answer any question I wrote in it.

Here I have a machine that grants two of my wishes, I use it very often, and using it is very compelling. I dont think its ridiculous to say that when you carry such a powerful and easy to use machine, you start to think of it as being part of yourself, and "why can't you keep it in your pocket" becomes as strange and unanswerable a question as "why can't you keep your hands in your pocket", or "why can't you keep your eyes closed".

You can argue this is an unhealthy trend in culture, and an unhealthy propensity for people who live in an increasingly technological world, but it's unfair - I think so - to judge/condemn/pity people who have the addiction.

<comment><USER32> This is an excellent post!

I am of the persuasion that phone use during certain times (dinner for example) is to be looked down upon. I even go so far as to consider those with headphones on in the street as not existing in my world. They are ignored. It is great to hear the other side of the argument.

As a side note...I also love my phone and am eager for the day they are implanted in our bodies and seemingly telepathic communication becomes reality. I guess at that point this issue become moot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Now that I think about this, I think this should be adopted by Movie Theatres. Nothing is more annoying than seeing a spot of light in dark theatre with noise of texting.

<comment><USER33> The company that owns the theater I usually end up at has a policy of asking disruptive texters to leave:

<http://www.gqti.com/TheaterPolicy.aspx>

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> That would be an easy way to get your phone stolen.

</comment><comment><USER35> If I'm at a fancy restaurant I need my cell phone because if it rings, its the baby sitter calling.

</comment><comment><USER36> One easiest way is to keep a very cheap and down market mobile, So you dont like to take it out in restaurant. It would work!!</comment>


Gawker.com to end operations next week after nearly 14 years of operation - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/18/gawkercom-to-end-operations-next-week-after-nearly-14-years-of-operation.html <comment><USER2> The article praises Gawker for often "punching up". For the youngens this "don't punch down" rule that someone recently invented is a load of hooey. People who control the mainstream media define up and down and tell you it is beyond the pale to make fun of any aspect of those defined as down.

Honestly as an older gentleman (hehe) it's shocking how badly we have clamped down on free speech. When I was young we would wonder how much wilder can the next generation of kids get? How far will the bounds of free expression be expanded.

The answer turned out to be "not at all". These things go in cycles and the current round of private sector driven censorship (yes, please explain to me how the private sector can't censor) is probably a reaction to the free wheeling days from the late 1950s to about the late 1980s.

</comment><comment><USER3> Official announcement: [http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next- week-178...](http://gawker.com/gawker-com-to-end-operations-next- week-1785455712) (Gawker.com is a banned domain so a third-party domain is necessary for submission. Although I guess that doesn't matter anymore).

Note that this does not affect other sites in the Gawker network (Gizmodo, Jalopnik, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER4> The thing I don't understand is how that jury arrived at its stratospheric damages figure. Was it designed by the jury to be high enough to put gawker out of business?

I mean. I have no sympathy for Gawker, and don't think there are any interesting free speech principles at stake here, I just don't understand it.

<comment><USER5> It's much less surprising when you review the highlight of the testimony: [https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73](https://youtu.be/Ub80kHh5WDI?t=73)

That was said under oath in front of a judge and jury. Makes it rather hard to take people ranting about "chilling effect on the press" seriously, doesn't it?

<comment><USER6> Minor nitpick: I think he said that in a deposition, not in front of the judge and jury, although I think the tape was played in court for them.

<comment><USER5> My mistake; thank you for the correction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Gawker was an entertaining read and loved by many. Doesn't this 10 year long vendetta against a popular news website make Peter Thiel look like an out-of- touch evil Bond villain. I'm not saying he is one, but to use a Trumpism, many people are saying he is.

<comment><USER8> Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan aren't the only people whose privacy has been violated by Gawker, they're just the first ones to bite back. Thiel is a hero in my book.

<comment><USER9> I'll agree, but what gives me pause to call him a hero: he supports Trump. So, like a broken clock being right twice a day, I agree Thiel was right to sue and shut down Gawker, but I don't hold him in any special esteem.

<comment><USER10> > I'll agree, but what gives me pause to call him a hero: he supports Trump.

Without commenting on Trump in particular - you do realize that around half the country support him, right? It's hardly an extreme position.

<comment><USER11> "Around half the country" is an exaggeration. Even with a two-party system, in modern history no candidate has achieved the outright support of anything approaching half of the US population.

Consider that only a portion of the population is eligible and registered to vote, and even among them voter turnout is relatively low in this country. And then there's always a segment of undecided voters who just make a choice on election day, without supporting either candidate prior to that.

In this specific case, add to the math that Trump is doing poorly in recent polls, and is disliked by an unprecedented percentage of his own party.

Math aside, given the sheer number of disturbing, extreme things Trump has advocated over the past couple years... if Thiel supports Trump enough to give an endorsement at the GOP convention, this certainly seems to condone his behavior, which in my mind is a pretty extreme position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Before anyone asks, ArchiveTeam is on this already.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't archive.org already have everything?

<comment><USER12> Not necessarily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As much as I hate gawker.com, I hate the way they were destroyed even more.

<comment><USER15> By being sued for invading someone's privacy?

I don't like Peter Thiel, but he wasn't the judge or the jury.

<comment><USER16> We can't let distaste for Gawker in particular blind us to the underlying narrative here. I think Popehat[1] summed up the deeply concerning issues this Gawker mess has brought to the fore:

 _For most of us the scary part of the story is that our legal system is generally receptive to people abusing it to suppress speech. Money helps do that, but it 's not necessary to do it. A hand-to-mouth lunatic with a dishonest contingency lawyer can ruin you and suppress your speech nearly as easily as a billionaire. Will you prevail against a malicious and frivolous defamation suit? Perhaps sooner if you're lucky enough to be in a state with a good anti-SLAPP statute._

[1] [https://popehat.com/2016/08/18/gawker-money-speech-and- justi...](https://popehat.com/2016/08/18/gawker-money-speech-and-justice/)

<comment><USER5> Since when is a legitimately selected jury, with no external influences, finding Gawker guilty "abusive suppression of speech" or "malicious and frivolous"? Bollea likely would have won the case easily even if he hadn't received outside funding; the violation was just that egregious.

I have a hard time taking seriously the "underlying narrative" various self- interested news sources are trying to weave.

<comment><USER17> Bollea's lawyer (paid for by Thiel, and who should be disbarred for his clear violation of basic legal ethical standards) made multiple trial decisions that punished Gawker at Bollea's expense.

Besides, the specific case is a red herring -- Thiel simply got very lucky that one of the many lawsuits he was secretly funding against Gawker was so cut-and-dry. Had he not gotten that dropped in his lap, he would have continued funding other secret nuisance lawsuits until he was able to find something else with a substantial judgement (and then would have done what he did in this case -- announce that it was him in order to produce a chilling effect on other news organizations reporting negatively about his investments). You can't be simultaneously in favor of the legality of what Thiel did and against this: [http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother- jones-vander...](http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones- vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit)

<comment><USER5> >that punished Gawker at Bollea's expense

That's for Bollea himself to decide, not us. Frankly, I see no evidence presented that he had any objection to the choices his attorney made.

> You can't be simultaneously in favor of the legality of what Thiel did and > against this: [http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones- > vander...](http://www.motherjones.com/media/2015/10/mother-jones- > vandersloot-melaleuca-lawsuit)

[edited]

I can and rather easily, at that. Why? Because I can distinguish between cases that clearly have merit and cases that clearly don't.

This "underlying narrative" people are trying to build, as I said, is just an outright non-starter.

<comment><USER17> Thiel's intent was to bankrupt Gawker by secretly funding many cases such as the Mother Jones example. Again, he got lucky with the Bollea case (not only in that it was quite egregious, but that it provided an excellent framework to recruit unwitting members of the public to his defense by exploiting our cognitive tendency to break conflict into false dichotomies -- being anti- Gawker doesn't mean I'm pro-Thiel).

Are you in favor of or against someone secretly funding multiple lawsuits in order to destroy a company producing negative press about their investment vehicles? That's the question that actually matters.

<comment><USER5> >Are you in favor of or against someone secretly funding multiple lawsuits in order to destroy a company producing negative press about their investment vehicles?

Do the lawsuits have merit or not? If they do, the source of funding or motivation or secrecy is clearly irrelevant.

<comment><USER17> Is your assertion that lawsuits are decided fairly regardless of the amount of money each side is able to invest?

 _the source of funding or motivation or secrecy is clearly irrelevant_

You should read about the history of champerty and maintenance in common law.

<comment><USER5> >Is your assertion that lawsuits are decided fairly regardless of the amount of money each side is able to invest?

Obviously not, or Bollea wouldn't have sought Thiel's funding. Are you sure you that's the argument you intended to make? :)

>You should read about the history of champerty and maintenance in common law.

As a matter of fact, I have. I'd be very concerned about both champerty and maintenance ... if I were a wealthy British nobleman living several centuries ago. Those laws were deemed unnecessary in the modern era and repealed. It's just plain silly to bring up stale history.

<comment><USER17> Yes, obviously, since the injection of wealth into a lawsuit produces unfairness. You're playing dumb, and it just makes you look dumb. Those who forget the lessons of history, etc...

<comment><USER18> I would think that typically, a corporation has a large financial advantage over the individual in a potential lawsuit. For example, if they published a video of mine, I wouldn't even be able to pay enough to hire attorneys to file a lawsuit. It could be argued that Thiel was just leveling the playing field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> On the upside, some nice office space in Manhattan coming on the market.

<comment><USER20> On the upside, Gakwer.com is shutting down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Recent discussion about the bankruptcy and sale: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877814](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11877814)

</comment><comment><USER22> Censored?</comment>


Google May Penalize Non Mobile-Friendly Sites - <AUTHOR> http://articles.dappergentlemen.com/2014/11/18/is-your-site-mobile-friendly/

<comment><USER2> Thanks for sharing this announcement - definitely going to test my clients' websites tomorrow and make sure they pass the mobile-friendly test!</comment>