Starting a Bank - <AUTHOR> http://ma.tt/2009/08/starting-a-bank/ <comment><USER2> "We take your money and put it in a vault"

That's not actually the job of a bank, is it? The job is to mediate lending and borrowing of money. By identifying the right people to lend money to, banks can offer the people whose money the take an interest rate.

I still agree that there is a market for a better bank.

I remember an example from the book "Why not?" where a bank (or something like that) offered to automatically adapt their customers to the best current interest rate and making a killing with it. No more "if you open an account now, you get 2%" and one month later "if you open an account now you get 4%" and two months later "if you open an account now, you get only 1%".

<comment><USER3> Well why not differentiate the product by allowing the bank customers choose where the money is getting invested, kiva-style. And yes, there is a ton of risk there but it's unique.

<comment><USER2> That seems counterproductive. I give my money to the bank precisely because I don't want to bother with estimating borrower credibility myself. Also, as an individual I can not hedge my risk well enough, because I don't have enough money to spread it out effectively.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The 3-6-3 model of banking has been thrown off to the wayside in pursuit of faster, quicker gains; but the original model still holds: savings at 3%, loans at 6%, golf course by 3pm.

<comment><USER4> I got an idea. Take loan from a bank to buy a bank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Goldman Sachs just paid out 16 billion dollars in bonuses to their employees. If we had an extra 16 billion dollars lying around, we'd put it in the bank for a rainy day. (If Goldman had never paid out bonuses they never would have needed government intervention.)_

A flawed comparison. Goldman is an investment bank that needs to pull in incredible returns percentage wise. Safebank is a watchman guarding a vault. Basically, Goldman needs to pay out bonuses to attract _top-shelf_ talent, while Safebank doesn't.

</comment><comment><USER6> The problem is that his proposals ignore the economics behind banking. If you take someone's money and put it in a vault, how can you provide interest on that money? You can't. You'd, in fact, have to levy fees to cover the costs of staffing, buildings, security, etc. Yes, even an internet bank has to have physical infrastructure somewhere.

Heck, why am I going to spend $3 for a SafeBank iPhone app when I can access my online banking from many banks for free?

He rails against ATM fees. How is he going to get rid of them for me?

I don't notice that any of the large banks require the use of Internet Explorer. BofA, Wells Fargo, Citi all work with non-IE browsers. I'm sure one can find a bank (out of the many thousands in this country) that has a site that doesn't work with Firefox, but it isn't an easy thing to find - which is why he hasn't specified any particular bank! He doesn't know of any!

While ad blocking might be cool, it has nothing to do with my bank. It would be like WalMart telling me that acupuncture was good - it has nothing to do with their business.

People might hate banks, but they hate people mining them for data potentially more. "We noticed that you spend a lot at pornoshop.com. Did you know cheapporn.com usually has better prices?"

\--

 _And he hasn't satisfied the most important question: how would this be better than a member-owned credit union?_ A corporation has to try for profits. A member-owned credit union gives those profits back to its members as dividends. Their rules are set up for the benefit of their owners - who are the people depositing money with them.

The problem is that people want a host of expensive things. They want tellers. They want ATMs everywhere - and that means cash physically everywhere or you refunding the ATM fees. They want free checks. They want online banking.

While one can argue that the banking industry got a little out of control, you can't just put money in a safe and expect to be able to offer people all that. You need to lend it out and that incurs risk and even more overhead - you have to deal with all the payments, the legal stuff when something bad happens, foreclosures (because, yes, some people won't end up paying you back). And if you want to be "safe" and only lend to the most credit-worthy people, your margins go down because they're the people who can get money anywhere at really good rates.

I mean, if you lend me money at 4.83% (the overnight _average_ for a 15 year fixed mortgage at bankrate.com) and give your depositors 2% interest on their money, you have a 2.83% margin to operate on. But then you want to refund people's ATM fees of, let's say, $10/mo. On $5,000 (more than the average depositor has), that means you have an effective 3% rate on deposits. If the depositor only has $1,000 deposited, you've given them an effective over 10% rate and you're now way into the red. And that doesn't even take into consideration the around 30% reserve you want to hold earning nothing. And you'd want to give them free checks and not charge overage fees and do all sorts of nice things.

And if you're a "nice" bank, you'll want to provide lower mortgage rates than the average, right?

\--

The fact is that there are already "nice" banks. They're called credit unions. They're owned and controlled by their members (customers). How will you do better than a credit union that's a not-for-profit institution?

By being more efficient? That's the only way. And he's vastly over-estimated the money that rolls in when you play it "safe" and "nice". Banks make a lot of money. They make that money through a combination of managed risk and fees. If you get rid of both of those, you don't make money, you lose it.

<comment><USER7> "The problem is that his proposals ignore the economics behind banking. If you take someone's money and put it in a vault, how can you provide interest on that money?"

Except that he said this:

SafeBank would maintain a reserve level 2-3x higher than Fed requirements and any other bank.

What he's saying is this. SafeBank would be less risky and could spend a LOT less money. Revenue would be lower, but he's saying that spending at financial institutions is nigh ridiculous and could more than compensate for it.

"And he hasn't satisfied the most important question: how would this be better than a member-owned credit union?"

How is that the more important question? What if it was just as good as a credit union?

How much better is Starbucks? I think 80% of what he's talking about is a marketing opportunity.

<comment><USER8> >SafeBank would maintain a reserve level 2-3x higher than Fed requirements and any other bank.

Which, for the record, isn't full-reserve (the legal limit is 900% leveraging... i.e., if I deposit $10, the bank can loan $90 off of that). He'd still be loaning out money he doesn't have, and he'd still be able to generate revenue from that.

In the case of full-reserve banking, you can still make money. You may not be able to offer FREE CHECKING and free x x x x blah blah blah, but with the interest accumulated from your loans, a decent amount of working capital, and fees from accounts it's definitely conceivable.

<comment><USER9> You're referring to a simplified description of the effect of a 10% reserve requirement on the money supply. If you deposit $10 into a transaction account, the bank may lend $9 of _that_ (not $90), and only if you assume each dollar lent is deposited into a transaction account with the same 10% reserve requirement do you get the net effect on the entire money supply (mostly through other banks) of +$100.

In practice this does not happen. And in any case, no one lends money they don't have, as you put it, unless you have strange ideas about what constitutes money.

<comment><USER10> Yes, that is correct, individual banks do not loan out money they do not have, but the collective system does.

And I gathered that he wants to be separate from that system and therefore not take part in fractional reserve banking.

If he were to explain in detail how he would have 2-3x more reserves than the banks and not take part in the fractional reserve banking system, he would clear up some of the confusion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like he wants to start a full-reserve bank: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Full- reserve_...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Full- reserve_banking)

Not impossible - after all, banks were not always fractional-reserve, and it admittedly _is_ a very secure form of banking.

<comment><USER12> Not full, just a higher fraction.

<comment><USER13> Since he wants to keep accounts below the FDIC limit, there's really no incentive for him not the hit the markets aggressively, trying to make a nice interest for his customers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> People don't care about the safety of their bank because of the FDIC, but they do care about interest rates. Rival banks will be able to offer higher returns because they will be earning higher, riskier investment returns.

Moreover, with a lower return on equity modeled in than every other bank in the industry, nobody is going to give you money to start with.

Lastly, there are severe limits to how innovative you can be with a bank, again because of the FDIC.

The only way I see this gaining any traction is as a niche bank for people with deposits over the FDIC insured limit who might want a little more safety. However, there are two problems with this. 1) He proposes to turn away deposits of this size at first and 2) people with that much money usually have better options.

</comment><comment><USER15> His idea is ridiculous. If I were to put money in a bank like this it would cost me, because I'm not getting the interest another bank would pay me and inflation would devalue my balance every day it sits there. That's not "safe" for the customer at all.

</comment><comment><USER16> This will probably not happen when there are too much regulatory barrier to start and too many rules to comply with.

The more improtant something is, the more likely it will be highly regulated, or monopolized.

<comment><USER17> That just means that there's less competition. And when you start getting successful, your competitors will need to spend a few years implementing their system before they can start actually competing with you. And I wouldn't worry about the big banks catching on to the "do what you can to help your customer" concept, it's not in their culture.

<comment><USER8> It also means that unless you're starting out with at least $xx million dollars, you have no hope. It can take _years_ to get a business started if you're unlucky enough to choose a field under heavy regulation (something with it's own Cabinent-level bureau, like the FCC, EPA, or Fed).

The paperwork takes a long, long time to process, the processes are laden with significant fees, you have to pay staff (usually lawyers, not cheap) independently to prepare all of the forms and offer guidance through the process, and you have to be able to afford to wait for everything to go through, and that assumes a completely clean process with no need to contest, appeal, or resubmit anything.

The megacorps already initiated to the oligopolies hope that this is enough to prevent any significant or innovative new competition, and it usually is.

Sadly, those with the most innovative ideas are usually not those with the most $xx millions of dollars.

<comment><USER18> If only there was some sort of fund that would provide capital for ventures for people with ideas and the experience to execute.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The problem with the "Bank Safe" slogan is that the FDIC exists.

<comment><USER20> This. No one lost money by depositing their money with goldman sachs (they were not a deposit accepting institution). People lost their money speculating on stock and real estate. Having their money in a slightly safer bank would not have helped.

<comment><USER21> It's marketing. That's all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Obviously "matt" has not worked in the finance industry and clearly does not understand how banking works. Sounds decent in theory but in reality the bank would have no investors and would lose any talent when they didnt pay them. They would probably be the cause of the financial crisis by only employing stupid people who gave poor, risky loans.

<comment><USER23> "Stupid" people couldn't have done any worse than the "smart" "talent" that got us into our current mess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There are a whole bunch of reasons why this would be nearly impossible, but it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.

<comment><USER25> I don't like this comment. At least give me a hint why it would be "nearly impossible". You won't be able to do it with three guys in a basement, but I can't see how it would be "more impossible" than any other large corporation. If there hasn't been some recent change in regulation, it is probably a lot easier now then 10 years ago.

<comment><USER24> It's harder than many other large corporations because banking laws vary from state to state, _and_ there are federal laws restricting banks operating universally across several states. Also, as a 'startup bank' you are initially reliant on your incumbent rivals for clearing and interbank transactions (unless you do literally leave cash in a vault at 0%). I agree technology has made it much easier recently though.

<comment><USER25> Fair enough. That PayPal isn't a bank in the US supports your point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _SafeBank couldn't raise VC or anything like that..._

It also couldn't be a public corporation because share holders could make a very good case that management is failing its fiduciary duty by being hyper conservative.

And that's what I find most interesting about that article. It opens the discussion about public vs privately owned enterprise.

Privately owned business can forgo addition revenue by as much as the ownership feels like. The reasons for that don't have to be altruistic, it could be about longevity, not 20 or 50 years longevity but hundreds of years of longevity.

But we only live once, and our lives are short, so most of us like to maximize profits. Thus most often the risk vs. reward calculation doesn't look at time spans much longer then one human life time.

<comment><USER27> Interestingly public companies should be able to deal with long-term horizons much better than private companies. In theory a share's worth is equal to all future dividends discounted to the present day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This reminds me of the wonderful theoretical country discussions we had in my economics classes at college.

Forget a new kind of bank. Go total bluesky. What IF, we could design our own set of sovereign laws and principles.

What would the "modern" country look like?

<comment><USER29> It would separate two forms of money: the common form of money used as means of exchange and a store of value; and, the debt/credit money created out of thin air through a contract and collateral. The two currencies would float against one another. People would be paid in common currency, but could borrow in the debt currency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The problem with his reasoning is that the big banks are evidently quite safe. No matter how bad their investments are, the government will bail them out with taxpayer's money to prevent them from collapsing. I doubt the same would apply to a bank ran out of somebody's basement.

</comment><comment><USER31> The part that's interesting to me is his idea that it will be essentially a "vault" and super safe. The problem is he'd be targeting people under the FDIC limit, so that safety wouldn't be desirable.

But what if he targeted people OVER 100k. (For that matter, let's say he didn't offer loans at all so he really was a "vault") Sure you couldn't offer interest, and maybe you'd even have to charge a very tiny fee, but are there places that do that? What do people do if they have a lot of money -- put in Treasurys? If I had millions of dollars, I'd pay someone to just deposit it with the Fed. I think the Fed even pays interest now.

</comment><comment><USER32> This just would not work. The reality of banking is that people want a relationship with their bank that they don't have to maintain - meaning they would only go to their bank or bank website when they absolutely have to. Not to go check out the latest blog post.

Invite only? With the much larger startup cost of a bank this is ridiculous.

What is really amazing is that this guy is actually ... "one of PC World's Top 50 People on the Web, Inc.com's 30 under 30, and Business Week's 25 Most Influential People on the Web"

</comment><comment><USER33> "'Bank of America spent $40,000,000 dollars on airplanes last year. We spent $40,000 to develop an iPhone application so you can check your balance from anywhere.' (Hmm, the iPhone app should cost like $2.99.)"

I think he's misunderstanding something...the iPhone app may cost $2.99, but it doesn't cost $2.99 to develop.

<comment><USER34> He's saying he wants to charge the bank app at $2.99 as a way of generating revenue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Pretty much all of the points I was going to raise have been covered - I just wanted to add my facepalm at the people in the comments who clearly don't understand a hypothetical scenario.

</comment><comment><USER36> The whole point of Safebank seems to be to have it be safe. How safe a is a week-old bank started by some guy with a blog who doesn't know the difference between retail and investment banking?

People don't love their banks? I do. Bank of America gives me ATMs everywhere and pretty awesome online banking, and the credit union gives me unbelievable customer service and great interest rates.

On a sidenote, do compare the HN comments with those on the site.</comment>


Hyundai Says Its Cars Will Average 50 M.P.G. by 2025 - <AUTHOR> http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/04/hyundai-says-its-cars-will-average-50-m-p-g-by-2025/?hpw

<comment><USER2> Not if the singularity comes first ... I guess we won't have cars in that case?

Isn't 2025 a conservative estimate for the singularity?</comment>


Reddit Introduces New Ad-Type: Promoted User Posts - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/4upf11/new_ad_type_promoted_user_posts/ <comment><AUTHOR> I hate to be negative but I am slowly beginning to believe they're completely loosing their minds at Reddit. Not long ago they had this epiphany re turning links into affiliate links. Now they allow companies to purchase user posts in what appears to be a rather clumsy process which eventually may or may not lead to an ad with a highly questionable ROI.

Otoh, (and here I am not being sarcastic) if you try these kind of mad ideas for long enough you may really find the ultimate monetizing strategy one day. Who knows...</comment>


Show HN: Videodropper, Send Youtube videos instantly to your Dropbox folder - <AUTHOR> http://videodropper.ep.io/

<comment><USER2> Cool Idea. Unable to get the app to work though - Error message( This session has expired. Please return to the app to try again .) Just curious though, does it by any chance violate the content laws(like dmca?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Fixed. It should work now.

<comment><USER2> :D Server not responding. Sounds like a rough day :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry. But should work fine now.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What if WannaCry would have tried issuing fake Bitcoins? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Not a whole lot. The fastest CPUs will net you less than 100 MH/s [0]. The fastest single-card GPU configurations will net you around 1,000 MH/s [0]. The current total hash rate is around 5,000,000,000,000 MH/s [1]. WannaCry affected around 300,000 PCs [2]. So if every WannaCry miner was operating off CPU and getting 100 MH/s, it would only be 30,000,000 MH/s. Or 0.0006% of the current total hash rate. If they all had high-end GPUs getting them 1,000 MH/s then that would bring it up to 300,000,000 MH/s. Or 0.006% of the current total hash rate. So WannaCry wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket. If you're wondering how the hash rate is so high, it's because mining has switched to using ASICs, the fastest of which run around 14,000,000 MH/s [3].

[0] [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non- specialized_hardware_comparis...](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Non- specialized_hardware_comparison)

[1] [https://blockchain.info/charts/hash- rate](https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate)

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

[3] [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison)

</comment><comment><USER3> If I understand the OP correctly, he means could the blockchain be attacked by a vast number of infected hosts, causing a malware-induced change in the consensus of nodes, allowing BTC to be illicitly acquired, spent, or produced.

I believe controlling a massive number of nodes in the network via infection techniques like WannaCry used would open the door for many actual and hypothetical attacks. Please see the Bitcoin Wiki page titled Weaknesses [1] for more details about attacks involving the control of network resources.

More realistically, a simpler attack would be to go for control of the wallets if you have that kind of access to the infected hosts. However, if an actor had an interest in devaluing Bitcoin, to buy after a crash and sell after recovery perhaps, or just destabilize users' trust and destroy it (states?) then there could be a lot of profit in it I believe. Bitcoin has many competitors and enemies, is this something we should worry about?

[1] [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is exactly what I meant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can you clarify?

</comment><comment><USER5> There's no such thing as fake Bitcoins.</comment>


Short, Frantic, Rags-To-Riches Life of Jack London (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/short-heroic-rags-riches-life-jack-london-180961200/ <comment><USER2> What can I say, Jack London was my hero and "mentor" for years. Reading "Martin Eden" put me on a right track. After reading "Martin Eden" I wanted to become a writer and self-learned man, so I read books, wrote essays and short- stories. Thanks to that I managed to graduate high school with good enough grades and continue my studies in the University. I idolized him, although he was a man of contradictions. Jack London got me through my teens, anarchist thinkers got me through my twenties. Still looking for ideas that will guide me through my thirties. But anyway, thank you, Jack London.</comment>


How Google became Microsoft: A decade of hits, misses and gaffes - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/16/noughties_review/print.html

<comment><USER2> You mean they turned into a big profitable company with huge market share?

Yeah, I can see how that sucks for them. How many CEO's would cut off their left hand to have a company like Google?

They are in the process of changing (for better or worse) the mobile/cell phone market. So big, profitable and powerful.

Possibly getting evil? I don't know.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> An irreverent review of the naughts decade for IT - and some of their graphics are hilarious art/culture hacks.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes, they are the new Microsoft. But one that doesn't charge you for their services. That's why we love them. And they're savvy.

<comment><USER4> > But one that doesn't charge you for their services.

Not only that, but it doesn't lock people in their proprietary office and protocols.

* Tired of Gmail? export it to imap

* Tired of Google Calendar? export it to ical

* Tired of Google Docs? export it to open office, ms office, html or even plain text

And it goes on.

People use google because they make great software and stay with them for the same reason. People stay with MS because they are locked in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does it seem like there has been a huge uptick of anti-Google articles floating since Nexus One was introduced to anyone else?</comment>


Chinese academic suspended for copying programming language - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/585b70fa-3c40-11ea-a01a-bae547046735 <comment><AUTHOR> [https://on.ft.com/2NXFFvg](https://on.ft.com/2NXFFvg)

</comment><comment><USER2> Hard to imagine copying from Python and thinking that nobody would notice...</comment>


Ask HN: Review our elevator pitch (Stormpulse) - <AUTHOR> This is based on the Marc Andreessen pitch dissected here: http://venturehacks.com/articles/elevator-pitch
----
Briefly, Stormpulse is intuitive weather display.  We tame complex weather data and visualize it in context.  Other weather sites begin with maps and add weather data.  We craft weather-centered presentations that foster understanding.  And we're piloting the world's first human-consensus forecasting system.  Check us out at: http://stormpulse.com.
We're building Stormpulse to reduce the costs of severe weather, which effects millions worldwide.
Our weather maps have regularly appeared on CNN and are displayed on 750+ websites, from media sites such as USA Today and ThomsonReuters to intranets at places like Boeing and the Mayo Clinic.  Since August 2008, our site has been visited over 18 million times, with over 60% of those visits coming direct.  Hundreds of thousands of those visits are from decision-makers at Fortune 100 companies in the energy, defense, and transportation industries.
Before Stormpulse, Brad and I wrote software that automated the presentation of rich catalog content for a distributor of over 400,000 products.
We're making money and are ready to fuel the growth of Stormpulse with funding from smart, qualified, passionate investors.  We're starting to contact interested parties, and would love to show your group what we're building. <comment><USER2> Stormpulse.com is intuitive weather display. We tame complex weather data and visualize it in context. Other weather sites begin with maps and add weather data. We craft weather-centered presentations that foster understanding. And we're piloting the world's first human-consensus forecasting system.

We're building Stormpulse to reduce the costs of severe weather, which affects millions worldwide.

Our weather maps have regularly appeared on CNN and are displayed on 750+ websites, from media sites such as USA Today and ThomsonReuters to intranets at places like Boeing and the Mayo Clinic. We've averaged over a million visits _each month_ for the past one year. Hundreds of thousands of our visitors are decision-makers at Fortune 100 companies in the energy, defense, and transportation industries.

Before Stormpulse, we wrote software that automated the presentation of rich catalog content for a distributor of over 400,000 products.

We're making money and are ready to fuel the growth of Stormpulse with funding from smart, qualified and passionate investors. We're starting to contact interested parties, and would love to show you what we're building.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem with the _each month_ aspect is that we have obviously had months that were extremely busy and others that were quite tame. Is that intellectually dishonest then, or not?

<comment><USER3> If you say it's an average, than either every month you had the exact same amount of visits, or (more likely) you didn't have the same amount of visits each month, and hopefully you had some growth. I don't see any lying in there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Here's my rewrite._

Severe weather affects millions worldwide and costs companies billions of dollars. Accurate and actionable weather analysis is a key business requirement in energy, defense, transportation, and numerous other industries.

Stormpulse (<http://stormpulse.com>) displays complex weather data intuitively, so that our customers can make critical business decisions based on it. Our competitors start with maps and then sprinkle in weather. We craft weather-centered presentations that are understandable and actionable. We're piloting the world's first human-consensus forecasting system. Check us out at: <http://stormpulse.com> or see the 5 minute tour we prepared for you at <http://stormpulse.com/hypothetical-landing-page>.

Our weather presentations regularly appear on CNN and are displayed on 750+ websites, including media sites such as USA Today and ThomasReuters, and internal dashboards at places like Boeing and the Mayo Clinic. We've had 18 million visitors in the last year. Hundreds of thousands of those visits are from decision-makers at Fortune 100 companies who depend on Stormpulse to protect their operations, equipment, and staff.

Stormpulse has paying customers. We are ready to fuel our continued growth with funding from smart, qualified, passionate investors. We're starting to contact interested parties, and would love to show your group what we're building. You can review a presentation I personalized for $FOO_INVESTMENT_GROUP at <http://stormpulse.com/hypothetical-landing-page> or contact me to discuss ways we can help each other.

Regards,

 _Points of note_

1) Landing pages for your investors are a low-cost, high-reward way to say "I am serious about talking to YOU, Bob, not spamming everyone I could find" and they transition people from passive reader of your email into being actively engaged with you. Plus, _cough_ , trackable _cough_ split testable _cough_. (Incidentally, if you had a landing page, you wouldn't be showing me AdSense ads featuring a very bright background and a cute little Asian kid with glasses, and another ad telling me how easy it is to get a green card. I suppose it could be worse -- you could be showing me Evony ads. Either way, cute little Asian kids with glasses sort of distract from the general theme of _saving people from horrible death_ that I was going for.)

2) Repeat after me: Stormpulse saves lives and property. Stormpulse saves lives and property. Stormpulse saves lives and property. After you've mentioned that a few times, you can talk about weather visualization. This is not being crass, any more than it is crass for an airbag manufacturer to say "Our product directly saved the lives of 12,000 people last year". It is your _reason for being_. Do not be afraid to sell it.

3) I'm sure you and Brad are wonderful people and you likely did wonderful things at your previous jobs, but look, you've got the Fortune 100 eating out of the palm of your hand to protect their lives and property. That is the critically important qualification. Next to that, "We built a cool CMS once" sounds like "And by the way, my mother really loved the drawings I made when I was six".

P.S. If I wanted to show that I was not faceless corporate, I would start the letter with an arresting sentence like so:

Severe weather kills people and breaks things.

A sentence like that grabs the reader by the neck. Some people might say its a bit aggressive. By my lights, heck yes, it is aggressive. We make no bones about it, we are picking a fight, and we want _you_ to be on the side of humanity against the death and destruction caused by severe weather.

<comment><USER5> A really helpful, valid and well thought out response. This sort of advice takes a pitch that might just work in the Burj Dubai elevator (818 m/2,684 ft - worlds tallest skyscraper) and that almost gets the point across if you're pitching to an investor who's looking for people with a background in cool CMS....into a deal maker.

@patio11 - I'm tempted to send you our elevator for analysis. Anyone interested in 'HN Elevator: Rate my pitch' ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Check out Dave McClure's advice on the pitch if you haven't already:

[http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2009/08/your-solution- is...](http://500hats.typepad.com/500blogs/2009/08/your-solution-is-not-my- problem.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Dave hammers the 'tell me the problem' side. Does this pitch do that?

EDIT: patio's rewrite seems to nail the problem side pretty hard.

<comment><USER4> Two alternatives in 15 seconds.

Problem-oriented: Severe weather kills people and breaks things. Our customers entrust their lives and property to Stormpulse. Its us and humanity versus death and destruction. Join our side.

Solution-oriented: We made a really cool AJAX/Flash mashup which combines a bunch of publicly available weather data sources. We'd like more money to develop a bunch of awesome features we have in the pipeline. How about it?

They're equally true. They're by no means equally effective.

<comment><USER7> Thanks again from Matt and I for the feedback. You've made your point loudly and clearly, and we will most definitely tweak accordingly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've read all the comments, checked out the website, and I still don't have the slightest clue what "human-consensus forecasting system" means.

<comment><AUTHOR> We began the program in 2007, halted it in 2008 (lots of traffic meant read- only), but will begin it again in 2010: [http://stormpulse.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/human- consensus-h...](http://stormpulse.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/human-consensus- hurricane-forecasting/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with jakecarpenter, leave out the URL plug - interested parties can Google. I'd also drop the "Briefly," from the front end, it weakens the whole phrase. The actual length of the pitch speaks for its own brevity.

<comment><USER4> _interested parties can Google._

Interested parties have better things to do with their time than fix the bugs you introduced into your own elevator pitch. Lack of a prominent call to action is a bug, not a feature.

Give them a link front and center. (I would personally link to a specially prepared landing page, not the front page. If they've demonstrated enough interest to click then they just might be interested in stepping through a brief guided tour.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> IMO, you ought to add regular weather to your site, too - people are more likely to see your data if they're visiting your site for information regularly already.

<comment><USER4> I think it is important that every business have a good impression of what they do, and what they _do not_ do.

Weather.com is for knowing whether you should carry an umbrella when you go to the office tomorrow. Stormpulse is for knowing whether you will still have an office to go to. When serious professionals need to make critical decisions to protect lives and property, they trust us to give them the data they need in a form they can use.

Stormpulse: We Don't Even Have An Icon For "Partly Cloudy"

<comment><USER11> > I think it is important that every business have a good impression of what > they do, and what they do not do.

If this is the case, they should ditch the banner ads. On my laptop, with a vertically maximized browser window I can see _three_ ads (EyeQ, LifeLock, and a google text ad that promises to let me know a shocking secret about coffee), but I can't see the legend.

That seems like the model for a site that is trying to make money by having a large volume of visitors clicking ads, not the model for a site that wants serious, important people who have some reason to care about weather.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are freemium--so if you care that much, you can pay.

We also get a large volume of traffic, so it doesn't make much sense not to monetize it.

By the way, the eyeQ ad is a direct sale to someone that cares a lot about severe weather. I agree it would be great if all three were severe-weather- related, but we're not there yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I like it, but saying "Check us out at www..." at the end of the first paragraph seems like a tacky segue. Maybe move it to the end of the 3rd paragraph?

<comment><USER13> Actually I've heard that it was good email etiquette to include a link in the first paragraph where applicable. It allows the reader evaluate the product/service on their own, then come back for the sales pitch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like it. Although I think you were going for "affects."

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sp., "effects" -> "affects"</comment>


Show HN: JSON summarizer for any Wikipedia URL - <AUTHOR> http://eurekaai.com/recommend/getWikipediaSummaryAPI.html <comment><USER2> What are you using to get the summaries? Just spot checked a couple and they didn't seems like a hit or a miss:

The results for Houston were pretty good: [http://eurekaai.com/recommend/app/getWikipediaSummary?query=...](http://eurekaai.com/recommend/app/getWikipediaSummary?query=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHouston&getWikipediaSummary=getWikipediaSummary)

While the results for Microsoft were pretty bad: [http://eurekaai.com/recommend/app/getWikipediaSummary?query=...](http://eurekaai.com/recommend/app/getWikipediaSummary?query=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FMicrosoft%0D%0A%0D%0A&getWikipediaSummary=getWikipediaSummary)

</comment><comment><USER3> Since most of the lines have references to footnotes it would be cool to supply those as well. Or remove them.</comment>


Apple investigating iPhone 5 user death by electrocution. - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/07/15/apple-to-probe-chinese-claim-iphone-death/

<comment><AUTHOR> I predict this will be found to be the result of a malfunctioning cheap knockoff USB Power Adapter.

Proper safety design is difficult and costly.

Apple's USB Power Adapter _seems_ simple and boring, but inside it is actually amazingly well designed. Making small products where you have large minimum air gaps for safety is no easy task. And guess what, it costs $19 instead of $2.

When someone tries to copy that "smallness" cheaply, the product can become dangerous. I've seen inside some of these knockoff chargers and they are scary.

One small part shift, and out goes 120V or 240V right into the ground of the USB shield, which then goes out to the phone, which guess what is grounded _metal_ all the way around the edges.

So let this be a warning to everyone: If your wall charger doesn't have UL/CE markings on it - throw it away.</comment>


Rethinking the American High School - <AUTHOR> https://harvardmagazine.com/2019/05/high-school-rigor-reform <comment><USER2> That was actually refreshing. Acknowledging that lectures, etc, produce "bored compliance" in students. I'm also very glad that something, anything, worked better.

Unfortunately, there's this little issue with education in the US: "local control". There might be national policies, but there's no good way to enforce them. Local school boards decide curriculum. This is why nothing can change fast, and maybe not much can change, period.

I'll also note the effect that divisive issues (evolution, accurate history) cause huge problems. There's basically no recourse for students if a local school system decides to abdicate teaching accurate history of civil war, WW1, or Reconstruction, for example, never mind evolution, a well established scientific theory. Sometimes there'll be a fooforaw about something ridiculous, like using modern books to teach literature, or not memorizing arithmetic facts.

</comment><comment><USER3> I went to one of the best public high schools in the country. It's consistently rated as one of the best in various nationwide rankings of non- magnet public high schools.

At my top public school, there was not a single great Math or Science teacher. Meanwhile, there were some amazing English, History, and Latin teachers.

So, naturally, a lot of top students gravitated away from Math and Science.</comment>


The Autonomous Selfie Drone Is Here. Is Society Ready for It? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/13/technology/skydio-autonomous-drones.html <comment><USER2> Considering that the selfie drone can only stay in the air for 15 minutes, I think society is safe. For now.

</comment><comment><USER3> Another step closer to slaughterbots

[https://youtu.be/HipTO_7mUOw](https://youtu.be/HipTO_7mUOw)

<comment><USER4> To me, the main differences between those "slaughterbots" and the type of terrorist attack we'd see today don't actually matter to people who would do such a thing.

Sure you don't have to be as close to the target, but any terror group that could obtain top of the line military hardware and smuggle it close enough could probably smuggle modern hardware that'd do the same. The video makes it seem like the equivalent of a terrorist group armed with top end missles today.

And usually groups that carry out terror attacks don't care about being found out, the whole idea of "we don't know who did it" wouldn't really matter to them.

It's scary to think about these things until you realize, if people want to cause terror, they can. Today anyone who could setup an attack with explosives could tape them to a drone and strike a person. To me the real question is how can we stabilize international relations and reduce the number of people who are thinking about doing things like this.

If you want something to be scared about, be scared about what the result of global warming will cause when climate change leads to turmoil and further global strife. That's an outcome that will be deadly with or without "slaughterbots", that we can actually start trying to solve, instead of preemptively hindering our own technological advancements

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I highly recommend the Black Mirror episode Metalhead (S04E05), then combine that idea with this if you never want to sleep again.</comment>


Ruby on Rails - Beware the self proclaimed profit (cached, MS removed the post) - <AUTHOR> http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=ruby-on-rails-ror-beware-the-self-proclaimed-profit&d=67117253395032&mkt=en-CA&setlang=en-CA&w=f2d71413,50c51b46

<comment><USER2> I love it.

Set up a straw man. hack him to bits.

Victory!!!!

</comment><comment><USER3> From the same muse who brought you "Flash is an Open Platform"

</comment><comment><USER4> Straw man and ignores the reason why people use Rails: because it makes them more productive, not because there is no "lock-in" or because Rails does not come from a for profit organisation (it did). Writer has likely never tried Rails.

</comment><comment><USER5> Is the website up? Are people giving you money? Enough that you're doing alright? If yes to all questions, it doesn't matter whether it's Rails or classic ASP written with Notepad. Posts like this accomplish nothing.</comment>


Re: Apple's iTouch tablet will become its flagship product. - <AUTHOR> http://www.gibsonandlily.com/blogs/72

<comment><USER2> "They had a sort-of false-start called the MacBook Air, something that I think everybody would agree is an example of just how much of a failure apple can produce."

The MBA is a lovely product. Easily the best of its breed (ultra thin full size) It just happens to be a niche market. It may very well be the same situation with a tablet. Small, but profitable, market. Keeps people in the Apple camp who might otherwise jump ship. This is as close as Apple gets to a loss leader type of product.

</comment><comment><USER3> new mashable idea: articles like this meet <http://www.don-lindsay- archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html>.

your goal: pick all the fallacious arguments that can be used to categorize a particular blog entry.</comment>


My Startup Now Has a Home, Check it Out - <AUTHOR> http://blog.canworksmart.com/2011/08/a-tour-of-can-head-quarters/

<comment> A-K Very nice! Wood floors, high ceilings, and lots of open space. Good deal.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! The floors are bamboo which might be even better than wood, because it grows faster than trees which makes it more sustainable. If you are in Omaha should stop by, and check it out. Also, I hope you continue to subscribe to our blog, we love sharing new ideas and having smart conversations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Looks like a great space, and Omaha is a fantastic city!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!!! After 3 years it is a great place to call our own. And Omaha is a great city. We are so happy to be apart of all the exciting startup activity in Omaha.

Where in the world are you located? If you are around Omaha, will you be at the Silicon Prairie News Birthday Party today.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!!! After 3 years it is a great place to call our own. And Omaha is a great city. We are so happy to be apart of all the exciting startup activity in Omaha.</comment>