Depression, anxiety rising among U.S. college students - <AUTHOR> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-mental-undergrads/depression-anxiety-rising-among-u-s-college-students-idUKKCN1VJ25Z <comment><USER5> I think a huge part of it is that getting a "good" job out of college has never been more competitive and more important. The idea that one works their way up from a secretarial position to executive could not be more unrealistic today. On the other hand, if you beat the competition (your peers) to get a reputable corporate gig at a big co, well known startup, or prestigious consulting or banking you're setting yourself up for life. Not getting one of those jobs out of college makes it near impossible to be hired at those companies even a year or two down the road simply because many of those companies source all their entry level people from colleges and past interns.

Your trajectory is just so different depending on your first job and I think everyone is acutely aware but no one wants to talk about it.

<comment><USER6> I don't know if you read the article but I think the authors clearly state what they think is the issue and it isn't finding your first job.

From the article:

>"It suggests that something is seriously wrong in the lives of young people and that whatever went wrong seemed to happen around 2012, or 2013," said study coauthor Jean Twenge. She noted that this was around the time smartphones became common and social media moved from being optional to mandatory among youngsters.

>The study wasn't designed to determine the causes of the increases in mental health issues among college students, though the authors speculate about a variety of possibilities. Smartphone use, for example, has been associated with poorer sleep quality and fewer face-to-face interactions, both of which are deemed essential for mental health, the researchers write in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

<comment><USER7> Just based on only my own experiences and perception, the entire news apparatus of the United States seems to have underwent a rapid shift starting approximately in 2013. Outside of only a small handful of venerable institutions like The New York Times, news and social media seem to be merging in a way that is completely changing the character of how important information is delivered to millions of people. It was a shift towards a level of partisanship, hostility, and fear-mongering that, to me at least, has felt utterly unprecedented. Anecdotally, this has caused me a great deal of personal stress, and I've had to become extremely diligent with how I consume news media in order to maintain a healthy state of mind.

I can't help but wonder if the effect of this would've been magnified if were younger, less prepared to deal with it, and just now entering college instead of being half a decade out of college.

<comment><USER8> This is the right answer. Smartphones aren't inherently bad, but they enable things that are toxic without us understanding - chief among them the news.

Back in college I thought it was the grown up thing to do to read the news everyday. Fast forward ten years and I've finally realized how much frustration and misery the news (Twitter) was bringing into my life.

As of a week and a half ago, I'm now completely off of the news. I deleted the news app, blocked Twitter and FB from Safari, and avoid other news sites. The outcome has been remarkable! My wife continues to remark how much less irritable I've become and how much less stressed I seem. I use HN to stay current on industry news, but I can honestly say I don't miss that other stuff.

To anyone reading this that is hooked on news consumption - try cutting it from your life! It is a life-changing experience.

<comment><USER9> It's such a sheltered attitude I see on HN where people talk about just ignoring the news, when you know that you don't have to worry about anything bad happening to you. It's a civic responsibility in a democracy to be informed. Even if you can't influence much with one particular vote depending on where you live, your voice can do a lot (see the NRA).

There's people dying in Yemen from a war that the US is supporting. There are serious debates occurring about the future of the economy which will have massive repercussions. Climate change poses a threat to the stability of civilization. We're coming to a crossroads with government surveillance issues.

It is deeply annoying when I see that people just tune out. You don't need to obsess over the latest 24 hour news cycle, but it's important not to be a personal isolationist for the good of society.

<comment><USER10> Fundamentally, I agree with you _except_ :

\- That assumes the situation is presented without an agenda or - at minimum - a disclosed agenda.

\- That the coverage is an accurate - and preferably complete - summary of the situation.

\- And that it's clear which details are facts vs assumptions vs conjecture vs conclusions vs whatever.

Unfortunately, we have few of those things at best. There are many ways to be informed, the current media is not a good, useful, or productive way to do that on just about any topic.

<comment><USER11> Also, additional assumption: that most of the news is in any way actionable or even relevant to your life. In vast majority of cases, it isn't.

People don't read the news to be informed (otherwise they wouldn't tolerate the ridiculously low journalistic standards of today). They consume news because it gives them stuff to talk about with other people. Whether or not the stories are true is irrelevant, as long as everyone hears the same stories. The psychological cost of these stories is, however, unaccounted for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think it's parenting. Parents started to become overprotective somewhere in the late 90's and it's only getting worse. Kids don't learn to deal with setbacks anymore. So the real world overwhelms them.

There's a book, The Coddling of the American Mind, that explains the problem much better than I do.

"First Amendment expert Greg Lukianoff and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt show how the new problems on campus have their origins in three terrible ideas that have become increasingly woven into American childhood and education: What doesn't kill you makes you weaker; always trust your feelings; and life is a battle between good people and evil people. These three Great Untruths contradict basic psychological principles about well-being and ancient wisdom from many cultures. Embracing these untruths—and the resulting culture of safetyism—interferes with young people's social, emotional, and intellectual development. It makes it harder for them to become autonomous adults who are able to navigate the bumpy road of life."

[https://www.thecoddling.com](https://www.thecoddling.com)

<comment><USER13> > Kids don't learn to deal with setbacks anymore. So the real world overwhelms > them.

It doesn't sound like you interact with many "kids" these days. As someone surrounded mostly by them, I can assure you none of this is true. Sad to see this upvoted so highly and especially sad to see people pointing out this is a long brought up conservative talking point with no evidence downvoted. I thought we got over this myth 10 years ago. Yet people still want to yell at Mr. Rodgers for caring about child psychology and being on the forefront of mental health in a real way...

Perhaps one should look to the external world these people are coming into for answers. Climate change, the economy, and the political climate with hateful policies against many people over the world in many countries.

Not to mention that mental health being destigmatized raises statistical reporting rates as people are simply more open about it.

But yeah, let's blame bad parenting that people first accused millennials of when no millennials are even left in the post high school college population.

<comment><USER14> > _Climate change, the economy, and the political climate with hateful > policies against many people over the world in many countries..._

Because none of that stuff existed in the '50s, '60s, and '70s? /s

Just substitute "nuclear war for "climate change".

<comment><USER15> I agree with those saying climate change is a huge stressor for young generations. I had the same argument with a friend about fear of nuclear war into the 80's, but she convinced me it wasn't the same. They are both existential fears, but nuclear war was something that only the military could make happen, and as long as it didn't happen, life could go on as usual (well not really, we know now). Whereas climate change is happening slowly but surely all around and everyone will have to change their behavior to avoid it.

My wife and I cannot talk about climate change around our kids because they understand how scary it is and we see their fear about the consequences.

<comment><USER16> I think this, in some way, can be interpreted in a way favorable to the original parent's comment. Kids being stressed by climate change to the point that their feelings overwhelm all of their coping mechanisms is not an effective strategy for actually fixing the root cause.

Ideally, kids would develop, by trial and error, effective strategies for identifying solvable problems and dealing with them, and not being extremely negatively affected by (directly) unsolvable problems. It would be beneficial for society if people heard about climate change and thought, "Okay, that won't be good, so what are some things I can do in the short term and in the long term to make a positive impact?" The great thing about such an approach is that it's omni-applicable, such as when one's car breaks down on a long drive, etc.

Parents who constantly hover around their kids presumably interfere with this vital process, perhaps because these important lessons can only be discovered, not forcibly taught.

<comment><USER17> To me this is akin to saying that kids under slavery need to learn coping strategies. Yes, it could help, but there is no reason to think it would counteract the inherent effect of their environment - and it lays the blame in entirely the wrong place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm a big believer in social media being toxic for many people. I see the core problems as it pushes life views to the extremes.

Its full of posts of 'see how great my life is' or 'see how bad the world is'. This combined with a media intergrated into our lives almost real-time whose organisations are all looking to maximise our attention.

We used to go through the world in a much simpler bubble and get our half hours news window on TV or newspaper in the morning. And being connected to the wider journeys of people for more realistic expectations e.g. rather than seeing someone post a picture of a great car saying 'how good is this' you also got to see they had been working and saving hard for a few years.

Ive thought about this a bunch and dont know how we can deal with it better. I cant see social media going away. I tried one of those apps that shows the screen time you spend but it didnt really change habits for me. I mentioned to my partner the other day that we should consider setting on weekend day as a screen free day.

I really think this is somethign important for society to work on.

<comment><USER19> > Its full of posts of 'see how great my life is' or 'see how bad the world > is'. This combined with a media intergrated into our lives almost real-time > whose organisations are all looking to maximise our attention.

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

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-018-9683-...](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11031-018-9683-5)

[https://time.com/4358140/overcome-fomo/](https://time.com/4358140/overcome- fomo/)

For a long time I thought "FOMO" was just a trendy bit of slang that hit the nail on the head nicely, but it's actually a documented psychological phenomenon (though I don't know which came first).

Ever since I learned about it, I've basically trained myself to not check social media often and, when I do, to remind myself that the pieces I see of other people's lives aren't representative of their lives as a whole, nor are they representative of what I should be expecting or enjoying from my own life. It's helped a little.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> American culture has become a dysfunctional parody of itself, and young people are left to grapple with a worldview that does not seem to adequately address the world.

<comment><USER13> This x 100. Most of Gen Z has become absurdist (memes only make sense to young people often for this reason) out of necessity. The "adults" have failed them and they have no power to change it. Depression and anxiety should only be expected.

There really should also be more discussion about the complexity of the world and decision fatigue, both of which I think are affecting people of all ages but especially younger people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Could it be the increasing inequality in the United States? The elimination of most middle class jobs? The increasingly generational inheritance of wealth, power, and connections? College debt? Asking for a friend.

<comment><USER22> I can't imagine the debt students are taking on now. Add to that the high expense of housing. Why don't student speak up about this instead of defending all the "safe space" and "trigger warning" nonsense?

<comment><USER23> I'm not Gen Z myself (millenial who graduated right before asking for pronouns became a thing on college campuses), but that's a question I've asked myself as I well.

I get the feeling that it's simply because they believe they have leverage over the words people use on their campus, but no leverage over housing expenses or other economic issues that actually have broader appeal.

Remember that neither Gen Z nor Millenials have ever witnessed significant economic change that was brought on by direct action of normal people. Unions have been utterly defanged and left-wing candidates never manage to win or drive change either. Occupy Wall Street was the closest thing we've ever seen to an economic solidarity movement, and that was widely mocked and derided as an utter failure.

While the movement around language policing may give Gen Z the feeling of participating in successful direct action, it unfortunately is contributing to a schism between them and older generations who may be otherwise willing to ally with them on broader causes, but are fearful of mis-stepping and being called out publicly.

Of course, maybe that very same fear of public call-outs ties back to what one of the professors in the article mentioned. The new generation is used to having every little thing they do be potentially subjected to being recorded, publicized, and criticized at any moment through social media. They are constantly self-managing themselves and their social media presence with that in mind. They don't see why older generations shouldn't be held to the same standards - even if they'd rather be exempt from that standard themselves, they accept it as reality.

There's a mockumentary series on netflix called "American Vandal", which besides being funny, was surprisingly insightful about the challenges that young adults are facing in part due to growing up with instagram, twitter, etc. as part of their world. I have a lot more sympathy for them after watching that.

<comment><USER24> >Remember that neither Gen Z nor Millenials have ever witnessed significant economic change that was brought on by direct action of normal people.

Did you forget about the Great Recession and it's economic impact? Do you believe it didnt bring significant economic change or is it that it wasn't brought on by normal people? What exactly defines normal people in this context or better yet, how is that relevant?

It's confusing to me that despite the soaring costs of housing, the hyper competitive job market ( kids compete not just against other Americans but also students from other countries like India and China, where many of those immigrant kids didn't have the crushing college debt), the shrinking middle class, and general deregulation that has shifted power to the wealthy - despite all these issues, your view point of what affects these kids is based around social media or more specifically, what standard these kids are held to on social media.

<comment><USER23> Of course I remember the great recession - I mentioned Occupy. It was the banks which caused the great recession. The politicians then responded to the needs of the banks, not the people. There were some regulations around lending added to protect banks from themselves, and a small stimulus package that most of my generation didn't even receive. The average person though did not see anything change meaningfully to make their economic situation better. So both the change it brought was insignificant to the working class (aka "normal people"), and the working class had no say over what changes were even discussed (because Occupy was not taken seriously).

I agree with you on the importance of all those issues. My point is that we have a large number of young people who are disillusioned with both the current economic situation AND lacking confidence in historic tactics (ie, direct action) that the working class used in the past to improve economic situations (ie, joining a union, going on strike, electing leftist officials).

The neo-liberal philosophy that has been sold to Americans for the past few decades teaches people that you are supposed to be able to effect change by choosing with your wallet and advocating by mouth. This too is proving to be ineffectual for meaningful change, but the concept does relate to my greater point: the most powerful currency accessible to this generation is social capital. It accumulates fast and spreads to all corners when it resonates. Social capital is the only reason Trump could become president. It's making and breaking careers (see the rise of "influencers" and streamers), and it's playing out comparitively microscopic level as young people are using modern communication frameworks to define their success in their personal social spheres.

I'm not saying this is a good development. It does distract and divide the working class from one-another. But I see why it happened, and don't think it's apathy or selfishness that has caused this way of thinking to become popular. Either the young generation will reject their hyper-connected "always-on" culture, or the older ones will get on board. Until then it will be hard to work together on bigger issues, and I doubt Gen Z can solve those alone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> ITT: People taking whatever their pet issue is and saying THAT must be responsible without having any data to back it up.

<comment><USER26> It's the increased prominence of languages with garbage collection that is ruining children. They need to learn proper memory management!

<comment><USER27> And their music! It's just ones and zeroes!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> TL;DR: people sharing their angst inside filter bubbles causes unrealistic expectations from questionable sources

I think, thanks to social media classic socialization among students via social events and clubs has ceased. Person to person interaction isn't a thing anymore, but it's necessary to learn having realistic expectations. Most people crave interaction, comparison, sharing experiences with others, this is normal. With social media it's a two-fold problem: much more people are involved in comparisons (likes, followers), so having little or no followers doesn't help feeling worthy, and the expectation having to have followers at all is unreasonable and unrealistic. The depression is based on doubts that one has any significance in the world, plus, having to keep up with competition. Then there is fear of missing out that drives anxiety like wildfire.

There's pressure from everywhere, even internal. Why wasn't it that big a thing back then? Because personal expectations weren't as bloated then as they are now, and today's young people derive their expectations of themselves (what they think they ought to be, to do) and expectations of others (what they think they can expect from others) from the Internet, forums, social networks mostly, not from _personal experience_. That is it. Personal physical experience once provided the basis for expectations, people had to learn everything themselves. But now people learn expectations from other peoples' experiences, and not their own. So, today the unrealistic expectations of other people are failing on us, naturally, and we are confronted with the reality of things and people. This is what it feels like leaving one's favorite Twitter filter bubble and learning that the actual world is different and much more complicated.

And I didn't mention the job market yet, because I think it's just a part in the pool of sources of pressure. Anxiety about one's job isn't as new as people think. The awareness is different now, because _people share their angst_ and amplify it via the social media making it even worse. Social media, job situation, pressure are all parts of the same problem - <USER2> expectations from questionable sources.

</comment><comment><USER29> Could it be something to do with the CRUSHING BURDEN OF DEBT?

No, clearly it is smartphones.

<comment><USER30> European students who are not under crushing debt are also having difficulties with such mental health problems. The root of the anxiety and the following depression is economic prospects and the terrible status quo.

<comment><USER29> Fair, although I expect you'd find less of it. The feeling of "I am literally going to die owing this, I will never be free" isn't doing anyone but the loan-owners any favours.

<comment><USER30> In the end it's not a pissing contest by any means. The factors contributing to the mental issues of European students might be different than the Americans', but the overall _trend_ is apparent for both demographics.

Sadly enough, the environmental pressures faced in terms of economic situation and extreme competition have been observed for a very long time in Asian nations, exhibiting themselves in the form of suicides. I hope, deeply so, that the West does not devolve that far...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Students may also avoid using resources on campus because some colleges may > expel students who have suicidal ideation ... to avoid liability related to > student suicides

<comment><USER32> My (top tier) school forced me to take a medical leave of absence, which required a doctors note to get back in and finish the degree. A very expensive endeavor.

Edit: Ah, it says that right in the article. Yeah it sucks, I wouldn't trust the schools mental health services again.

<comment><USER33> Exact same scenario. I never ended up going back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> We have vastly increased wealth, and now every college student owns a credit card, a smartphone, high speed internet, nice clothes, and has a far higher likelihood of landing a good job with savings compared to 50 years ago. Or even compared to graduates in poorer countries.

Maybe there's a mismatch between wealth and happiness.

</comment><comment><USER35> Imagine taking out 200k in loans for an uncertain future income.

Imagine that previous generations paid less for the same hiring opportunities.

<comment><USER36> These crazy loan amounts are not taken by most students. There are many ways that most people choose to keep their costs low - living not as nice housing, not going to your top school, working while in college.

Here's some stats: [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/13/facts- about...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/13/facts-about- student-loans/)

Median bachelors degree debt: $25,000

Most of these people with huge debts are getting graduate degrees and they significantly skew the results when looking at the average, the median is far more insightful.

<comment><USER37> An appropriate correction, but I don't think it changes the inevitable feeling of doom that many college students and recent graduates face. $25,000 is an enormous amount of debt, especially when there is a multitude of uncertainties with the investment. When you borrow for a house or car, there is an immediate, tangible benefit. With college, it's not so simple. It would be great if you didn't need to go to college, but let's face it. You simply make more money with a degree, and many employers require them. There is an undeniable problem with tuition rates over time and its affect on the mental health of many American students.

<comment><USER38> $25k is actually less than the average price of a new car sold in the US. It's not an enormous amount of debt. It's manageable.

Would it be better if students didn't owe money after college? Yes. Is the student loan debt equivalent of a new midrange Toyota Camry a life-crushing burden? No, not really.

<comment><USER39> Student debt is running at around 8% of US GDP.

It might or might not be a life-crushing burden for individuals. But it's still an incredibly risky burden for a fragile economy.

And personally I don't find "And don't even think about a graduate degree unless you want to end up with >$40k" all that reassuring for those with postgrad talent and ambitions.

<comment><USER38> I don't know who says "And don't even think about a graduate degree unless you want to end up with >$40k". When I went to grad school the standard advice was that you shouldn't go anywhere without a free ride in the form of tuition waivers and/or a stipend or TA job.

Professional schools (law, medicine, MBA, etc.) are different, but they also cost way more than $40k.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Today's kids are essentially experiments. Being connected to the modern internet from as early as age zero is going to have some very serious side effects, and I don't believe parents understand that. This is especially bad if the parents don't have the understanding or ability to keep the child's experienced age appropriate.

</comment><comment><USER41> Put simply, social media and news exists to drive clicks. Once you understand that terrible news and completely misleading story titles drive clicks better than anything else, you realize that there is almost no value in today's news.

When you are listening to a news anchor, or reading a story, ask yourself one simple question - "How is the organization maximizing profit off of this story?"

Mainstream, advertising-supported, news sources will continue to devolve until everyone wises up.

<comment><USER42> When do you think everyone will wise up? Like in what year?

<comment><USER43> s/click/viewers and the basic business model has been going strong for half a century.

s/clicks/listeners and the basic business model has been going strong for just a little over a century.

s/clicks/circulation and the basic business model has been going strong for at least a few centuries now.

So, never. Or, more accurately, in about 20 years when "clicking" becomes an anachronism and someone will make this comment except it'll be: _" s/taps/clicks and this has been going on for half a century"_

<comment><USER44> Mass circulation media date to the early 19th century, so approaching 200 years. Benjamin Day's _Sun_ wasn't the first "penny-press" newspaper, but it transformed the concept, in 1833.

Developments (and cost reductions) in printing and paper-making, as well as rapidly increasing literacy rates, climbing from 25% or lower around 1700 to 90%+ by 1900 throughout much of Europe and North America, also meant that prior to 1800 there really _wasn 't_ a mass-circulation media of any stripe, outside religious mass, and that there very much was one afterwards.

Though yes, your observation that this has been going on for a while is valid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I would also be depressed if my education nets me excessive debt. Probably manageable for lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc., but general higher education seems to be something restricted to people with rich parents.

I don't know the details since I am not based in the US. But from outside it seems that there are incentives to willfully sabotage the educational system. And the raw numbers about the accumulated debt look terrifying.

<comment><USER24> Imo even if it is manageable debt, that doesn't make the problem just disappear. My own student debt is long paid off. It was only $25K - <USER3> exactly chump change but only a fraction of the more egregious examples I've seen.

Honestly, college provided some decent experiences but did it make me a better human or teach me something significant enough to justify that debt? No. There were maybe 3 or 4 key classes in my four year program that had anything really relevant to my career. Most of it was stuff I would forget after a couple semesters and never apply anywhere.

In hindsight, college is an institutional shackle. It's a right of passage we force on kids, and employers require it when it shouldn't be necessary. My $25K feel less like an investment an education and more like a bribe I had to pay before anyone would hire me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Is it on the rise or are people feeling more comfortable about reporting these things compared to decades ago?

<comment><USER47> Or it could be that people are more aware of their internal states. In other words, twenty years ago, I would not be able to tell you that I had anxiety or depression, even though I did. As I went through cognitive behavioral therapy and became more aware of my internal states, I can tell immediately if I start to feel anxious or depressed. Due to cb therapy, I experience far less anxiety and depression but I am aware of it when I do experience it (which can help minimize it).

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Does it really matter _what_ the causes of the depression and anxiety are if there is no easy way to change them (global warming, debt, parody of a government, news that's hyperbole not information, overwhelming technology, world competition, and so on)? None of those are going away, so the emphasis needs to be on taking care of the the young people (or all people) stressed by these factors.

What to do? Anecdotally, I can certainly say that lessening exposure to these things really helps. But not everyone has the environment or self control to do such things.

</comment><comment><USER49> Although I am not a college student, something that causes worry for me is the difficulty of knowing what is going on and what to believe, even though I consume news from many sources. The battle for readers/viewers' attention has escalated to manipulative tactics like clickbait or pandering. The slow demise of old media has created a sense of desperation in their reportage. New media RARELY seeks a footing of disinterested journalism. This adds a struggle to the experience of "adulting" for college kids.

Another issue is the change in the number of people living here. 1990 had 250MM. 2018 had 327MM. That 30% increase is bound to add stress and conflict.

Another: the pace of change has been overwhelming in the last 25 years. That might create self-doubt about one's capacity to keep skills updated.

Another: the decrease in life expectancy of white middle class people due to overdose and suicide. The plague of suicide is the message of futility and nihilism for survivors to absorb.

Prosperity cures a multitude of ills. Widespread under-employment brings every bruise, boil, laceration, and trauma to the forefront. College students see the employment landscape. They face competition from citizens and non- citizens, and thus a pie that gets divided among a bigger denominator.

The economic reality is that college is necessary for skilled occupations. Parents steer their kids into college, even though some of those kids don't have the self-management skills to succeed in college. If they do have these skills, they commonly are allowed to take coursework that is bound to result in a minimum wage job. This mortgages the first 20 working years of their adult lives with student loan debt service. I would certainly be discouraged by this prospect.

Lastly, the disconnect in authentic relationships that social media fostered took away a piece of the fundamental human safety net.

</comment><comment><USER50> depression is just the natural response to oppression

</comment><comment><USER51> Seeing this among my peers. A scary amount are on some form of meds

</comment><comment><USER52> I believe that we've reached an inflection point on the path to a utopian- esque society and it feels as though we're primed to backslide catastrophically.

For a variety of reasons innumerable, but generally containing in my mind:

Technical literacy being outpaced by technical dependence. The threat of the oligopoly - and the lack of action to dismantle it. The inability of humans to work together as a species and their preference for in-fighting over collaboration and compromise. A breakdown in natural selection, increased coddling, and a general weakening of ability and character relative to other nations. Short-sidedness with regard to most everything from education to the environment.

Existing in a liminal state where great things appear to be possible, but seem unlikely to be obtained is torturous.

</comment><comment><USER53> Multiple reasons really: \- Grass is always greener \- Access to 24/7 negative news \- Environmental doom and gloom (we even call it an existential crisis) \- Baked in addiction building mechanisms (likes, retweets, shares, views, unlimited scrolling, constant stream of crap to consume) \- Fewer personal interactions \- Less community activity \- Lack of sleep (probably one of the, if not the biggest issue) \- Stress from having a constantly busy mind full of useless thoughts \- Worry about the future \- Worry about environment \- Worry about lack of jobs \- Worry about money \- Worry about school debt

This is probably just scratching the surface.

</comment><comment> 88840-8855 I agree with the article and most comments here. Although I am not in the US but Europe, similar trends have evolved here: pressure from getting a good job, non-satisfaction with the status quo, high pressure from the race against the peers and much more.

My direct question to this community. What do you think could help these people/us? What are tactical quick win measures and what are strategic long term measures that could work? I am interested not only in "getting your shit together by yourself", but also in what help can be offered to the people that suffer to help?

</comment><comment><USER54> The rat race is no longer desirable as the old dream of owning your own home is becoming more fantasy. Pregnancy rates are down and divorce rates are high. Housing is simply too big an investment for people barely able to afford a single home.

Your only options are to move to a city and adjust to make a lucrative and highly commercial life there - or live in the middle of nowhere with fewer job prospects while the cost of everything around you goes up.

As others mentioned, we now all have devices in our pockets that tell and show us the lives we don't have and the lives we desire.

</comment><comment><USER55> I know this is late, but check this article that appeared couple of days after this was published

[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjEjYqWxLfkAhWRtlkKHd_kB1oQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2019%2F09%2F03%2Fopinion%2Fcollege- graduates.html)

</comment><comment><USER56> How much of this perceived increase is also because people are more open to communicate they have mental health problems.

People are also more encouraged to seek help and counseling as opposed to before.

I also think that people today more readily label their feelings with labels such as anxiety, depression or whatever. As opposed to previous generations who lacked such a vocabulary.

</comment><comment><USER57> Here's a 2019 APA study that suggests that technology, and digital media use, and sleep disturbance may play in mood disorder.

[https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/abn- abn0000410.pd...](https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/abn- abn0000410.pdf)

<comment><USER58> As soon as I learned the discipline for social media, and that's all forms: Facebook, Twitter, IRC, Slack etc and learned how to control myself from visiting every three seconds, I got a lot happier.

There's just nothing better for peoples health than to ignore social media, to ignore technology, to keep their phone far away from them as possible.

While I have other issues, it really wasn't until I cut out all medications, alcohol and then technology from my life. I use social media sparingly these days because I've trained myself to avoid it.

I lost a lot of friends when I went through a segment in my life where I was depressed, moody and so on so forth, but at the end of the day I'm happier now because the experience taught me what I did wrong, and what some of the catalysts were, so there's a silver lining in every 'bad' thing that happens so to speak.

Regarding sleep disturbance, I've just taken to edibles and having zero light in my room with one of those artificial sunlight alarms to wake me up in the morning. Seems to help a lot.

New Zealand also seems to have a crisis with suicide. I'm super lucky that I have a blank cheque from ACC to get any help I need, along with my family. Most people don't have that, unfortunately and I feel extremely bad for them. I wish I could help, but really I feel, what can one person do in this instance than to try and understand what people are going through but that's difficult as hell because most people hide and mask their symptoms through other crap like drugs, alcohol, which all simply lead to temporary psychosis and worsening depression-like symptoms.

At least these days things are better, but I'd like to reconnect with old friends and say sorry for all the damage I caused, but it's hard to know where to even start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Depression, anxiety are rising among a large part of the population in Western society. My personal take on this: we need to reconnect with religion because we need something transcendant to help us go through life. Modern life is very alienating if you take a purely material approach to it.

</comment><comment><USER31> Facebook was already popular before 2012, 2013 which the article highlighted as the transition point. Instagram was becoming popular at this time.

</comment><comment><USER60> I think Cal Newport touches on this in his book Digital Minimalism. He links it pretty convincingly to the rise of people been glued to screens.

</comment><comment><USER61> There are a lot of factors contributing here, but kids today, probably more than in Leary's days, need to turn on, tune in, and drop out.

<comment><USER62> I have heard this phrase several times before - "turn on, tune in, and drop out."

Could you please give more context and explain more. I don't understand this phrase. Please note that I did not grow up in USA.

Turn on to what? Radio? Tune in to what? A radio music program? drop out from what? From high school or college?

<comment><USER63> From Timothy Leary's 1983 autobiography, Flashbacks (via Wikipedia): "Turn on" meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers engaging them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. "Tune in" meant interact harmoniously with the world around you—externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. "Drop out" suggested an active, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. "Drop Out" meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily, my explanations of this sequence of personal development are often misinterpreted to mean "Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity"

<comment><USER62> Thank you! I find this happening with acronyms and truisms that get shortened to look like captions. Outside the in-group, people don't understand the meaning. With times passage, the in-group slowly fades and the usage and meaning that is generally understood is incorrect like the one you mentioned about getting stoned and do nothing worthwhile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Depression and anxiety is rising among the entire population of the US, from middle schoolers to senior citizens 1 year away from their grave.

</comment><comment><USER65> Duh. I'd also be willing to bet it's correlated with screen time.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's the lack of meaningful connections which is on rise.

When my wife was at university, I was shocked being a pretty woman - <USER4> lonely she was.

She did try to talk with people and even hang out on weekend with a girl group but it seemed as if during the weekdays nobody had any time for her.

This is the main reason I think.

Men are being treated as disposable just look at the male Vs female sucide statistics. Present society is very toxic to be a man. There is nowhere to get support from if you are a "weak man" for the society, a label which is slapped on you the moment you talk about your issues.

In relationships, there is a new trend that relationship ends when initial spark ends. If you go to any relationship advice forum, you can see people dumping their partner because the initial spark ended, it's too easy to find a new partner for some. Nobody bothers putting much effort into a relationship.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'd mention one thing which I think no one has mentioned so far.

Today we've more freedom than ever, more access to people and more prosperity than ever.

This creates a dynamic were people cluster according to their outlook. No one accepts a "downer" in a happy group.

I'd say more happy, more prosperous country, a country which has more freedom will see higher sucide rates due to loneliness.

I wouldn't be surprised if the examples of this like Scandinavian countries have higher sucide rate if not highest.

I'd be lot better being a "sad" person with other sad people than being the only sad person among all other happy people.

<comment><USER67> You'd be surprised to find the US has a higher suicide rate than Sweden and Norway then. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Well, since education puts people deeply into debt in the USA, I am actually not very surprised.

</comment><comment><USER69> _"It suggests that something is seriously wrong in the lives of young people and that whatever went wrong seemed to happen around 2012, or 2013," said study coauthor Jean Twenge. She noted that this was around the time smartphones became common and social media moved from being optional to mandatory among youngsters._

I just...OMG who the hell are these people. Maybe the economy just stopped getting better for most people after 2008? I mean __duh __. After a few years when finally becomes obvious that the new normal is gig economy jobs and living under debt until you die, say around 2012-2013, then people 's happiness starts to nose dive. That's a much more explanatory answer than "the cell phones did it".

It's like an old person - I thought she was a baby boomer, but she's only 48 - that has a phd (and everything!) is desperately trying to figure out what's going wrong, and they have all the data.

They. Just. Can't. Quite. Get There.

This is the type of person that's running society, maybe that's the problem. Face palm.

</comment><comment><USER70> The link between modern day food....

</comment><comment><USER71> Since no one's mentioned it yet: both depression and anxiety are extremely treatable.

Regardless of whatever HN folks think is the cause, therapists and psychiatrists are an actual solution; you should see one.

<comment><USER72> This is largely false.

Some mainstream treatment approaches can be somewhat effective for some people. Maybe they can be completely effective for some people. I'm not going to argue the toss on that.

But there's a significant cohort of people for whom these conditions do not respond well to conventional treatment, at least to the extent of full recovery.

I'm one of those people.

We're talking about at least 19 years of dealing with anxiety, and plenty of depression along the way. Some medications have been moderately effective at abating some of the symptoms, but not at bringing about anything approximating complete recovery and a "normal" life.

What has been effective for me is a long-term program involving a combination of subconscious emotional healing techniques, as well as various physiological healing methods, including:

\- detoxification of heavy metals (including lead, mercury, aluminium),

\- increasing/balancing levels of critical nutrients (particularly minerals - calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, iron and zinc, as well as iodine, which is critically low in many people with complex health problems, due to its crucial role in thyroid function, and which is insufficient in may people's diets, particularly in western countries),

\- addressing chronic infections (e.g., Epstein Barr, Cytomegalovirus, fungal, bacterial and parasitic infections),

\- adopting an anti-inflammatory diet, and

\- regularly engaging in the right kinds of exercise (stretching and core strength exercises like yoga/pilates), and moderate (definitely not strenuous) cardio exercise like brisk walking.

After about 8 years of that I'm almost fully recovered, I think and desperately hope.

But you won't get recommendations for any of these approaches from a conventional psychologist or psychiatrist, and if you were to ask one about them you'd get laughed out of the clinic.

Thus, many people continue to suffer, even after years of treatment from mainstream practitioners.</comment></comment>


How much conversation is actually taking place on social media? - <AUTHOR> http://hellowulu.tumblr.com/post/92741920494/how-much-conversation-is-actually-on-social-media

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, we're a pre-launch startup ([http://www.hellowulu.com](http://www.hellowulu.com)) that would love to hear your thoughts on the state of conversation online. Are you having real conversations on Twitter/Facebook/etc?</comment>


A Reasonable Default Timezone for Every Country - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rahulgi/default-timezones <comment><USER2> Good idea. But I think it's a bit strange to have -8 (Pacific) for the US. -5 (Eastern) feels like the "default" time zone, and IIRC slightly under half the population lives in it. -6 (Central) is probably a good compromise - I've gotten used to it working for a company that has people in Eastern, Central, and Pacific with a Central-time headquarters.

(It seems even stranger paired with -5 for Canada. Surely these should be the same?)</comment>


Tell HN: Our VC turned the process of getting acquired into a nightmare - <AUTHOR> I run a startup I co-founded on the east coast, which is about as specific as I can be right now. The past three months has been some of the worst in my life but also provided some of the most valuable lessons learned. I thought I would use a throwaway account to blow of some steam and hopefully get some valuable feedback.
This is the situation: My startup is profitable with a team of 10 or so people and with a very happy and loyal customer base. But after five years in business I have come to accept that it has failed to yield any really high growth. This has forced us to take a step back and look at how we can reframe our business. We need to find a new product/market fit to kick in the next gear and get back on track to higher growth.
Three months ago, a favorable acquisition offer comes along. Part cash part equity, favorable terms. Because of our dwindling growth it is lousy timing valuation-wise. But right in this situation an acquisition might not be so bad because we know that we have a couple of years of very hard work ahead of us if we are going to turn the company around. Our VC has been supportive and great all along the way, although a huge red flag is that he has declined to be part of any new round of financing if that would happen. Discussing the offer with him, we agreed to go for a very rapid negotiation process and see the results.
But now when money is on the table, the VC turns very aggressively on us demanding much more of the deal value than stipulated by his share in the company. During the process he behaves very strangely, travels overseas and does not answer emails or calls for days and weeks on end which drags the negotiations out into months. The shareholder agreement allows him to block the deal if he's not happy with the terms, but so can us founders so the negotiations turn into a battle of wills.
In the teleconferences we do manage to set up, our VC uses whatever means he can to lean hard on us, including very verbal attacks on us personally. Sometimes he turns awkwardly friendly, doling out legal advice that on fact-checking turns out to be erroneous bordering on dangerous.
What happened in the end was that the acquisition offer was rescinded. The reasons cited for the offer to be withdrawn was that the timing was no longer there and that the buyer would not be happy to have our VC as shareholder because of his attitude.
So here we are. At this stage our relationship with our VC completely lies in ruins. I'm very ambivalent, the only thing really keeping me from quitting my company is the strong loyalty I feel towards my awesome team of founders and employees. If I'm going to develop a new product and perhaps bring in new funding, why do it in a company where I'm already diluted and the VC has proven to be a huge liability during financing and potential exits? On the other hand, if I start anew I will have to bootstrap completely from scratch instead of leveraging the great team and cashflow I already have.
If I do leave, the company will probably saunter along just fine without me. Maybe new management is just what it takes for it to skyrocket.
I would love to get an outside view on the above. Bash my head in if you think it is needed, that would be very refreshing. I have a really great lawyer at hand, so whatever legal advice you give me can do little harm because I run everything by him. What do you think? <comment><USER2> The VC controls (and always controlled) the outcome for your company. I can't say I understand his behavior - blocking an acquisition but also refusing to participate in a future round makes both liquidity and fundraising impossible. Perhaps he plans to drive the company to the brink and then do a down round.

The only leverage you have over him is the damage his behavior, if public, could do to his reputation - since VCs live and die by their dealflow. If the deal was still on the table, I would've politely discussed his future exposure - 'if this behavior keeps up and the deal doesn't happen, you are not going to look good in the post-mortem I'll be posting to Hacker News'. Quality VCs know that their reputation depends on keeping entrepreneurs happy.

Now that the deal's dead, you might as well leave - but you'd be doing a disservice to the rest of us to not reveal who this guy is. If you can't do it in public (perhaps you're worried about raising money again from someone else - which, sadly, is probably valid), at a minimum you should be describing the whole story over at The Funded.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the analysis, I appreciate the clarity with which you describe his confusing behavior. It might be that he has such plans.

As for taking the conflict public, I don't have it in me. It is not something that aligns with my world view because I know that I too can be wrong sometimes and not see the whole story. I prefer that people know they can trust me rather than applying that kind of leverage.

<comment><USER3> Exactly, while it might help others to expose the VC, you would be putting your own reputation at risk.

 _When seeking revenge, bring two shovels_ and all that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> How does the rest of the team feel? Ready to walk or eager to charge forward and continue trusting the VC?

If there's some team solidarity on the matter, you could try renegotiating the terms or buying him out.

i.e. you could say: "We feel like that deal broke down because of you, which was contrary to the interests of the founders and other shareholders of the company. It's hard to be motivated to grow this company when we know that you could submarine any exit or additional financing at a whim. We talked it over and 6 of the 10 people on the team are going to walk, though of course we'll give you a month to find new management if you'd like to. As an alternative, we'd stick around if you'd be willing to legally adjust your rights so that you can only block a sale of less than $1M dollars. As an additional alternative, the company will buy back your shares for $X over Y months."

If there's no solidarity and everyone but you wants to soldier on (either for the lifestyle job or trusting that the VC will act sensibly next time), then you should probably announce your intention to step away and see what your co- founders want to do.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for great advice. The takeaway for me is that I should get a more thourough feel for what the rest of the team thinks. There is a lot of leverage to be applied this way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> You failed to negotiate effectively with your VC.

At this point, you should explain to your VC (hopefully he is your only one) that you intend to: (1) wind down the business, layoff all staff, pay off all debtors and cease all company operations. And (2), without soliciting any employees or infringing on any IP, you intend to reconstitute a new company in the X space where X is your current business.

Explain how it was a pleasure to work with him, and you're sorry you were unable to return his equity in this endeavor. You can ask if he is interested in finding a buyer for his remaining equity, despite it's precipitous loss in value pending the imminent loss of all employees, and if so, you may be able to arrange a buyer.

You are on the east coast so be sure you do not have any sort of non-compete agreement with your company that is enforceable. You most certainly have a non-solicit agreement in place, so be cautious, and email none of these communications or plans around. This is a decent time to be paranoid.

<comment><USER6> It all depends on the exact details of any contracts with the VC such as your shareholder agreement. Is there a drag-along right? What board representation does the VC have? Do you have the ability to call a shareholder meeting and get them voted off the board?

You need to work through with your lawyer and ask him or her in great detail what options you have in terms of forcing the VC to cooperate. Can you wind up the company without his/her agreement? What non-compete clauses apply? Can they be worked around?

Do you have the right to make a share issue in a way that would dilute the VC below a control threshold (while satisfying all legal and fiduciary obligations)?

Others in this thread have suggested you 'out' the VC - do not do this without legal advice, and I would recommend you not do it at all. You need to be 100% in compliance with the law of libel etc. Even if a staff member leaks information without your consent that places you in a weaker position not a stronger position.

If you have strong options, then pursue them. This may lead to the VC showing willingness to compromise. In which case, do genuinely consider compromise.

<comment><USER5> Okay... but why is this a comment to my comment? I don't see any connection to my post.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Was it a VC (= a partner at a VC fund) or an angel? This would be odd behavior from a VC. From a VC's point of view, your company would be "going sideways," and they are usually happy to get out of those because it frees up a board seat.

</comment><comment><USER8> Had a similar thing happen to a company I was involved with a long while ago. (The VC involved was far from the valley.)

In fact, the partner even resigned from our board during acquisition negotiations, because the squeeze he was attempting, enriching his firm at the expense of other shareholders, wouldn't mesh well with the fiduciary responsibilities of a board member.

Some people think using every lever at their disposal to eke out a few extra percent at the last minute proves their business mettle. I suppose they expect – or prefer to guarantee – that this be their last transaction with the others affected.

We wound up acquiescing to his demands to avoid ruining the acquisition. And most of us resolved to never do business with him or his firm again.

If another acquisition materializes, you may just have to acquiesce and/or play chicken/hardball with this VC – all the while hiding any internal dissent from the acquirer, so that ultimately it's up to you and your investors whether you walk away from a deal.

If he's a bit player at a larger VC firm, you might privately share your concerns with other more senior partners there – which almost always would be a relationship-destroying maneuver, but if the relationship is already kaput, why not?

Hardball might involve having your own lawyer find the maximum you can do under the investment agreement without the VC's agreement – asset sales, de facto liquidation, etc. – or find grounds to (credibly threaten to) sue the VC for breaches of various duties.

<comment><AUTHOR> It was very valuable to hear of a similar situation. I'm happy to hear that you were able to rescue the deal, albeit paying a heavy price.

<comment><USER8> I believe the net price wasn't that heavy, but it stung, because it broke the all-in-it-together logic that otherwise had ruled.

It was already a good result for the investor – the last-minute extras demanded weren't a part of any prior negotiated preference, they were just new things extracted in return for not vetoing a deal everyone else wanted.

<comment><USER9> The biggest lesson I've learned from various startups is that "all-in-it- together" is an awful lot like asking "How are you?" (The correct answer is "Fine!", even if your arm just got torn off, your cat died, and your spouse left you for a monkey): It's conversation, and nothing more.

In the end, everybody is unpredictable. If you don't protect your rights from the start, you'll have problems. Even (especially?) if you're BFFs, everything should be spelled out in advance, including metrics for conceptual terms such as "success", etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sounds like a crappy situation. Hindsight is 20/20 but what I learnt from your story is that it's important to ask investors the minimum valuation and cash/equity split they will accept before engaging a potential buyer. In general, knowing your own limits is important going into any negotiation.

Before quitting and losing control over so many years of hard work, I would recommend putting your recent frustration with the VC aside and sitting down with him to understand what he wants from any future liquidity events. You say he has been a good investor so far, and may be he is under pressure from LPs or has something that would explain his strange behavior.

I can imagine it would be hard to work on a startup where your final outcome seemingly depends on a person who seems to be fickle and unreliable. Any clarity you can get on this may help align your interests with them.

Reminds me of something a very wise venture capitalist once told me in a cynical moment: "At exit, everyones' interests are misaligned". The only thing you can do to avoid this is try to 'hire' VCs who are also good people.

Sorry it has come to this. Hope it works out for you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the empathy with the situation. It is very good advice to make it perfectly clear what the intents of our VC is going forward. I sure will take the experiences from this process with me in future ventures.

Niels Bohr said that "An expert is a person that have made all the possible mistakes in a narrow field". Sometimes I feel like I'm getting there...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Please please post the name of your the partner, and if not that, the VC firm on TheFunded.com in the private area and post a link to it here.

</comment><comment><USER12> From what you say your VC is a vindicative and manipulative SOB who is wielding his veto power as blackmail to nix a deal unless you agree to give him more than his agreed upon terms.

It's a nightmare scenario. If it was me I would play hardball back. Walk away from the whole thing and let the company melt down, better that all should lose than he should win and all you should lose. Alternatively maybe he comes to his senses, but you have to be willing to carry through with it. I hate playing hard ball, but once you find yourself with someone who is going to do that, you have to play hard ball back or you'll lose for sure.

If you do decide it is all for naught and you are probably going to bail, I recommend you open source your code base for some plausible business reason, and then wait a few months before leaving. This way you'll be able to recover your own work for use in future ventures should it come to that.

Obviously you picked the wrong VC but why on earth would you give him such veto power. That was your mistake and now you are paying the price. Oh well.

<comment><USER8> _why on earth would you give him such veto power_

Even the YC 'Series AA' model document terms include protective provisions where a majority of the preferred shareholders have veto power over any merger/acquisition.

It's a customary provision, and this previously-supportive investor may have had the majority of an early round. So even if his shares, if converted, would only be a small percentage of the company, he may have effective veto power.

In the end you're counting on the decency and reputation of your investor(s) that they don't turn out to be the kind of people who think, "can I squeeze a few more bucks out of this deal if I'm willing to blow it up, and don't care what people think of me?" (Or even if, in the investor's real peer group, he can tell it as an impressive war story of his negotiating prowess.)

It'll be dressed up as something else – "I'm not receiving a proper premium for my preferred privileges!" – but is really just a bet that their toughness/ambivalence can force other shareholders to cave.

I suspect it's a more likely tactic with investors whose background is in other older, and more zero-sum industries. (The similar experience I mentioned in my other comment was with someone from the government-granted telecom franchise field.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is only two cents' worth, but there are a few things you must first discover: What do you personally want out of life, our of your career, out of this company, out of this deal? What does the VC want, in as much detail as you can understand? It may be critical to understand why your VC behaved that way and what his reasoning was for doing so. Also, it sounds like you are describing a liquidation preference, which is common down-side protection that only has a big impact when you miss the goals. It is part of the insurance they demand to take the risk. In both cases, this includes ideas like "to make money", "to feel like I was treated fair", "to feel like I made the best decision available", etc. Then, what is the best alternative to your current situation? What is the VC's best alternative to the current situation? Finally, is it at all possible to find a way, any way, for you both to get as much as you want? It is important to try to keep the negotiation from being about who has more power (worst) or who is right (bad). It should be about what you both want.

You've got a good team. You have successfully served a niche. Now what? Spin off the existing product and start from scratch? Take the technology and launch a new product, while managing the cash flow of the existing customer base? Much of this depends on what you want: a good lifestyle (where you should bootstrap) or to get rich (where you should take on a VC).

Since the relationship with the investor is important, try hard to repair it or find a new investor somehow, even by starting over.

I know the advice is very generic, but I hope that helped.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for very valuable advice all over. It aligns very much with my thoughts but lays it out with perfect clarity. Your advice also focuses on process rather than ends, which I appreciate as a complement to all the (also very valuable) alternatives proposed by other commenters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yikes, sorry to hear this. In retrospect probably your best play was to work with the acquirer to negotiate a low figure 100% cash deal with good going forward comp and equity options for you and your operating team. With that in hand you then lay out a scenario to the VC where your team is exhausted and it is either this deal of the company falls apart. The hope is he grumbles all the way to his low cash takeout and you get another chance to prove your company out in a different equity structure. Good luck going forward!

</comment><comment><USER15> I was slightly unclear as to the circumstances, but basically I read you have an _existing_ investor who is basically inactive in the business, but is being difficult during further acquisition.

You have 10 staff, and you're profitable. It sounds as though it might be best to try and sever ties with this investor if he's making things difficult for you.

One way of doing this would be to cut costs in order to offer to buy out this investor after some period of time, eg. you have 10 people, if you can redistribute the equity held by the current VC/Angel whatever to your employees as restricted stock with a vesting period of two years you may be able to save enough money to buy out the "toxic investor".

Taking this approach depends, of course, on your staff's ability/willingness to withstand a paycut for that, long, the ability to make that kind of decision independently of the existing VC and whether or not you could buy out this dude after some reasonable period of time (eg. 2 years).

The other thing I would point out is if you already have a profitable business and 10 employees, you really shouldn't need any new funding to build a new product. If you have half your team work Fridays on new product development you'll have something in 6 months or so that you can sell.

</comment><comment><USER16> From what you mention, it sounds like his behaviour has drastically changed.

Have you considered the possibility that he is having serious trouble in his personal life - perhaps financial or relationship trouble?

His recent behaviour does sound dodgy but in common with how people react when they are facing serious personal issues. It could also be that someone else is putting pressure on him in regards to this deal.

You may want to approach him sympathetically to see if that could be the case.

<comment><USER17> like kidnapping?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If he doesn't want to participate in future rounds, you could try to raise a new round to cash him out, or you could take a down round and dilute him.

<comment><USER19> How hard will it be to take another round with the original VC refusing to participate? Supposedly, it's pretty hard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I believe it will be very hard for us to raise another round. The VC's story is that they changed their strategy since investing in us. True or not, it is a high liability since it is easy for prospective financers to read something else into the fact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here is what you should have done: Told them that you will sign the documents to close the acquisition. If he wants, he can sue later. In truth, he won't sue for a few reasons: a) it is the right thing to allow the acquisition to happen, and b) he doesn't want the truth to come out that he blocked the sale solely because he un-rightfully wanted a bigger chunk of the company.

It is my strong opinion that him going dark with communication was a negotiating tactic. He was stretching you over a barrel and then fucking you. You telling him you will (and then doing it) to sign the legal documents is the way to unblock that situation. That is what happened to the other person who had a VC do this.

You need to absolutely document that this VC did this in TheFunded.com. There needs to be consequences to VCs. You would want your VCs in the future to be self-policed by TheFunded against doing something like this.

</comment><comment><USER21> Ouch.

I can provide no advice based on experience but since the acquisition offer has been revoked, I would suggest for next time to do the following calculus:

In one year, if I agree to his terms, will I /really/ be that much worse off? Will I be so poor?

If not, agree with a stipulation that it is to be completed within X timeframe otherwise they get the old share.

If so, be prepared to lose it all.

9/10 times, you're usually better off capitulating and making sure all your friends know NOT to deal with this guy.

Anyway, good luck.

<comment><USER22> I think it's better to think "when I'm 95", instead of "in 1 year".

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Consider this a WAG because I don't know any of the people involved. I assume that in the VCs world there are winners (high multiple return) and losers (not a high multiple return). While you may have attained profitability, in his mind you're actually a non-winner, and that is a continual cause of stress. To his peers he has probably been talking up the various angles for potential growth for your company for a long time, yet the desired growth has not been forthcoming. It looks and feels like failure within that peergroup (for their objectives), so a) that's where the reluctance, animosity, and faux- professional posturing came from in negotiations. Now he has to have a story for why the deal fell apart. That story is either that he believes you can grow the investment more going alone, or that you personally sunk it. Either way, it's on you and his pessimism is probably high. Not good, but then where else is he going to go with this?

I think of VCs as managers, and I'm usually of the opinion that the most likely solution to a bad manager is a new job, so I'm inclined to favor any path away from this guy. What path would be best?

Having a profitable company with 10+ employees is a pretty good position to be in if you want to launch something new. I'm inclined to recommend making full use of that opportunity, whether new equity from this VC is a possibility or not. Another concern, though, is that you don't want to risk the health of the company by diverting too much of the available cashflow, or by hurting their market positioning. So it seems to me that any pivot is going to have to be a soft one, or else you'll have to find a growth or new opportunity that really does seem like a sure bet. So my recommendations are: 1) Swallow your well- justified bitterness. It just won't help you get through this. If you want to spread truth about this VCs character, do it after you have gotten out of the current stickiness, and even then I think some coded politeness can suffice. 2) Tell the VC that you're going to double-down on finding new growth opportunities. Lay it on thick, and check in more frequently to give him backing with his peers. 3) Assume that the VC will talk smack (widely) about you if ever challenged in any public context, and may be doing so anyway now that this deal exploded, so be proactive about working your relationships with his peers and your peer community. Consider this your ongoing side project as you... 4) Work on finding the right pivot for you and for the company. Consider this your top priority. If you find another startup that has a better opportunity that you can jump to, take it. But don't risk your current profitable status. Tipping into negative cashflow will endanger the whole situation but will also give the VC more ammunition in laying blame on you.

</comment><comment><USER24> It sounds like the ROI on the investment didn't meet levels acceptable to the VC's portfolio requirements. If the rest of of the team is ready to walk, then it sounds like the best thing to do in this situation is to move on and take them with you.

Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER25> you can shop the deal. if you were close to closing on one, just as well go shop the deal with the competitor. or get a banker to shop the deal for you. one is ridgecrestcap in marin, ca. the managing directors have connections all over silicon valley.

you're so close to exit it would be a shame to leave, its like stopping at mile 20 of a marathon, just stick it out and finish. gl.

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't have any advice but it'd be great if you shared your 20/20 hindsight so other founders can avoid such scenarios and VC.

</comment><comment><USER17> interesting story and comments. i am going to print it out and read it loud during the investment negotiations asking for comments and advice how to avoid such situations.

</comment><comment><USER27> Unfortunately, if the VC has decided to not to participate in any future financing, the failure of the company may be a best case scenario for him. Think about it from his point of view--two of the worst things you can do as a VC are:

\- Throw good money after bad by pouring more money into a loser, and

\- Give up on a company, only to have it succeed without you, either through a cram-down or an acquisition on unfavorable terms

So in that situation, the VC's interest is that your company either succeed without further investment or go out of business.

I wish I had good advice for you--perhaps, as some others have suggested, threats may help. My guess is that you don't have much to lose.

</comment><comment><USER28> Find some new investors and pay to play him.</comment>


Squash – The debugger for microservices - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/solo-io/squash <comment><AUTHOR> An annotated version of demo is at [https://youtu.be/5aNPfwVvLvA](https://youtu.be/5aNPfwVvLvA)</comment>


Violence against Russia's web dissidents raises fresh fears for internet freedom - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/violence-against-russias-web-dissidents-raises-fresh-fears-for-internet-freedoms <comment><USER2> I assume Putin is doing this because he believes his public support would fall considerably if there was free internet discussion in his country.

</comment><comment><USER3> How does this compare with approaches used by other governments to limit freedom?

<comment><USER2> I would guess it is worse than maybe 90% of the other countries in the world.

By the way, is it your implication that we should not condemn Russia because other nations are as bad?

<comment><USER2> By the way, it is interesting the OP does not deny the government is behind the attack. I guess because it is hopeless to try to persuade people to think well of the Russian government, and so instead its boosters fall back to the position that all other governments are just as bad.</comment></comment></comment>


BranchScope: A New Side-Channel Attack on Directional Branch Predictor - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/its-not-just-spectre-researchers-reveal-more-branch-prediction-attacks/ <comment><USER2> It's been said multiple times and often dismissed, but it's becoming more evident that sharing the same hardware with untrusted code is not a good idea at all. Once again the biggest effect is on shared hosting/cloud services, while users of single-user personal computers and self-hosted services are quite immune by default... IMHO giving people more reasons not to run their code on and trust some server located remotely is a good thing.

 _The researchers looked only at Intel processors, using the attacks to leak information protected using Intel 's SGX (Software Guard Extensions), a feature found on certain chips to carve out small sections of encrypted code and data such that even the operating system (or virtualization software) cannot access it._

Perhaps the other good thing to come of this. Fuck that DRM shit.

<comment><USER3> >users of single-user personal computers and self-hosted services are quite immune by default

Well, except for people using web browsers…

<comment><USER4> Yes was going to say exactly this; how dangerous is Javascript, Image Decoding and Web Assembly in this new world?

<comment><USER5> Javascript and Web Assembly are only dangerous because of this insane policy on the web that everything is whitelisted by default. Fortunately there are extensions to change that behavior but most people won't bother with them, leading web developers to assume that JS is enabled and the site breaking if it's not.

In our rush to get rid of Flash on the web we turned the web into Flash. At least it's an open standard now, I suppose.

Images and other codecs might also be an issue but it seems like a more complicated attack vector and one that could be mitigated more effectively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This attack, "BranchScope", seems largely unrelated to Spectre - it's "just" another side-channel attack, allowing an attacker to learn which branches were taken by a victim process. BranchScope has a similar impact, and seems less convenient and slower, than pre-existing attacks that poke at the CPU cache. (Spectre 2 is scarier, because it allows the attacker to learn more-or-less anything accessible to the victim process.)

Which isn't to say that this is bad work, nor even that the authors are over- hyping it (in fact, the paper mentions Spectre... very early in the introduction only.) But this article makes it easy to over-estimate the impact.

As always, crypto code (in particular) must be constant-time (constant- everything) to avoid key recovery via such attacks. But again, that isn't new - cache-based attacks have broken lots of non-constant-time crypto code.

<comment><USER7> The issue goes beyond the limited threat of any particular vulnerability. The larger issue is that we were blindsided by a category of systemic vulnerabilities that upend prior assumptions about the security of core principles of modern processor and operating system design, which raises doubt about our collective ability to identify and avoid risks in the design phase of computer and communications systems.

Even if every individual aspect of these vulnerabilities had been recognized before, it is undeniable that the risks of their synergistic (from the point of view of an attacker) combination had not been properly appreciated prior to deployment of the affected technology, and for some time after.

<comment><USER8> Interestingly, there are people for whom this is of 0 surprise, and who built systems avoiding issues like this decades ago. See e.g. many comments by user [https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nickpsecurity](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=nickpsecurity), who tries to pursue a _bona fide_ mission to educate. The main problem was of cost, and current "modern" processors are generally an example of the how the "it's cheaper to fail and then apologise" approach wins economically for consumer software.

<comment><USER9> > _The main problem was of cost, and current "modern" processors are generally > an example of the how the "it's cheaper to fail and then apologise" approach > wins economically for consumer software._

This happens everywhere; hell, that's how we ended up with Unix. "Worse is better".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have just helped the Ubuntu developers diagnose a Spectre-induced bug in the kernel that caused several machines in our office to freeze with no messages on updating to new microcode.

As a sysadmin, I am NOT looking forward to the next few months...

</comment><comment><USER11> What I don't understand is: Why is this close coexistence with a untrusted code necessary or even beneficial?

People run code from different security domains on the same L1/L2 cache. Why is that beneficial? Compared to, say, having the kernel flush the cache entirely whenever a context switch goes from one (uid/chroot/...) tuple to another, and only running processes/threads with the same tuple on the same cache at the same time?

<comment><USER12> Performance.

Usermode processes call privileged processes often (kernel APIs for example), if you flush the cache every time a context switch occurs, processing is now orders of magnitude slower.

You can absolutely can do this today. It is just slow as heck.

<comment><USER11> I've heard that before, it doesn't seem quite credible once you factor out the performance-critical code that tries to minimise context switches, and the API usage that involves a LAN.

It seems to boil down to performance-critical untrusted code that performs many kernel calls.

<comment><USER12> > I've heard that before, it doesn't seem quite credible

It doesn't seem credible that completely clearing cache and repopulating it every time a privileged context switch occurs would cause performance degradation?

> It seems to boil down to performance-critical untrusted code that performs > many kernel calls.

You're conflating the current branch prediction hotfixes with what the person above asked about which was completely clearing cache when the context is switched into a privileged state. Those are two entirely different things.

The current hotfixes try to continue to utilize many performance benefits of speculative execution, while patching out the side-channel attacks from branch prediction. The person above was asking about a complete change in the underlying model we use today, which would promote security at the cost of performance.

<comment><USER11> Would cause much performance degradation _where it matters most_.

I run some heavy jobs today. Many CPU seconds each. I don't see that those have to suffer. They can stay married to a CPU core for seconds at a time, uninterrupted, just like today. They perform few system calls, and the ones they do perform never fail any in-kernel check.

The javascript that runs in the browser suffers, sure, but that javascript has other reasons not to need several seconds of CPU.

BTW, that person was me, and you misunderstand the question. Not into a privileged state. Out of. Such that an unprivileged/unstrusted process would see cache contents produced by others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I can only assume that code compiled with the M/o/Vfuscator[0] is immune to this as it does not use branch instructions.

[0] [https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator](https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator)

</comment><comment><USER14> Question: would more widespread use of Unikernels (as opposed to virtualization and/or containers) mitigate the attack surface for this class of attacks?

<comment><USER15> Unikernels use virtualisation, so not really.</comment></comment>


How to Get Ideas and How to Measure – Stewart Butterfield and Adam D'Angelo - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsBjAuexPq4 <comment><USER2> I always find Butterfield kind of inspiring. I think his background as a philosopher gives an interesting analysis of the issues.

<comment><USER2> Bit quiet here. I wonder how many are following the startup videos.</comment></comment>


Diving within Saturn's rings - <AUTHOR> http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6410/44 <comment><AUTHOR> This is the intro article for a special issue on Cassini's data and results before it crashed into Saturn. Here's the index: [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6410](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6410)</comment>


"Guitar Hero" co-founders turned a bright idea into $100 million - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/03/guitar_hero_cofounders_turned.html <comment><USER2> I thought Harmonix was responsible for Guitar Hero's creation. This article credits RedOctane.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, they were, this is a bad article. Red Octane made the guitar peripheral.</comment></comment>


Silver or Lithium - <AUTHOR>

Is it a tougher choice than silver or lead? <comment><USER2> Devoid of context, your question means nothing.</comment>


Haven decentralized private market now open source [iOS/Android, gethaven.app] - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/gethaven/haven-is-now-open-source-720efef8e70b <comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/OpenBazaar/haven](https://github.com/OpenBazaar/haven)

Use it, or don't use it, but being able to do this all from mobile platform _feels_ BIG to me. I use it, and it's cool. My store is 404 right now or I'd share. Could be related to all the hype.

For full disclosure, I use Haven for flat rate OS reinstalls for the privacy conscious, and this app ticks all the boxes for me and my prospective customers: it's easy to use, and it's in iOS and Android app stores.

I can sort the issues out with the devs on the Telegram channel:

[https://t.me/GetHavenApp](https://t.me/GetHavenApp)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's 404 from web, but fully up in-app. Could be intended behavior, as I'm just newly using it.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is the best free music streaming service? - <AUTHOR>

A lot of them require monthly payments, or if you listen for free you get a lot of annoying ads. <comment><USER2> disco.io lets us stream and collect music from youtube, soundcloud and more for free and without ads.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> shoutcast.com is one of the few that is not blocked at my work</comment>