Ask YC: Feedback on my startup - <AUTHOR>

Please take a look at my startup from two different angles: 1. You're a college student who has just been told to go to cocunderground.com for your textbooks. COC is the name of your college (College of the Canyons is the school's actual name). You have no other information. (I want to simulate a potential user's actual experience. Feel free to register too! Just put YC at the beginning of your name or username and I'll remove you after a week.)
2. You're yourself and evaluating the site's concept, navigation, ease of use, aesthetics, everything.
Let me know what you think. Thanks! <comment><USER2> OK... so this functions well as a demonstration of something you built, for applying to YC or a job at another startup. And free book exchange sites are definitely good for the community of students.

But the word startup implies a business that can scale rapidly. You've got a nice project here... I wish you the best of luck in expanding this to every college in the nation, but it's going to be hard as hell. Even then, your only way of making money is advertising and it takes a whole lot of users to make decent money advertising. And college students as an audience don't exactly attract high CPMs either.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, to piggyback here, you'll never make money on a college book exchange site. I tried it. Tons of other people have, too. It's even made "bad business idea" lists: [http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/8-stupid-frat- boy-...](http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/blog/8-stupid-frat-boy-business- ideas)

<comment><USER4> A student book exchange strikes me as a tad seasonal, like selling Christmas trees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Retool it to porn and you may have yourself a viable web business. Otherwise? Nice portfolio app.

</comment><comment><USER6> I liked the nifty drop down menus!!

</comment><comment><USER7> Decent concept and execution but you may want to change the name, so it's less let's just say... confusing

cocunderground ~= backstreet ~= hole in the wall

o yeah you may want to check out your competition: <http://pazap.com/>

It doesn't seem open anymore but this guy had a pretty cool ui for a college text book search site

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I am planning on changing the name sometime soon. This was our concept site, to see if it would work and how to get it to work. At one point we were stuck with what domain to register for the site, and I had to pick one to move forward.</comment></comment>


Search the DNC email database - <AUTHOR> https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/ <comment><USER2> No one escapes linkedin spam:

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/?q=i%27d+like+to+add+you+to...](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/?q=i%27d+like+to+add+you+to+my+professional+network+on+linkedin&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult)

<comment><USER3> I wonder how many hard drives could be filled with all the linkedin emails ever sent.

<comment><USER4> I was a rave promoter in the early 2000s and was using my personal email address to send out promotions for a while. I had several thousands of emails that I had collected over the years, including a few email lists that forwarded all over the country. Several years ago, I signed up for linked in, dutifully unchecked the 20 emails or so on the first page of emails and then clicked, next, after which it emailed the entire rest of my gmail contact list. I ended up in the top 5% of viewed profiles on all of linked in for the month. I felt terrible about it.

<comment><USER5> LinkedIn is king of dark patterns. Their webpage is full of "spam everyone you have ever known" landmines.

<comment><USER6> = $26.2B.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In which DNC executives discuss smearing Bernie Sanders as Jewish: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/7643) [https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/11508](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508)

<comment><USER8> It's smearing him as an atheist. He's saying that southern baptists would be okay with electing a Jewish person but not an atheist.

<comment><USER9> Whatever the case, it sure does look as if the DNC has been playing favorites. There's more where that came from, e.g. -

      > From: Daniel Strauss [email@example.com<mailto:email@example.com>]
      > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 12:25 PM
      > To: Miranda, Luis > Subject: Deep background question
      > > Hey
      > > So we want to see the list of committee appointments the Sanders Folks submitted just to verify it was mostly staffers and ineligible figures. That possible with no fingerprints attached?

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7065](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/7065)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/?q=off+the+record&mfrom=&mt...](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/?q=off+the+record&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult)

"Off the record" is a fun search term to browse.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, interesting reading. I think they got more 'fingerprints' on this than they wanted, though....

> From: Daniel Strauss [email@example.com<mailto:email@example.com>] > > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 12:25 PM > To: Miranda, Luis > Subject: Deep > background question > > Hey > > So we want to see the list of committee > appointments the Sanders Folks submitted just to verify it was mostly > staffers and ineligible figures. That possible with no fingerprints > attached?

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7065](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/7065)

<comment><USER11> > (Sorry I'm sending this from two email accounts. I hate the iPhone)

I knew it! Lots of people secretly hate the iPhone, but won't admit it public!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Lots of social security numbers, credit card numbers, full names, addresses, and phone numbers of very wealthy donors in there.

Also, here's one where the DNC creates fake (satirical) craigslist posts advertising jobs for Trump businesses: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/12803](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803)

<comment><USER12> this actually demonstrates some savvy low level marketing, seems like they were going to redirect 'applicants' to a microsite likely with more satirical anti-Trump stuff.

The desire to keep the 'offensive shit ..verbatim' is also quite interesting ( I think ). 1) again, shows some savvy marketing to not step over the line into smearing 2) does anyone know if the phrases in their posts are actually taken from Trump quotes or anecdotes? They seem plausible but also a bit off the wall.

In any case, somewhat interesting to see the inner workings of US political marketing machinations

<comment><USER13> off the wall eh?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Greg Sargent of WaPo seems to have a pretty friendly relationship with the DNC. I'd like to know what they were trying to damage control here: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11242](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/11242)

edit: Seems they were just scared of the narrative after platform concessions with the Sanders camp: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/13370](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13370)

</comment><comment><USER15> DNC users have local Administrator rights on their PCs, apparently.

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8763](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/8763)

<comment><USER16> It says "for Surface", so maybe that's bring your own device (not necessarily better, mind you).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The childish side of me typed in "penis" expecting no results. Boy was I wrong.

<comment><USER18> None of them are particularly interesting, though. So far I'm pretty surprised with how pedestrian it is.

Even looking for the word "fuck" reveals few internal communications which use it. In one thread, some guy seems to have gotten a sub-optimal time slot for putting out Democratic-leaning news on CNN, since it's at 6AM rather than closer to near 8:20AM when, it turns out, Obama was going to deliver some statement. They asked him if he thought it was possible to move the thing forward a couple hours, and suggested that if he couldn't then they might have to withhold the news completely for a later time. And he replied with a bit of lip about how crummy that is: "They structured their whole show on that we'll make news in the 6am hour. We told them a time. They took care of us. Now they're all asleep. Are we really going to screw them over on our mistake???" and he follows it up with a couple more replies which are similarly irreverent but not outright bad, making a valid case (which the higher-ups seem to eventually agree with) that alienating someone who's doing you a favor is a really bad idea and they should just bite whatever bullet they're biting with the worse time-slot. They basically tell him, "You're right, we'll listen to you, but fuck off with the attitude." And that's the scope of the thing. Relatively minor.

In another one, someone admitting that they're writing for FoxNews.com invites comments from them about some hit piece he's thinking about writing on the subject of Hillary Clinton maybe protecting Bill and trying to silence his accusers during his sex scandals... an internal email discussing this "opportunity" (to, presumably, have whatever their words might be, twisted) one emails to the other people in his office, "Is there a Fuck You emoji?". After some laughs they decide not to respond at all; but the guy is persistent, so the person who handles the forward says, "The asshole from fox emailed us again. I did some research and there's still no "fuck you" emoji, unfortunately."

It's pretty tame stuff so far in my browsing. Relatively professional.

<comment><USER7> [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/7643)

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/11508)

I wouldn't call that professional. I would call that conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one.

<comment><USER18> I was talking in particular about the use of profanity in a working environment, of course.

I do not know what you are reading into those emails but speaking purely objectively, there is remarkably little content in them to go off of. It could potentially have to do with Bernie Sanders in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries (which were in early May), but that seems somewhat unlikely given the timestamps -- the West Virginia primary was only 5 days after the email was sent, which is almost no time for one to ask the question, get whatever answer, and launch a smear campaign. It could also be not about Sanders at all --WVA is an odd way to refer to West Virginia when WV will work as well, and the name "Sanders" doesn't appear anywhere in the emails themselves.

Even if it's about Sanders, the email doesn't even say whether the guy is rooting _for_ or _against_ Sanders: it could just as easily be "Hey, I heard this rumor that Sanders is an atheist, can we get someone to ask him so that he can squash that rumor like a bug?"

It doesn't strike me as a "civil rights violation" to ask about someone's religious views. I mean, maybe the US people not voting for politicians based on their religious affiliation is a larger civil rights violation that you fear will be triggered if this question is asked, but that seems like several steps away from a sure thing, since it's quite possible that Bernie will play a different political card.

<comment><USER7> You cannot possibly be serious.

1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny it? I think you protest too much.

2) The email is clearly suggesting to use the question _against_ Sanders. Your hypothetical suggestion is plainly unsupported by the facts. Let me just quote the objectionable e-mail:

> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his > belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish > heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points > difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big > difference between a Jew and an atheist.

That is clearly saying that knowledge that Sanders is an atheist would hurt him in KY and WVA (by the way: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA)). It is also implying that someone should directly ask him so he can't "skate by".

3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical.

<comment><USER19> > 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on > religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political > organizations is deeply unethical.

Are you talking about political agents being _unethical_ (to which I say, "duh"), or are we talking about what you previously stated, "conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one" ? Those are very different things.

People have a right to vote for a candidate as they see fit, based on all the information they have at their disposal. That's a core tenet of democracy. While I would prefer people not use religious views of candidates in most cases, there are cases where I would definitely like to know (for example, if the candidate believes the world will end within the year, I think that's probably the most relevant information in a presidential candidate you can know). While self serving, I can't see the action as _purely_ negative, as it would be increasing _true information_ to the public (as opposed to attack ads that insinuate unverified information).

<comment><USER7> I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.

<comment><USER19> While I agree in this case it's probably bigotry they would be exploiting, how do we differentiate that from an informed view of how someone's thoughts on religion (or birth control, or the belief in evolution, or how to deal with Israeli/Palestinian relations, or trade agreements) might translate into other areas of office? If you think they don't matter, it's bigotry. If you think they do, such as inform as to the character of the person, the personality of the person, how they deal with conflict, etc, then it's not. How to we _objectively_ differentiate between things that matter and things that don't?

<comment><USER7> You raise some good points. I'll grant that this is probably not an area where you would want to create legislation or prosecute the violations. I still contend they are violations: just ones we do not necessarily want to set an example of pursuing,

<comment><USER19> I agree, and I think a good solution that works (or doesn't, as the public sees fit) is to expose the behavior, which is what we have here. We're having a discussion about it, and agree it's poor behavior, and if it's poor enough or deemed problematic enough, it may make headlines and hurt rather than help the people involved. Again, we have an instance of more (hopefully correct and verified) information being released so the public can do with it what they deem prudent. Thus, we have democracy in action (even when that action may be to choose _inaction_ ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So, anyone knows which tech stack wikileaks is using to run that search?

</comment><comment><USER21> Luis Miranda suggests that Hillary isnt already supporting dicators and Trump doesnt support Israel.

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4736](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/emailid/4736)

* Trump's threat to pull back from our most important military alliances<[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-and-the...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-and-the-end-of-nato/2016/03/04/e8c4b9ca-e146-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html>) like NATO, pull aid from our allies like Israel, and his gushing praise for dictators would put our country on a dangerous path.

</comment><comment><USER22> Another interesting term to search for: "Donald Trump", or "Dangerous Donald" as they have coined him.

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/?q="Donald+trump"](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q="Donald+trump")

[https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/?q="Dangerous+Donald"](https://wikileaks.org/dnc- emails/?q="Dangerous+Donald")

</comment><comment><USER21> "New York" "New York Bernie"

<comment><USER23> Sounds a lot like the "New York values" smear used in the GOP side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> tried searching my full name hoping for a surprise

nothing :(

</comment><comment><USER25> I guess Assange would like to see Trump win - quickest way to bring about the downfall of the US

<comment><USER26> So we're supposed to tolerate corruption simply to avoid Trump? Trump offers us a lesson that if we don't take democracy (and the underlying components/principles) seriously, it will decay.

<comment><USER27> Obligatory Gary Johnson reference...

<comment><USER28> I'm sorry, but you need to spell out clearly what you're saying for some of us.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> New York</comment>


Sometimes, it's just time to go home - <AUTHOR> http://www.benmilne.com/sometimes-just-go-home/ <comment><USER5> The saddest thing about this post to me is the fact that he could only write it because his startup is apparently doing great.

 _Most_ startups aren't, despite the fact that lots of the folks there are in effectively the same personal position and feeling the exact same thing - <USER3> addition to the added pressure of not feeling like they measure up to stories like this one because their quarter didn't go nearly as well. I really feel for those people, and I wish they felt more freedom to be honest and public about these kinds of feelings.

Rather tangentially - I have a one and a half year old daughter who recently turned a question we posed her ("Woah, kiddo. Are you freaking out!?") on it's head. Now sometimes when she gets wound up she goes full-meta and runs back and forth in the kitchen waving her hands in the air yelling "freaking out!", in self-parody.

That reminds me, a little bit, of our startup-culture's relationship to overwork... and don't get me wrong, I don't think articles like this are the ridiculous self-parody, I think they're the really troubling and all-too-real consequence.

Put simply I think we need to do a little more wiggling our toes in the carpet and chilling the fuck out. The world's not suffering from a shortage of first- world martyrs.

Take a breath, go home, do great work tomorrow, and for God's sake appreciate the fact that you're in the hilariously small fraction of people who get to blog about the pains of working too hard by choice.

<comment><USER6> > The saddest thing about this post to me is the fact that he could only write > it because his startup is apparently doing great.

Agreed.

> Most startups aren't, despite the fact that lots of the folks there are in > effectively the same personal position and feeling the exact same thing - <USER3> > addition to the added pressure of not feeling like they measure up to > stories like this one because their quarter didn't go nearly as well. I > really feel for those people, and I wish they felt more freedom to be honest > and public about these kinds of feelings.

...and let's also not forget all the folks who are barely making ends meet at their existing jobs, putting in 60+ hour work weeks for a measly salary that's been stagnate for years or all the folks needing to work an extra job or two just to survive.

<comment><USER5> I certainly haven't! Those were the people I had in mind when I ended the comment with _" and for God's sake appreciate the fact that you're in the hilariously small fraction of people who get to blog about the pains of working too hard by choice."_

It's hard to fairly cover every situation the OP is enjoying more privilege than, because frankly there's an ocean of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I was young I met a Spanish tennis player called Rafael Nadal when he was a kid.

He was managed and coached by his uncle who had experience in being a professional football player.

What shocked me is that he did not sacrifice Rafael's life like most of other kids that could be good(examples like Michael Jackson or in tennis the Wiilians' sisters or Arantxa Sanchez Vicario in Spain).

At the time everybody believed that if Rafael was not sent to Barcelona to a tennis Boarding school without seeing their family and giving it all to tennis, he couldn't make it.

Toni, his uncle, believed that if he were to be a good tennis player sacrificing everything else, it was not worth it.

Rafael got to be the best Spanish player of all time.

When I created my company I wanted to be rich, but rich meant not just money, but having time to make love to my wife, see my children grow or reading and writing in HN.

At the end, you discover you could delegate lots of work.

<comment><USER8> Just a small correction. Rafa Nadal trainer is not the former professional football player Miguel Angel Nadal (who is also Rafa's uncle) but Miguel Angel's brother, Toni Nadal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Life is now.

If you're doing something for money so that you can live your life the way you want later, that doesn't work because it takes time to learn to live your life the way you want. Typically it takes a lifetime to do that, so you must start early: you must start now if you wish to make it. Otherwise you'll end up with a lot of cash and no idea of what kind of life makes you fulfilled.

If you're doing something to make a difference – or to make the world a better place – then if you feel like you're running out of time then you're probably doing it wrong. That sort of goals are rarely if ever such undertakings that are constrained by time. Paradoxically, life is short yet there's always plenty of time so as to not have to hurry things. If you work madly for a few years what is it that you think you'll win from it if you compare doing that thing you can't not do for decades? Or maybe you weren't doing a thing you can't not do in the first place?

Rush is a sign that you have grown an inflated sense of importance. Nothing is that important, not even the important things.

If you're building a company, you have all the time to grow the business. Some families have been doing that for centuries, many individuals for decades. If you have a really great idea, take the time to work on it. If you're lucky, someone else does the same thing and finishes faster than you which means you don't have to do it at all! You can just enjoy the benefits of the addition of widget X or feature Y in the pool of things tangible in our lives. Maybe the idea wasn't that unique after all. But some ideas are and thosee you can work on for years. For many things in life, building them slower makes them last longer. Even a good relationship or a family tree.

For these reasons, I consider it a better approach to weave the things you can't not do and your life together. This removes a divide: life goes on at its own pace and along comes your calling but they're not in conflict. There's no contrast between work and family, or business and private life because everything is scattered around in the timeline of your life in small pieces. There's always some work but there's always home and family too. Neither is more important than the other and none of the areas can continuously hog a big chunk of your focus.

 _Daddy must work now, daddy has to write an important email because those people need daddy's opinion._

 _I can't have the meeting today, I need to cook dinner and water the garden with my daughter._

<comment><USER10> This is the sort of sentimentality that has no place in modern capitalism.

Why would you need to cook dinner or water a garden (who even has a garden) or even have children in the first place? People have been doing that for thousands of years. If you want to scratch dirt you can move to Kansas and be a dirt farmer. Plenty of time with your kids with that career track.

If you're building a company, you have _almost no_ time to do _anything_. Building a company is a very difficult task that very few people can successfully execute, and even fewer can successfully execute in the limit. It's just intrinsically hard.

In comparison, cooking dinner or putting the hose on some lettuce or some anemic tomato plants is easy as balls. They pay people pennies an hour to do those things for you. You can just pay them to do them, and do interesting, hard things yourself.

Personally, I think preferring easy things to hard things is a sign of weakness. Doing hard things is fulfilling. Cash is incidental, but it is a very good metric of how hard something is. If you are not making very much money, you aren't doing things that are very hard.

Life is, truly, very short. You can spend it doing hard things and, if you die, know that you were able to go further and faster and _better_ than all the people around you, that you've _won_ , or you can die knowing that you did the same boring things people did since they were barely past apes.

<comment><USER11> I find that raising children and caring for and loving my family is the hardest I've done yet. It's not paying any money.

<comment><USER12> Spot on! And also more important

<comment><USER13> Not disagreeing necessarily, but I am curious what makes you rate it "more important."

<comment><USER14> The choice to have kids in the first place is a purely individual choice. For some, it may be incredibly important. For others, I think it's perfectly acceptable to opt out of the whole thing.

Once you've had the kids, however, I'd suggest that most startups (perhaps not absolutely all) are objectively less important than making sure your kids grow up to be decent, empathetic, constructive members of society – for whatever definition of society you choose. It may be tough for your kid to grow up to change everyone's world, but it's really easy to let one grow up to destroy someone's world, and preventing that is the job you took on when you decided to take the step of having a child that may one day interact with mine.

<comment><USER13> Thanks for your perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This guy is the CEO. So, by definition, this is a management problem. Dwolla has some money now; they can hire people. This guy needs to learn how to build a staff and delegate. He's only done startups, and hasn't worked in a long- established company where they have this figured out.

Some founders have trouble letting go of control. They want to do it all themselves. That doesn't scale.

<comment><USER16> Exactly. My parents have been running a company since they were both in their twenties. Starting in a country where literally no one has heard of funding or investment(early years after communism fell), they have started with nearly nothing. For the past 20 years they have been spending every second of their time at work, well into their forties. They kept growing, hiring more people(now almost 200), opening more shops, and they just couldn't manage, there's only so many places you could be in at once. Until in the last few years they hired a couple managers to take the load off their backs. Now they only need to visit our offices a couple times a week, are a lot more relaxed than they were some time ago. But my point is - they didn't arrive at this conclusion that they need managers by themselves. They always thought that if they spent 5 minutes left at the office the whole thing would fall apart. Someone else told them that they will burn our completely if they don't start hiring other people to do their work - and it worked. There's no point in having money if you never have time to spend it.

<comment><USER17> > There's no point in having money if you never have time to spend it.

Moreover, the only point of money is to spend it. They should focus on enjoyment now. They'll be playing catch up with other people who've been working to live through their forties. Ideally they'd sell the company if they wouldn't have to work again, so it's not a distraction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It shouldn't be the way. We met Brad Feld last year in Las Vegas (Up Summit) and he talked about his depression[1]. I suggest everyone to read the depression archives on Brad Feld blog [2]. Pretty insightful posts. I tend to be obsessive and I lost someone I really care about because of focus on money and too much work. At the end of the day, you have to focus on your priorities, your wife/family is one and should deserve a decent amount of attention. Brad said that when Amy call him whenever he's in a meeting he will still answer, because she's a priority. Outworking yourself is not likely the way you will succeed in the long run. Work hard != work smart

George Bernard Shaw said: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

1\. [http://www.inc.com/magazine/201307/brad-feld/many- entreprene...](http://www.inc.com/magazine/201307/brad-feld/many- entrepreneurs-deal-with-depression.html)

2\. [http://www.feld.com/archives/tag/depression](http://www.feld.com/archives/tag/depression)

<comment><USER19> I read the following from link 2 in your comment:

[http://www.feld.com/archives/2014/10/helps- depressed.html](http://www.feld.com/archives/2014/10/helps-depressed.html)

This may be veering off-topic, but reading the suggestions submitted by the reader in that post made me wonder some people (many, in fact) have to actively work so hard to hold off depression. Something is going wrong (organically, culturally, or both) that depression is the default state for so many.

Culturally, I think our relationship with work is certainly part of it. And, some personalities (e.g. driven or obsessive) may just be more susceptible.

<comment><USER20> > Something is going wrong (organically, culturally, or both) that depression > is the default state for so many.

I'm not convinced that this is any different from the "natural state" of humans (which granted is not completely well-defined). I do not see any reason to expect people to be generally happy. While it's overly reductionist to think of evolution in terms of individual "fitness", it is not clear to me that a general trend of being unhappy (which in slightly more outlying cases becomes depression) decreases fitness. The only obvious effect I can see is suicide, but that's pretty rare statistically speaking, and we have strong self-preservation instincts independent of happiness that are pretty hard to override. Being reliably happy on the other hand is probably ruinous to fitness--what motivation would I have to do anything?

<comment><USER19> From a strict evolutionary fitness perspective, depression is very nearly catastrophic. But, that framing doesn't make sense in the first place, nor is it necessary in order to assess the "natural state" of humans.

Depression is a mental health issue. Unhealthiness is not a natural state.

You are also profoundly misguided in your understanding that depression is the opposite of happiness. Most of your argument seems to rest on that confusion.

<comment><USER20> Perhaps I was unclear. I'm not arguing that depression is "naturally" common. Only that reliable happiness is perhaps not naturally common. I'm not arguing that depression is the opposite of happiness; however, I do not think it's unreasonable that if people are overall less happy, this will increase the incidence of depression.

<comment><USER19> > _Perhaps I was unclear._

Well, it seems that you said what you meant to say, because your clarification still leans pretty heavily on the notion of happiness vs. depression.

> _I 'm not arguing that depression is "naturally" common. Only that reliable > happiness is perhaps not naturally common._

Here's the problem. Statements about "reliable" or "unreliable" happiness in response to a discussion about depression reduce depression to, essentially, a period of unhappiness. Your suggestion is that consistent happiness may not be naturally common. The corollary (in this context) is that the intermittent periods of unhappiness represent depression.

So, I'm really not sure how the response that you're repeating here about "reliable happiness" can be construed than anything other than an erroneous framing of what depression is.

This is not to pick nits, but I think it's a common misconception that reduces depression to a mental state or emotion on par with "happiness" or "sadness". That characterization does a disservice to sufferers, even if unintentional.

Depression is an ugly, dark beast that attaches itself to the depressed person and refuses to let go. In situations that should generate "happiness", the depressed person is often unable to feel it. Depression can be wholly orthogonal to "regular" emotions.

<comment><USER20> I think I address that with my last sentence:

>I'm not arguing that depression is the opposite of happiness; however, I do not think it's unreasonable that if people are overall less happy, this will increase the incidence of depression.

None of what you say contradicts this. You point out

> Depression can be wholly orthogonal to "regular" emotions.

which is certainly true, but it also can be quite parallel to them. In my experience, my worst episodes of depression were usually triggered by periods of profound unhappiness, even if during these episodes the experience is not the same as being continuously unhappy.

(Characterizing depression as coming in "episodes" is also misleading, as it is generally ever-present to some extent; but any characterization less than several pages long is misleading. I'd appreciate the benefit of the doubt that I understand the other issues and subtleties in play even if I do not discuss them.)

<comment><USER19> Well, I'm in no position to deny you the benefit of the doubt with regard to what you intended. I can only take you at your word there. I'm only pointing out that what you've written doesn't seem consistent with it.

> _None of what you say contradicts this._

It actually does in that I've effectively stated that the sentence has no meaning in this context.

Replying further would only belabor the point and I don't want to be antagonistic. I'll just chalk it up to miscommunication. Thanks for the discussion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Last year I worked for a startup and I allowed myself to be pushed past the breaking point. The founders tempted me with equity (which never actually materialized) and I ended up doing many all nighters and many 90-hour weeks prior to an early release (another company was doing the front-end while we did the server in-house).

I don't have a wife or a puppy, but I shouldn't have allowed this to happen. I was hired to work for a set salary under the assumption of a 40-hour work-week - although I am naturally obsessive so I knew that wouldn't actually last. But I didn't expect my boss to say things like, "If we don't have a working build by 3pm tomorrow, we're all fired," (which turned out to be false, actually).

Pacing is important, and I think it would be interesting to do a startup where pacing is actively encouraged. I think this might be possible at a startup with strong IP protection, good funding, and leadership that sets realistic goals and trusts it's people to be motivated to get it done. It may mean that the public has to wait a bit longer before having a cool new thing available to them, but it also means that the thing will have been constructed by fresh, happy minds.

There is a moral imperative to not buy goods made in sweatshops. There is also a moral imperative to not use software produced under inhumane conditions. Congratulations on discovering this for yourself - and I hope you encourage your coworkers to be humane to each other and themselves as well.

<comment><USER22> _If we don 't have a working build by 3pm tomorrow, we're all fired..._

This is a bothersome and worrisome comment that probably has been repeated (in some variation) too often. How is this the fault of the developer(s)?

I appreciate that founders need to fulfill their promises, especially when having the backing of investors, but these type of statements seem to indicate a failure in communication and planning (more than execution).

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm reading this while sitting in a restaurant in Nepal. My wife and I are here for around three weeks for hiking to Everest Base Camp. After this, we are headed to China for 11 days. In total, I'm going to be out from work for 5 weeks. Almost three years ago we quit our jobs, sold our house and travelled for 9 months through South America, Antarctica, and Europe.

I work at a startup. I'm the product manager and we are rebuilding the product from the ground up, in December we will have been working on the rebuild for a full year and our first beta customers will be starting on the new platform. The five weeks immediately previous to that, I'm out of the office for an extended period.

This is to say, you have to make the time for yourself. We both work hard, both of our new jobs (which are way better than our pre big trip jobs btw) allowed us to take this five weeks without much hassle. The team will survive and I'll come back refreshed and ready to tackle new problems.

Perhaps some think our startup will fail because someone took time off for this long, I'll tell you that I sure don't.

<comment><USER24> Hey, I'm on the eastern edge of the Himalayas near Kunming, the capital of Yunnan, China. While 11 days isn't much so I doubt it, if you guys are planning to visit Yunnan you are welcome to come sailing on our huge alpine lake. :)

</comment></comment><comment> 8f2ab37a-ed6c The startup thing has been both amazing and incredibly devastating.

Haven't seen my folks in years. Spouse dumped me because I practically didn't exist outside of work. Absolutely no hobbies or traveling in years. No guarantee the company will be anything but a massive drop in my financial history. You're constantly running out of money, so you're cutting every unnecessary expense, and you're living on scraps for years, knowing that you could be making 10x that much in the workforce. You can't quit though because so many people look up to you for direction, they need you to be there and lead them, to be certain of where you're going. The stress can be so high you just want to roll up in fetal in a corner and disappear. You understand why so many founders end their lives.

The experiences however and the connections are priceless. The feeling of playing the game on your terms is liberating and the hope of the upside is exhilarating, but I still wish the price wasn't so high. The amount of personal growth is astounding: once you go through the above, everything else feels like easy mode. You have to develop resilience, charisma, diplomacy, discipline and so many other traits or you will sink fast.

In hindsight, I don't know if I'd do anything differently. When you're this deep, you try not to dwell on hypotheticals.

I remember many years ago when I was sold to the startup lifestyle by the sexiness of the message, but the dozens of PG essays and stories of success and freedom. Nowadays I caution people to truly dig deep and understand if this is worth it to them, ask them if they're ready to sacrifice everything for likely nothing at all. Ultimately we're slaves of power law and similar to Hollywood talent in our outcomes: a very small fraction of us is going to becomes gods through either luck or huge sacrifice, and 99.9% of us will be waiting tables for the rest of our lives, or decide to do something else.

<comment><USER25> Even here, you can't help but romanticize your experience. If you could see through the silicon valley delusion you've been fed, you would realize that you destroyed your life, your marriage, and most of your personal relationships, probably for nothing.

You say you have developed these incredible skills, and perhaps you have. What will they do for you... what is your endgame? Perhaps your next startup will be massive success and you will be rich, but will you be happy with no relationships? Who will be happy for your success that is not also making money from it?

You have been conned into playing a game you cannot win at the cost of your humanity. Run away now.

<comment><USER26> I too was surprised how the listing of all the things that were lost (really important things in life) were suddenly swept under the carpet with "the experiences.... were priceless".

I don't think that the experience of not seeing or having a family and not having a life (traveling or hobbies) is a priceless experience!!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't want to be a wet blanket, but when I read how hard he and others work, the first thought that comes to me is:

"I'm not working even close to that level."

In a way, it's a glimpse into the reality required to do Great Things. Followed by the painful self-awareness that you're nowhere close.

<comment><USER28> Great Things require dedication, passion, and vision. Working yourself to death is not on the list of requirements, and in fact can often be counter- productive.

If you're passionate about your job, you're likely to work hard. But there's a line between "working hard", and overworking. Beyond a certain point, more hours may (or may not) mean more things done, but almost certainly doesn't mean more of the right things done.

<comment><USER29> _Great Things require dedication, passion, and vision. Working yourself to death is not on the list of requirements_

If that's true, it should be possible to make a list of companies that have been built without the founders working very hard (or rather, extremely long hours). What are some companies that could go onto such a list?

As a filter, let's use criteria "The founders got rich enough not to have to work anymore, or the company went public," since that's generally why people start startups.

EDIT: I've updated the question to ask specifically for instances of companies that have IPO'd or been acquired without the founders working extremely long hours, and also to clarify that I'm asking about the founders' working hours, not the employees. Thanks, enjo.

<comment><USER30> Start with Jeff Hawkins

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hawkins](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Hawkins)

I remember hearing him lecture where he said he always tried to be home by 5:30 to have dinner with his family.

Grid, Palm, Numenta, Handspring, are all great successes.

<comment><USER29> Awesome, thank you! This is a great example. It's strange to see evidence that founders don't always have to work most evenings. I wonder why the culture surrounding startups has gone in the opposite direction.

<comment><USER31> I suspect people do it as social signaling because they don't want to be thought of as not dedicated.

If people were more worried about results than appearances, they would not do this though as working that much leads to stupid mistakes and burn-out.

It might make sense if you are just trying to cash out and want to put on a good show for investors by sleeping under your desk, though I would think this only impresses stupid investors.

Is instructive to see the environments where this goes the other way.

In Oxford and Cambridge Universities there is the concept of the _' Grey Man'_.

These are the people who are seen to work hard and it used to be considered a terrible affliction and an indication of mediocre talents.

Consider this quote from Stephen Hawking

 _"The prevailing attitude at Oxford at that time was very anti-work. You were supposed to either be brilliant without effort or accept your limitations and get a fourth-class degree. To work hard to get a better class of degree was the mark of a 'grey man', the worst epithet in the Oxford vocabulary."_

 _Hawking calculated that he worked on average for about an hour a day as an undergraduate physicist: "We affected an air of complete boredom and the feeling that nothing was worth making an effort for."_

from here - [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e59f5792-1a23-11e3-b3da-00144feab7...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e59f5792-1a23-11e3-b3da-00144feab7de.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This was a great read. Something to consider in that moment is scale. It is impossible to be an entire company and survive. A CEO I highly respect told me that you can move a truck with a go kart engine, a big transmission, and a lot of coolant, but adding more cylinders is what makes it a truck. He was explaining to me that 'scaling' people was about figuring out how to take what someone was doing really really well, and turning that into a process for doing that thing. Then handing over that thing to the process.

The first startup I joined was run by a guy who had not, to my knowledge, ever been more than a line manager (directly managing people who did things, versus managing people who managed people to did things) He had a really really hard time working with the indirection, unable to feel comfortable that things were "in control" unless he went and talked to the actual people doing the work himself. As the company got bigger that became a bigger and bigger issue for him. He didn't scale, and I could tell that there would come a time when he would be 110% subscribed with tasks that he couldn't figure out how to delegate.

The message about getting home though is really really important. Too many people are sleeping at work because they have no home to go home to any more. If you can set a goal for 'quality hours with the family per week' and when that is in jeopardy due to work commitments _restructure work to reduce its impact_.

</comment><comment><USER33> 2 big points I've learned & want to share on this topic:

1) In the smart long-term play, family & few close friends are most important. Everything else (including your startup) is trivial.

2) Even if you value your startup at 100% value (over family/friends/health/life), you're incredibly short-sited and killing your own startup baby if you don't have some balance in your life. Startup life is NOT a sprint. It's a marathon. To give the BEST to your startup, you need to bring your BEST every day.

Phrased another way, I often ask, "Let's say you're going to be interviewed on the Colbert Report, or other big-huge-friggin' deal tomorrow, what would you do today?" Often, people say, "I'll eat well, build something, hug my family, build something, help someone, build more, chat with a friend, take a walk, build more, play a game, go to bed early" So, if that's what you do to bring your BEST tomorrow, then what would you do if you wanted to bring your BEST EVERY day?

That tends to drive home the message that work-life balance isn't just helping your life, it's truly what matters to helping your work too.

Corollary: If you're overstressed, you aren't helping your work. Often, overstressed people at startups will add much more friction in the small team, hurting efficiency as arguments & disrespect poisons the day's actions. Not to mention the zombie-brain mistakes in execution when you're not taking proper care of yourself.

<comment><USER34> Totally agree, you have to keep some energy in reserve to handle the unexpected.

To go further, if you want to do more than just handle the unexpected (which is kind of like putting out a fire) you will need to bring wisdom to the situation.

Developing wisdom requires an even greater reserve of energy _and_ some downtime to reflect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Perhaps there could be something in between a startup and a job as an employee.

Startups are rewarding because you are not simply an employee but also part owner and they are hard because you have to undertake a lot of extra work and responsibility and risk.

Maybe there could be a third way were you are part owner but undertake less risk and less responsibility and less work. Imagine a startup where instead of the typical 2/3 founders 3/15 employees you have a 15 employees who all share an equal amount of ownership and responsibility.

The point of such a startup would be to provide better working terms and better pay than one would get when working as an employee or contractor but at the same time lessen exposure to risk and responsibility.

I don't know how doable it is but I always thought that it was strange that most startups were trying to emulate the same corporate structure the, founders themselves probably wanted to avoid because it didn't suit them very well as employees.

Sorry for going of tangent but it's just random idea that crept into my head and wanted to share.

<comment><USER36> There is such a thing — a cooperative! One famous example is the Cheeseboard in Berkeley, a cheese shop and pizzeria that has been worker owned and operated since the 60's with wild success. Seeing how happy, creative, and productive the staff there is makes me wish that we had more organizations operating in this manner.

Kind of a tangent, but there's a lot to be said for cooperative living, too. One of my favorite experiences in college was living in a student cooperative. There were about 40 of us in a large, early 20th century Victorian house, each taking on a fair share of maintenance, cooking, and management. Every decision, including major ones like renovating parts of the house, was made democratically and collectively: there was no real centralized oversight. (There was a "central office" for the entire co-op system — itself largely made up of house representatives — but they mostly stayed out of individual house affairs.) Important positions such as president or workshift manager were voted in collectively and had certain benefits, like decreased rent or less hours required per week. It worked well for the most part, and many lifelong friendships were forged in the house.

I think it would be an interesting experiment to get a bunch of self-motivated creative folks together in such an environment and have them work on projects together. Perhaps the members would be selected by occupation, so that there's a solid pool of artists, programmers, designers, writers, etc. at all times. A majority of the money generated from these projects would go towards the members' collective benefit. Projects would be formed spontaneously, either by individuals working alone, or by people trying to "recruit" other members — kind of like how Valve does things.

A combination of cooperative living and cooperative working. I know it's not for everyone, and maybe it's a pipe dream, but the idea really appeals to me!

<comment><USER37> I agree, and I think a lot of people are at least intrigued by the idea of something like that. I'm guessing that that last bit is sort of like what an "artist colony" is, except more multidisciplinary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> That's the inevitable consequence of being overambitious. This pattern is the same, regardless of the area within which these folks try to become more powerful, rich or famous than others.

At BMW a former director told some trainees that he's the most lonely person in the world. Lost his wife, kids and friends. Hobbies? None. Money? More than can be spend. Power? You bet. "Too soon old, too late wise" is true even for extraordinary achievers like this guy.

I always like to point out to those younger folks that they need to be aware of their true motivation. To 99 % in the startup scene or at the big companies it's not to make the world a better place. It's not to be creative and productive. The main drive is ambition. That's OK, it's human. But it needs to be controlled. When you are aware of your true selfish motivation, it's easier to stop when it's all too much. You do it for yourself, not your family (you would choose a solid 9 to 5 job) or the world.

<comment><USER39> _To 99% in the startup scene or at the big companies it 's not to make the world a better place. It's not to be creative and productive. The main drive is ambition._

I'm not so sure about that. I'm also not convinced "most founders are in it to get filthy rich," as lemming says elsewhere in this thread. I think there's a spectrum of motivations, including:

* Ambition

* Creative drive/wanting to build something

* Aversion to corporate culture/large organizations

* Opportunity to make a lot of money

* Social needs

* Other

It's possible to have multiple motivations. But the one that interests me is "social needs." This includes everything from wanting to work with a great team to doing something because it's the "hot thing" or the activity that gets the most respect in the community. The recent news about YC applications rising 40% YOY may reflect some of that, and also explains the huge turnout for pitch events, networking sessions, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Great article.

There are so many different angles to startup burnout, that sometimes it seems like we're playing a really rough game like American football, only instead of head and spine injuries we've got mental health problems and repetitive stress disorders.

Early in a startup the big enemy is yourself and poverty. Try to get yourself to finish that feature; to push the product over the line. To persevere after the launch basically goes unnoticed. The burnout is emotional because it's rooted in self doubt. Once a startup starts getting traction a different type of mental stress sets in: a fear of squandering an opportunity. All the late nights are rooted in the fear that your startup has had some luck and some traction, and maybe if you don't push so hard it will become another Excite. Used, but left to the wayside while a better contender came in.

</comment><comment><USER34> It's just a startup-a type of work organization operating in the first world, staffed by people who can find another job in a few weeks if it should fail.

It's basically an exciting game for privileged people with too much time on their hands. The worst outcome is you have to go work at a regular job.

Relax, no one is being sent to the scaffold over this!

</comment><comment><USER41> Wow, much respect for writing this. While my company isn't quite at Dwolla scale, I've had my own version of too-much-travel this fall, and I am over it. I realized I was making the most impact back home, helping the team create the foundation for us to do more with less.

All these conferences and these meetings are rarely world changing. They hold potential opportunities and the start of relationships, but we never know if those opportunities would have come to us through cheaper, more effective means.

Travel bothers me so much because it feels incredibly suboptimal, like I'm working harder not smarter.

</comment><comment><USER42> One reaction: "grow up". Stop letting other people dictate how you live your life. That is what parents do for children. Becoming an adult means making your own decisions about how to spend your time, and when enough is enough. Grow up. Stop putting other people, ones not even that close to you, first. Grow up.

</comment><comment><USER43> Aren't we done yet with the rhetoric of "making the world a better place"/"improving people's lives"? I can't help but think about HBO's Silicon Valley every time I read this kind of thing...

</comment><comment><USER44> It's pretty standard to take a break after a long period of hard work. Especially if it starts to feel like burnout.

I'll probably write an enlightening blog post one day about how sometimes you have to take a nap during the day, especially if you feel sleepy. I'll encapsulate it into a life lesson: Don't lie to yourself, you are sleepy so just take that nap.

</comment><comment><USER45> Almost 2 years ago, I had three major things going on in my life. I was working at another startup in San Francisco, finishing my Computer Science degree from SJSU, and being a boyfriend of a 4 year relationship with my then girlfriend. At the time, I was really worried about doing well in my career as well as making sure I don't fail my courses otherwise I would be held back and be even more miserable. I had to commute between San Jose and San Francisco every other day. I put much of my time into the startup, and naturally that took away my time from other things. In hindsight and after reading this blog post, I realised how much I overlooked and have developed further understanding on how things played out. But yeah, great blog post, it is important to learn to identify what is happening and realise the gradual damages taking place before its broken.

</comment><comment><USER46> HN'd. Mirror: [https://archive.today/QF25G](https://archive.today/QF25G)

<comment><USER47> warning : back button breakage.

Awesome , gutsy article though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> With the advent of startups, this is the new normal for IT workers.

The best part - after all this effort, majority will none the less fail. But in the meanwhile they will be doing huge amounts of work, while their investors can breathe easy, no need to worry much about overtimes, vacations, sick leaves, finding work for people after the project ends, etc.

This system is rigged against us, but a truly IT specific thing is that so many of us enjoy exploiting ourselves like this. Sure, many people would start their business anyway, but now we're dealing with a trend, "everyone" is doing it, it's the hip way to be, and there's very little criticism about this model, if any. The failures are merely presented as lessons to learn, it's rarely considered to call the emperor naked, to stop the show.

This text is nice, family is important, but this is from someone who can afford it, now that he has succeeded. I see no retrospect, no reflection here - could he have cancelled trips like this years ago, when he was still fighting? Is that what he is suggesting to people now? I don't think so, and that makes it all sound just so hollow.

</comment><comment><USER49> People ignore the systems surrounding themselves. Their life, the things supporting their happiness, and the things put in place to ensure your work functions in your absence, even just in the absence of being at home for dinner every night.

Put the right systems in place, whether it be delegation, or software, or a personal task management system (GTD is all about systems), and you don't have to worry about work all the time. You lead it by leading the right systems to function and continually improve themselves.

A systems-focused approach to work would improve every company because it's closer to reality. The reason we don't have the ability to put things down is because we make ourselves into the critical system of function, and that makes us part of the machine. Build a better machine you can trust instead. Remove yourself as a dependency.

Start with Deming: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming)

</comment><comment><USER50> Hey all. You folks killed my weak little blog server. Memory has been maxed and rebooted. Hopefully will stay online for a bit.

<comment><USER51> Why are you mucking with a web server? Take a break!

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> What surprised me is the "Buy me a coffee" barner. It is supposed they are having a big success with BBVA selling their product/application. The business sound really interesting, but "buy me a coffee" doesn't give the impression I should like to receive for such a product. I was expecting to see something about how our product is the top one in security or any other required feature.

Perhaps I am a little harsh, but if you guy are having success now and you want to give a good impression I should take the banner out.

Also, I find it completely right to rebalance your life, now is the moment in which you can take a little rest and recover from the strenuous effort and stress. Is not only a desire, if a necessity for your enterprise to go on, don't get burned!

Enjoy family, get your batteries full, let your mind and mood recover. Cheers.

<comment><USER53> I would agree if it were the company blog, but this is his personal site. He may not need the money, but the button uses Dwolla's form builder. He probably just wanted a reason to use his own product. I don't see much wrong with that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Newsflash: Startup founder struggles with Work / Life balance and ends up not seeing his wife over Halloween.

</comment><comment><USER55> A start-up is a sprint to profitability ... except it's a distance run that tests your endurance. I did this for a long time and managed a reasonable balance by paying very close attention to my pace.

When I was sprinting at full pace, I learned that I could only reasonably expect about 5-6 weeks before I crashed (hard). I always planned for a much more relaxed pace for a couple months afterwards.

On the other hand, if we had a long-term project I could plan about 55-60 hours per week maximum, but I could sustain that pace almost indefinitely while still maintaining a life.

If you're doing continuous 80+ hour weeks you need to stop now ... if you don't, your body will fail you and other parts of your life will degrade (relationships). It's simply not worth it ... a few extra bills in your pocket is not going to compensate for missing life.

</comment><comment><USER56> I did really like this post. Many thanks for sharing since most of us, including me, are relunctant to write these kind of things down

Is the price of being an entrepreneur high? Yes, it is. I do not know anyone enrolled in "creating something from the scratch" that might contradict the prior statement

Do we have to learn to put some limits to the price we are paying? Definitely yes, and this guy is putting a name to a lot of muted voices. Personally, I do not distinct so much between my personal or professional time since in my case I do love what I do, but I try not to bother F&Fs with conversations about startups and I do try to talk about other topics. This has double benefits. One not to bother others (as mentioned) and Two open your mind talking about things you don't usually have the opportunity to discuss about

</comment><comment><USER57> Down. Google's cache:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bwQO1V7...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bwQO1V7radEJ:www.benmilne.com/sometimes- just-go-home/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=iceweasel-a)

</comment><comment><USER58> I can't help but feel the whole startup culture is a conflict of mission writ large in two ways. First, you're trying to make people's lives better while deleting the idea of a better life for yourself. Second, execution is everything. But when you're working like this the quality of execution inevitably degrades.

I've done startups. At the end I got better at what I was doing but I wasn't ultimately proud of the work I did. The startup even succeeded (I helped other people get rich, I just made a living). Many startups don't even do that.

</comment><comment><USER59> I wish I had the balls to write this post. Mine would certainly not be so honest and raw. It's also sad that it comes to this. I get home for dinner but work till midnight. I'm in town for birthdays but leave at 6am the next morning. I still talk to my very best friends but no one else. I hope to heaven that the startup never ruins my marriage but it's not impossible to see it could happen.

Maybe these "compromises" mean I will never quite get to that level - <USER4> regardless I'm not willing to do compromise them. At any expense.

<comment><USER60> > I hope to heaven that the startup never ruins my marriage

That's probably already happening, you're just not being told/aware of it yet. If you're only in town for birthdays and leave at 6 am the next morning and wreck your social life you're well underway. Been there, done that so take it from me as an experience to avoid.

<comment><USER59> Thank you for the concern. This is not happening, I'm just saying that as a founder I can understand how people's obsession can go overboard and ruin important stuff. Clay Christensen's "How to Measure Your Life" is the best book on this subject and is a guiding principle for me. If my wife said "You need to quit your startup it's ruining us" I would do it in a second. As much as I love what I do, it's not even close to the plane and importance of my family.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am constantly the contrarian in these cases, but not for sake of being contrary, it's just that I genuinely do not relate.

I would kill to be in Ben's place. He is making an impact. We aren't reading his words because he is a great dad or husband or whatever, he is impacting us and making us spill thousands of words because he is making something impactful. I could never turn that off, nothing is as great in my opinion. So like I said, I don't get it. If anything the more substantive work that is piled on (not bullshit bureaucratic stuff), the more effective I am across all components. Maybe I'm wierd.

 _Anyone who does this type of work for a living and responds negatively to you saying "I'm unable to make it, I miss my family and want+need to spend some time at home" isn't a friend, partner, or an investor you should want to work with anyway._

See, at the same time I understand this also, because not all people are like me and just love doing good work they are passionate about. So when my co- founders or partners say things like this, its great because I know that they need that time and we will adjust things to give it to them.

The last thing I will say is this: No one's legacy is based on how good of a dad/partner they were.

<comment><USER61> _No one 's legacy is based on how good of a dad/partner they were._

What the actual hell? You really think that? Let's take another view: Dwolla might tank. It could be dead and gone within a year - that's how startups work. What is "impactful" today can be forgotten within six months.

Your legacy literally _is_ how good a dad you were because the only legacy you can really rely on (within reason, of course) is your children and your family. I challenge you to find a father that does not think their "work" with their child is not "impactful".

I would argue that we are spilling thousands of words on his post because we identify with it emotionally, not because he is the founder of Dwolla. I barely know anything about the startup and I care even less, but his words still resonated with me - that's why I'm here.

<comment><USER13> _the only legacy you can really rely on (within reason, of course) is your children and your family_

Except that is completely untrue. Every family I have ever encountered is split and bifurcated and generally not that reliable. True they exist, but by and large families are not that reliable.

I'm a father of three and have studied parenting outcomes for a while now. My children's outcomes in life are marginally related to how available I am as a parent beyond a certain minimal threshold - more important are socioeconomic factors. Even if you take that into account, even the most perfectly raised children (Whatever that means) have a high chance of winding up in an outcome that is less than optimal based on parental expectations - assuming that you have some aspirational expectations to begin with for them.

All that is to say that raising kids is a crap shoot and outcomes, either for you or for them, do not necessarily correlate with effort spent. Again, caveat this with "beyond a certain point" which is the bar of not living in poverty - arguably one major benefit of being successful in business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> If you have never read The Monk and The Riddle, I would highly suggest it. The experiences that are shared and the story that is woven lends some really good perspective on our lack of an ability to focus on what is important now versus what will be important later.

It's a short read and worth every page.

</comment><comment><USER63> Looking at dwolla's site and seeing "Eliminate paper checks", I realised how lucky we in Germany are, that even though Germany is a pretty backwards country in some regards, at least we managed to get rid of paper checks a long time ago.

</comment><comment><USER64> I just re-booked my flight to get home from Vegas (where Ben just was) a day earlier as well. My team was super confused about this - but y'all, sometimes you just need to go home and sometimes you just need to be alone.

</comment><comment><USER65> One of the most beautiful articles I've read lately.

Reminds me of how I took the decision of coming back to stay with my family from a far off place, leaving behind an excellent opportunity, just to spend more time with my lovely family

</comment><comment><USER66> What I see and makes me to reflect is that we allow ourselves to be rewarded (go home) when we are on the way to success. But what happens when we are in the worse part of a start-up? Harsh, very harsh.

</comment><comment><USER67> The best path is the middle.

I learned this in some book about Buddhism. We must have a balanced life. Life is a long trip. The end is the objective and, of course, very important, but we also need to enjoy the travel.

</comment><comment><USER68> How one extremely successful entrepreneur manages his time. - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8574978](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8574978)

</comment><comment><USER69> Great post. Wish more people would be honest that we aren't invincible. Use things, love people; not the other way around. Our society needs more influence on family. Good work.

</comment><comment><USER70> What is driving the stressfulness of startup life? Is it the fear of being overtaken by the competition? Or the excitement of unlimited possibilities, so you an always try more?

</comment><comment><USER71> Reminds me of Startups Anonymous, except he has the courage to put his name out there.

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

</comment><comment><USER72> Great article. I've been doing a startup this year and despite best intentions it really does take a toll on yourself and people around you.

</comment><comment><USER73> Good for you. If the CEO himself is burning out like this, can't help wondering how much worse their engineers are burning out.

</comment><comment><USER74> So I'll stop to pretend to "be at the office" now and actually go home to see my kids. No joke.

</comment><comment><USER75> Not loading for me, :(

<comment><USER76> [http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=BYigSwhw](http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=BYigSwhw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> am I supposed to cry?

</comment><comment><USER78> This article really made my stomach churn because it really hit home.

If I had a one tenth of the success these guys are having I'd tell myself to keep going.

However, working on the project alone, for the past couple of years has been devastating. I've really no more friends left as a result of blindly pursuiting my passion. I admit it hasn't even been worth it to this date. But something, this lizard brain keeps telling me to go go go don't stop.

I've been working on my project off with about 3 years of full time development and 2 years of working at a job to support myself.

I don't know. I'm super confused and agitated after reading this article. I had this gut feeling not to read the article but I did it anyways.

I will probably continue. Crazy.

<comment><USER26> You sound to be in a bad way.

Remember, people are more important than things.

When you see African countries torn up and people fleeing with nothing, do you stop and think "why aren't they carrying all their important belongings?" The belongings and "stuff" are worthless; they can always acquire things again. What is important to them is their family and friends.

You cannot easily acquire lost friends again. But you can acquire "stuff" again.

Things don't make you happy; people do.

Out of interest, what have you been working on?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Favorite Books of the Year? - <AUTHOR> I'd like to know what books HN loved this year. I'm about to hop on a 13 hour flight, and desperately need some good reads. <comment><USER2> I liked Taleb's Antifragile. It presents the idea that by increasing conveniences and doing other things which decrease the volatility of the natural world, we in the end make the system more fragile (analogous to increasing systemic risk). Where his book is interesting is that it discusses the ways in which things naturally are aided in this volatility that we often like to starve off (the markets are one example). He's a former options trader with a PhD in statistics, so if those things such as epistemology, compounding uncertainty, and the disordered nature of the markets and life sound interesting to you, you'll probably like his books.

</comment><comment><USER3> > I'm about to hop on a 13 hour flight

If you need answers fast, the HN search feature lists hundreds of answers for "ask hn favorite book', 'ask hn best book' on multiple topics, fiction and non-fiction.

I quite liked the 'Ask HN: What books changed the way you think about almost everything?' [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19087418](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19087418)

Personally I added the audio book 'Salt: A World History' for my next long flight.</comment>


Cryptic, allusive messages from Hong Kong's wealthiest tycoon - <AUTHOR> https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=44024 <comment><USER2> Conclusion: Chinese is absolutely the best language-family to make cryptic, gnomic, multi-layered allusions and sound like you've lived 100,000 years up a mountain eating nothing but fresh mountain air and magical peaches.

<comment><USER3> Obviously very unsophisticated compared to Chinese, but here is a similar vehicle by Kubernator Schwarzenegger to the CA State assembly: [https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_336319](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_336319)

<comment><USER4> That's pretty great

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you speak Chinese, you'll find it's very easy to squeeze sentences in exact same characters. Almost all poems in China (except very modern ones) do this.

It's so easy that people in forums do this a along - being sarcastic or just funny. You could have positive meaning literally, but hide dirty words in structures.

Also because it's so easy that this was defined as serious crime in many dynasties. There were even people committed it by coincidence were sentenced to death.

<comment><USER6> _> committed it by coincidence were sentenced to death_

So they _sentenced_ themselves to death with an unfortunate sentence structure.

<comment><USER7> I believe the correct joke is simply:

So they _sentenced_ themselves to death.

<comment><USER6> Probably, I have a tendency to overcomplicate things, particularly when explaining or otherwise talking to others, which can _really_ wreck jokes...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you like Chinese poetry / ancient writing, I'd like to mention wengu:

[http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=intro](http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=intro)

Text is laid out in the same fashion as OP. Wengu lets you mouseover characters for translation and along with an interpretation:

\- Book of Odes: [http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Shijing&no=1](http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Shijing&no=1)

\- Art of War: [http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Sunzi&s=1](http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Sunzi&s=1)

\- Book of Changes: [http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Yijing&no=0](http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Yijing&no=0)

\- Tao Te Ching: [http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Daodejing&no=0](http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Daodejing&no=0)

\- Analects of Confucius: [http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu&no=1](http://wengu.tartarie.com/wg/wengu.php?l=Lunyu&no=1)

</comment><comment><USER9> Li Ka-shing is well aware. His job ad for a Chinese PA was featured in the news for its salary (HK$1Mpa) and very high requirements (expert level in modern and classical Chinese and Chinese history, 20+ years experience).

[https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1567579](https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/1567579)

<comment><USER10> That's about $125k USD. Which is high probably for a PA in general but probably seem unsurprising for PAs for billionaires.

<comment><USER11> Hong Kong, not USA. It's a good salary for HK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Loads very slowly for me. archive.org mirror: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190822110138/https://languagel...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190822110138/https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=44024)

</comment><comment><USER13> The impasse Hong Kong finds itself must be solved by the Chief Executive. Her leadership in this matter is severely lacking and one wonders if the has any autonomous power at all, or if its all controlled by Beijing. Especially seeing how she evaded that question quite gracelessly a few days ago when asked by a reporter.

<comment><USER14> I don't think anybody seriously thinks Hong Kong has any meaningful level of autonomy. The impasse is that Hong Kongers want freedom and democracy, and China wants Hong Kong to be China. I can't see what the Chief Executive could possibly do. Either the protestors will give up, or stage a revolution, which seems unlikely for a population armed with umbrellas.

<comment><USER15> Really illustrates the importance of our own second amendment.

<comment><USER16> Not really. Civil disobedience is the only historically effective way to defeat a modern state.

With open warfare, the historical playbook for putting down this sort of thing is clear. Roll in the tanks, and infantry from Mongolia or whatever. Sometimes the revolt get put down immediately, sometimes you end up with guerrilla warfare.

<comment><USER17> > the only historically effective ... modern state

What a contorted argument. I assume that the British empire wasn't a modern state, and that history is less than one century long (and full of holes).

<comment><USER16> History is more than a century long, but a modern state by military standards has been a thing since around the time of the civil war when rifles replaced muskets and industrialization became a thing. That's the point where unlike in the Napoleonic era, you can't win decisive victory on the battlefield, things depend on political will, manpower and economic function.

Using your example of the British Empire, India didn't win independence through combat, civil disobedience made it politically untenable for the British to continue. That had far-ranging effects on what was left of the colonies.

One of the arguments core to an advocate of the 2nd amendment with respect to this issue is that a citizen militia, equipped with small arms, would be capable of deterring a government from taking some action. It's an increasingly absurd position.

<comment><USER18> I think you have an absurd understanding of history if you believe all of this decolonisation happened nonviolently. Almost every independence movement relied on the threat of violence. You are using the civil war itself as the starting point, a brutally violent regime change. Ireland gained its independence from Britain in no insignificant way thanks to violent means. Most African nations gained their independence through violence. And even India was not just freed through a barefoot bespectacled man walking around singing kumbaya. Simplifying it to mere acts of civil disobedience is grossly misrepresenting how complex the situation was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> That appears to be an incredibly classy thing to do, at no small risk to himself.

The billionaires have the most to lose with any social unrest, and he exposed himself to support the masses.

If so: Respect

Counter-possibility: it's a CYA maneuver, which supports both sides simlutaneously and either message can be declared as "intended" post-hoc.

<comment><USER20> Agreed he has put himself in more "danger" by this action, but billionaires like him certainly do not have the most to loose.

He will have investments, properties, friends or family outside HK. He can simply pay his way to citizenship in most countries around the world.

The average HK citizen has everything to lose, their rights and way of life. He will loose some money and property at the most, depending on how he decides to play it.

<comment><USER21> I think both you and the parent comment are correct.

A billionaire has the greatest potential for _relative_ change from the consequences of their actions. They have more chips they can put on the table and thus they can experience a change in fortune larger than others.

At the same time, the poor have the greatest potential for _suffering_. With fewer chips to put on the table, they are much closer to getting kicked out of the game entirely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can someone who knows HK weigh in on how likely this is to be subtle deliberate messaging, or whether it's like Qanon (where "Q" just says vague things, and the followers go _wild_ with all sorts of interpretations that confirm what they already think).

<comment><USER23> It's blindingly obvious that it's deliberate. Whether it's the graphic designer or LKS that actually formulated it, that is debatable. I wouldn't bet on the former though.

Keep in mind that Li fell out with Beijing and have cashed out most of his assets in the Mainland over the last several years.

There is no way that the following phrase, formed by the the end characters of each phrase in the ad, could be a coincidence.

因果由國 容港治己 義憤民誠

The only slightly questionable word choice is 由, but as the phrases are supposed to be read as stanzas in a poem, I think liberties can be taken in composition.

<comment><USER24> This is really a classy move.

It's like a compact puzzle or "steganographic joke" \- intelligent, elegant, satirical and even humorous in a way.

Constructing these interlocking phrases, one "public" and the other a "private" message for those "in the know"; getting the right number of characters and dots; even using his own name as part of the message.

I don't know anything about this billionaire, but I appreciate the effort that went into this form of protest, it's a work of art.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> To the Chinese native speakers here on HN: how clear would the message have been to you, if you didn't read the explanation on this website?

<comment><USER26> I have to admit it's not obvious to me at first. Especially for the second ad, you need to have good knowledge of Chinese literature to know the story behind the poem.

But once I read the explanation it became quite clear since there isn't really other ways to interpret it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The analysis is actually incomplete. Notice how the last line has a little gap? If we combine the last words of the last two lines we actually get:

因果由國,容港治己,義憤民誠

The last part reads anger is righteous.

</comment><comment><USER28> In 2011 he already made comments in support of universal suffrage in Hongkong.

Despite what is said in the media I don't think that this is 'brave' to state this opinion. The key is how to say it and how to behave with respect to China and the government.

<comment><USER29> > The key is how to say it and how to behave with respect to China and the > government.

Can you elaborate why it matters to be respectful to a dictator for life who puts huge numbers of Uighurs in concentration camps?

<comment><USER30> with respect to = regarding

<comment><USER29> It's ironic I interpreted the sentence wrong given the topic of the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > The poem is by the dauphin (crown prince), Li Xian (655-684) under Wu Zetian > (624-705), the only female emperor in Chinese history.

I've only ever heard the word "dauphin" in the context of a French crown prince (starting with Charles V, when Philip VI gave him the Dauphiné region to rule while he was still the heir). Is the term used more universally?

<comment><USER25> I've heard it in at least one other context: to mean "inheritor" or anointed successor. Here is a quote from Gore Vidal:

'I have been asked whether I wish to nominate a successor, an inheritor, a dauphin or delfino. I have decided to name Christopher Hitchens.'

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/9443914/How- Christ...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/9443914/How-Christopher- Hitchens-fell-out-with-Gore-Vidal.html)

I've seen other examples in this style. Maybe folks in comments can point out more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > "everyone knows what 4 / 6 /89 signifies"

This annoyed me quite a bit. No I don't. Most people probably don't.

It's the date of Tiananmen Square.

<comment><USER33> Would Tiananmen Square not be your first guess for any date remotely close to 1989 though, given the context?

<comment> yoz-y But a guess can be wrong. As somebody from Eastern Europe many other events come to my mind first in relation with 1989.

<comment><USER27> And why would that be in any way relevant to an article about a Chinese ad targeting other Chinese in China?

Contextually it's more than obvious for anyone even casually familiar with Chinese history which the audience would be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I dunno, my classical Chinese ain't all that, but I think these guys are straining with the hidden message. It is funny though.

I myself am reading quite a bit of meaning into the conspicuous avoidance of the characters "tian", "an", and "men" throughout both ads.

The melon ad is fairly defiant, though, in a classy kind of way. If I were a betting man, I'd take the other side. Preserving absolute rule of law in Hong Kong is as doomed as the Taiwan independence movement. The Chinese anschluss seems unstoppable.

<comment><USER27> If you read the link you'd see that did reference tiannamen by date via length of column lines.

The complete hidden message is actually a bit longer:

因果由國,容港治己,義憤民誠

No way that's an accident.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I hope this all turns out well..

</comment><comment><USER36> This sentence has only one interpretations.

</comment><comment><USER37> Chinese is the spoken Lisp.

</comment><comment><USER38> "From born to die, you will always buy Li Ka-Shing's goods" "If there's God in HongKong, his last name must be Li"

He and other oligarchs raise prices and exploit profits from people. HK Gov tried several times to press down house prices (build public rental apartments provided by gov, called 新界东北发展计划 ), all failed. What's the funniest part is, HK GOV plan to dismantle the golf courses for building public apartments, and was stopped by the name of environmental protection, House prices keep high, and riches keep their golf courses.

Who will get the most benefit from those riots? Oligarchs, no competitors can enter Hong Kong again. Li himself is the devil's advocate, those oligarchs make young men can only live in cells, but nobody never is able to fight him like they fight CCP now. In this a City with the 0.539 Gini coefficient, why people hate the government on the other side than rich oligarchs? capital owns media.

That, is the true power and true authority, make people fight for you while you consume them.

All those things happened in Hongkong make me feel desperate about this evil world.

I really hate this, no right, no wrong, no justice, no savior, everyone is just puppet of God.

<comment><USER39> >In this a City with the 0.539 Gini coefficient, why people hate the government on the other side than rich oligarchs? capital owns media.

This has perplexed me to no end. The straw that broke the camel's back was an extradition treaty being proposed, and not the crushing living conditions that have been worsening over the past two decades.

Sounds like you are a native. curious why you think this is the case outside of the oligarchs owning media. If that's the case i can't see why the CCP is complaining they lost control of the narrative via the press, if they never had it in the first place.

<comment><USER38> Yes, I'm from China mainland.

Just like some western opinion that why Chinese people don't fight their government for democracy and free speech, I really can not understand why HK people don't fight oligarchs for goods prices and living house.

Every few years, some protests happen in Hong Kong, None of those protests is aiming to the oligarchs, some people do hate Li, but the most far they can do is ridiculing and complaining.

>If that's the case i can't see why the CCP is complaining they lost control of the narrative via the press, if they never had it in the first place

the CCP attached great importance to propaganda from the beginning (the 1930s). At that time, they do have the advantage of propaganda (compare to the Kuomintang), and now the CCP has lost its ability and skills, the official media of CCP are barely welcome by Chinese, very many young men dislike them. Those years what the CCP propaganda department can do is only to delete and forbidden the contents they dislike, and this usually has the opposite effect - more and more people don't trust them

<comment><USER40> > Just like some western opinion that why Chinese people don't fight their > government for democracy and free speech, I really can not understand why HK > people don't fight oligarchs for goods prices and living house.

In some HKer's perspective, they detest how the current administration had been in bed with the oligarchs. In their view, gaining universal suffrage (not only 1 person one vote, but a free nomination) would help with that situation.

This problem is not new - it's an old problem that existed in the colonial state. The definition of a colony is to extract wealth for their masters, so colonial administrations and oligarchs work hand in hand.

Even if one could separate that fight between the administration and the oligarch, there are other structural issues for the administration. HK administration, colonial or SAR, is highly dependent on land leases as its source of income. In it's pursuit of being the "most capitalist city", the tax base is very narrow - income tax is very low, no sales tax, etc... So it is _not_ in HK administration's interest to lower housing prices because that would affect its own budget.

And if one were to temporarily cast aside their own views, and look at the incentive a little, there are other political problems - pro-democrats typically controls the legislature (spare this case of disqualifying a few), but they have no hope of becoming part of the executive council, where the Chief Exec heads, and Beijing has control of the nomination. So there's not a lot of incentive to work well together between the legislature and the executive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Somewhat relevant, this tattoo says "香港" (Hong Kong) or "加油" (Add Oil) when rotated:

[https://twitter.com/natashakhanhk/status/1164060311743156224](https://twitter.com/natashakhanhk/status/1164060311743156224)</comment>


Ask HN: Choice of secure private-data email host? - <AUTHOR> I've been meaning to switch off Gmail to something that doesn't copy my data as its subscription fee. Preferably something that's also secure against e.g. generalized external monitoring or govt. requests, presumably by supporting PGP.
I've found three different possibilities (FastMail, ProtonMail, and Runbox) without even particularly looking; I am having difficulty comparing much about them beyond their price-points. Presumably other such services exist that I haven't found.
What would the HN crowd recommend for this? <comment><USER2> I use runbox. Perfect support. A lot of free aliases (100). The only drawback is their UI. The default one is far from "pretty" or ergonomic. You can use a roundcube interface and gpg, but I must confesse the protonmail interface is way faster and eyecatching.</comment>


Principal Facebook Tech Recruiter Moves To Quora - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/04/principal-facebook-tech-recruiter-moves-to-quora/

<comment><USER2> Anyone else bothered by the fact that TechCrunch just did a post essentially on one tweet?

<http://twitter.com/AndyBarton23/status/54973797148803072>

 _edit: don't mean to openly bash TC. I'm just surprised by the lack of content here, a bit._

<comment><USER3> Not surprising though, this is TC we are talking about. It is the TMZ of the techworld.</comment></comment>


Bugsweeper Full Screen. JS game like Minesweeper but with bugs ;) - <AUTHOR> http://www.ronilan.com/bugsweeper/

<comment><USER2> Please add an option to mute the sound.

<comment><AUTHOR> Done. Hit refresh.</comment></comment>


10/GUI – Desktops Without a Mouse, Operating Systems without Windows - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2010/02/18/10gui-desktops-without-a-mouse-operating-systems-without-windows-video/

<comment><USER2> This system has come up before a few times (the one with the most discussion I see in a quick search is <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=877535>).

The problem with this system is that it seems to require 10 usable fingers, which excludes a non-trivial number of people. Or, as my best friend (who only has the equivalent of two fingers - but less flexible - and who has to mouse using his feet) puts it, "The future of interfaces seems designed to screw me over."

</comment><comment><USER3> I've tried the multitouch-is-a-keyboard thing with a fingerworks device, and while it's great for graphical/point-and-click things, the typing speed penalty you pay for not having physically distinct keys is huge. Definitely not worth it unless you just don't type very much.</comment>


Are Engineering Masters Degrees Worthwhile? - <AUTHOR> https://www.engineering.com/Education/EducationArticles/ArticleID/17486/Is-Your-Degree-Worth-It-Engineering-Education-and-Job-Satisfaction.aspx <comment><USER2> You are more likely to learn more, more relevant skills and more quickly on the job.

The engineering bachelors degree is basically an elaborate hazing ritual to teach you a few basics and allow you to demonstrate you can learn anything you need to.

Most graduate engineers are useless until they have worked in industry for some time and adsorbed the general way things are done in the real world.

</comment><comment> a-fried-egg no</comment>