Julian Assange 'disappointed' as sex assault case dropped - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33907874 <comment><USER2> "Those doubting the degree of ruthlessness Assange can expect should remember the forcing down of the Bolivian president's plane in 2013 - wrongly believed to be carrying Edward Snowden."

If you think of Sweden as ABBA, think again:

"In December 2010, The Independent revealed that the two governments had discussed his onward extradition to the US."

"The rendition and subsequent torture of two Egyptian political refugees in 2001 was condemned by the UN Committee against Torture, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch; the complicity and duplicity of the Swedish state are documented in successful civil litigation"

[http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story- of-a...](http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic- struggle-for-justice)

<comment><USER3> From that link: "the Swedish authorities have never explained why they refuse to give Assange a guarantee that they will not extradite him on to the US under a secret arrangement agreed between Stockholm and Washington."

Weeeell, maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings.

Also, note that Assange was obviously _in_ Sweden when the rape allegedly happened, and only became conveniently afraid of extraditiom to US after those allegations surfaced.

<comment><USER4> "maybe because Sweden is a democracy and has no "authorities" that can guarantee the outcome of hypothetical future legal proceedings."

An extradition is not a legal proceeding, it's a diplomatic one and being a democracy they can very well agree not to engage in a diplomatic exchange beforehand.

<comment><USER5> Extradition is a legal proceeding between two countries with an existing extradition treaty. It only becomes a diplomatic proceeding if extradition is sought for charges not covered by the treaty.

<comment><USER6> Treaties are not laws.

<comment><USER7> > Treaties are not laws.

Well, I don't know what treaties are to the United Kingdom and Sweden, so I can't speak to the relevant matter, but there is a _general sense_ (insofar as "international law" can be thought of as an actual concrete thing) that treaties _are_ laws. To the United States, for example, treaties are explicitly treated as laws (see [http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-...](http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties- as-law-of-the-land.html)). Most other countries take their treaty obligations very seriously, although the actual mechanics depend on each country's legal/political system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> "On the day Marianne Ny reactivated the case, the head of Sweden's military intelligence service - which has the acronym MUST -- publicly denounced WikiLeaks in an article entitled "WikiLeaks [is] a threat to our soldiers." Assange was warned that the Swedish intelligence service, SAPO, had been told by its US counterparts that US-Sweden intelligence-sharing arrangements would be "cut off" if Sweden sheltered him."

[http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story- of-a...](http://johnpilger.com/articles/assange-the-untold-story-of-an-epic- struggle-for-justice)

</comment><comment><USER8> There's a concrete dispute mentioned in the article. Assange says the Swedes can interview him any time in the embassy, the Swedes say they've asked, and been waiting months, for permission. The article blithely quotes these conflicting statements and makes no attempt to find out who is telling the truth or what the details are.

<comment><USER9> I don't think those are quite conflicting. It sounds like Assange says he's happy for the Swedes to do it, but the Swedes are saying they can't get permission from Ecuador.

OTOH we have Assange saying "this Swedish official refused both", which could be conflicting, but it's pretty vague.

<comment><USER10> I read in an article posted here yesterday that the reason for the stalemate is that Ecuador is demanding Sweden make statements to the effect that Assange is in a legal asylum at the embassy. Sweden don't want to get involved in that side of things, they just want to interview him and so have refused that demand.

<comment><USER8> Ecuador has denied this:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/us-sweden- assange-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/10/us-sweden-assange- idUSKCN0QF1N820150810)

> The Ecuadorian embassy also said in its statement that no representative > from Sweden has turned up on their steps to interview Assange.

> Karin Rosander, spokeswoman for Swedish Prosecution Authority, said a > prosecutor had been to London in June, ready to question the Australian, but > lacking necessary permissions, she had to return home without visiting the > embassy.

So the prosecutor flew to London but wasn't willing to just take a taxi over to the embassy and knock on the door?

<comment><USER11> I think the necessary permissions missing were from her supperiors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> From the perspective of fact finding and evidence collecting, the case was for all practical purposes finished August 31, 2010. The last interview occurred that day which was with Assange, and there he was told of the charges against him which was when he then told his side of the story. All this could be read in the news papers a few days later thanks to the leaked investigation documents.

</comment><comment><USER2> Love this in the Guardian article:

"Sweden's justice ministry said it welcomed Ecuador's acceptance of its offer of negotiations, but the Guardian understands the ministry rejected a proposal by Quito to meet this week because officials were on holiday"

[http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/julian- assange-...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/julian-assange-case- progress-sweden-ecuador-negotiations-wikileaks)

</comment><comment><USER13> The Ecudardian embassy/Assange demanded from the Swedes that they agree to something that they legally cannot agree to before interviewing him. It's not really fair to blame the Swedish authorities for that.

<comment><USER14> > that they agree to something that they legally cannot agree

I'm curious what that was.

<comment><USER15> That Sweden recognise his asylum claim in Ecuador as valid, which the Swedish prosecutor does not have the legal authority to do.

There is a good writeup from a British legal blogger at [http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of- limitation-...](http://jackofkent.com/2015/08/assange-the-law-of-limitation- and-the-next-eight-days/)

It's worth picking out as well that Assange faces British legal issues from breaching his bail conditions. The bail set during his very lengthy legal process which validated the Swedish process as just. The British legal system isn't perfect but when you're a high profile individual with access to plenty of fine legal minds it's about as good as you're going to get.

<comment><USER16> The extradition hearing took three days, which is hardly a "very lengthy process". And it didn't validate the Swedish judicial process because that isn't its function. An EAW extradition hearing in the UK is merely to establish that an extraditable offence is alleged, that the party requesting the extradition has standing, and that there are no Human Rights Act issues [1]. Persons facing extradition on an EAW don't get to argue about the merits of the allegations they're facing: that happens when they arrive in the extraditing country.

[1] [https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and- review](https://www.gov.uk/extradition-processes-and-review)

<comment><USER15> Except many of the claims his supporters make, including in this thread, are that what he allegedly did aren't actually crimes. The UK court system has repeatedly held that they are analogous to UK sexual offences. Others have argued that the Swedish prosecutor can't issue a warrant, again the Supreme Court decided otherwise. Given the scope of the UK Human Rights Act, along with the argued abuse of process claims, I'm not quite sure what objections to the extraditions don't come under a heading that the court would look at.

The problem for Assange is that "but the Americans might try to extradite me, and the Swedish and British courts might suddenly become supine" isn't a valid reason to not be extradited.

<comment><USER17> I imagine the UK courts would hold that a rape charge in the UK is similar to a rape charge in Sweden. That makes sense. However, there's a difference between acknowledging that and ruling on whether the allegations have merit.

They specifically didn't look at anything other than the allegations made on the European Arrest Warrant. From the High Court decision:

> In respect of each offence, Mr Assange contended that the court should > examine the underlying material from the prosecution file... [W]hat was > provided contained the principal statements of the complainants and other > material which made it obvious that the conduct of which he was accused was > not fairly and accurately described in the EAW. [...]

> In our view, it is not apposite to take into account the material in the > prosecution file. [...]

<comment><USER13> So he wanted to be tried in the UK instead of Sweden?

<comment><USER17> That's not my point. It was implied that the High Court decision somehow validated the charges against Assange, while all they did was confirm that, yes, the UK do have laws against rape.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> "A Freedom of Information request by the Hazel Press news organisation revealed that Sweden has been granted 44 requests to interview a witness or suspect in the UK since 2010."

[https://uk.news.yahoo.com/swedish-prosecutors-slammed- victim...](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/swedish-prosecutors-slammed-victimising- julian-assange-wikileaks-100414957.html)

</comment><comment><USER18> > He still faces the more serious accusation of rape.

This should have been in the headline.

<comment><USER19> The two women say they were not raped, and were railroaded by Swedish police. So why exactly should that have been the headline?

<comment><USER20> Yes, but the state can arrest you for rape in Sweden. It doesn't have to be an accusation coming from any of the victims.

<comment><USER21> Certainly, but if the victims in the case don't feel that they've been raped, perhaps that's more important than the technicalities of what the State may or may not do.

<comment><USER22> Rape is a crime defined by its elements, not by whether or not the victim feels they were wronged. With all crimes, if a person commits a certain act with a certain intent/state of mind, they've committed a crime and the victim's feelings on the matter are irrelevant. Now, in a rape case, without the cooperation and testimony of the victim it is very hard to present enough evidence to convict a jury that the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime's elements were all present.

If rape was defined just be whether or not the victim felt it was rape, the victim could change their mind after-the-fact and Assange would go from not- rapist to rapist (and possibly to not-rapist again) based on not on their own actions by based on someone's feelings of guilt, anger, intimidation, or forgiveness a month from the act. This only makes any sense if you view crimes as being individual injuries to one person. But that isn't how criminal law works. If I walk up to you in the middle of a hackathon and stab you in the forearm, I have indeed harmed you and you can sue me for damages in civil court. However, I have also harmed society, specifically that part of society where people assume they can go to hackathon a without being stabbed.

A great source to learn about the fundamentals of criminal law and criminal procedure is this page maintained by a former prosecutor who now works as s defense attorney in NYC. [http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5)

All of this should also apply on a smaller scale to communities with Codes of Conduct: [http://thebias.com/2015/08/12/take-responsibility-for- handli...](http://thebias.com/2015/08/12/take-responsibility-for-handling- abuse/)

EDIT: I am not a lawyer and comments from a random person on the Internet do not establish an a attourney-client relationship. For actual advice about criminal or international law, please contact Nathan Burney, an actual lawyer who also happens to maintain the illustrated educational resource that I've linked to and I think is fantastic.

<comment><USER23> So, you are saying that while watering my lawn if I feel deep in my heart I'm committing a crime then I am, in fact, committing a crime?

Plus your stabbing example doesn't explain anything since you would have indeed physically harmed someone which is against the law in most jurisdictions. Considering your rape/not-rape example, a better example is that you would be arrested for thinking about stabbing someone in the arm as you are placing your hand on that arm.

If I were on the jury for either of these examples, supposed victim says no crime committed and the only evidence is the accusation from the state? There's no way you could convince me to vote to convict.

<comment><USER22> No, you need two things: the intent* and the act. If the act of watering your lawn isn't an element of any crime, then you're fine.

If the victim says that the accused did X, Y, and then Z, that is a statement of fact about what happened. If the victim then says that he doesn't think that X, Y, and Z constitute a crime, that is a statement about the law..which might just be incorrect.

* except for strict liability crimes like speeding

<comment><USER24> The thing about rape is that the intent and the act are very much intertwined with the victim's feelings of it. If the victim does not appreciate whatever is going on, the onus is on the perpetrator to realize that and stop. Failure to do so is "the act" and the intent is.. well, the state of mind where you do not choose to find out/acquiesce to the other person's desires.

However, if the "victim" says there was no rape, and has never said so, then the whole premise, including both the intent and the act, is unseated.

Disclaimer: I am no lawyer, and do not know much about this specific case. These are just my intuitions about rape laws. I also believe that if the laws, in fact, are much different from these ideas in spirit, they are SORELY off- base.

<comment><USER25> In this case, the alleged victim when interviewed described events that could certainly constitute rape - for example waking up and finding Assange having unprotected sex with her.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Are the Met Police still spending ~$16k per day on him?

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/londons-police- is...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/londons-police-is- spending-11-per-minute-to-stake-out-julian-assange/)

<comment><USER27> I am sure 16k a day is a BS number anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> The aim was to put a damper on is activities, and for the most part, it's been achieved. The Ecuadorian embassy is practically a jail for him.

<comment><USER29> The "aim", by who?

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Assange was now 5yrs 'imprisoned', how much would he have gotten in Sweden on the charges? (if proven guilty)

<comment><USER30> I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know much about Swedish law, but based on Finnish law (which tends to be very similar to Swedish), the maximum combined sentence for all the charges would have been 7 years in prison.

The combined sentence is capped to the maximum for the most severe charge plus 3 years (when the most severe max is at least 4 years). In this case the most severe one is "lesser degree rape", for which the max is 4 years (that is still open).

Based on what I've read about the case, I would have been very surprised if the actual sentence was anywhere near the maximum. Probably more like a year for the rape and another for the other three charges, if they even hold up in court.

<comment><USER13> There's another sentence. For life, Julian Assange could be talked about as "a convicted rapist".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Anyone having some ideas how how one can support Ecuador for their willingness to stand up for Assange?

I wonder how much pressure they have experienced from the US and EU over granting him asylum.

</comment><comment><USER2> "The Republic of Ecuador already made the sovereign decision to grant the journalist Julian Assange asylum on 16 August 2012. At no point has the Republic of Ecuador asked the Kingdom of Sweden to grant Mr. Assange asylum."

[http://reinounido.embajada.gob.ec/statement-by-the- embassy-o...](http://reinounido.embajada.gob.ec/statement-by-the-embassy-of- ecuador-to-the-united-kingdom-on-the-assange-matter/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Anyone considered having an appeal-able trial without his statement ? As I understand the victims claim to be no victims of a crime.

But that's probably not allowed in the legal framework.

</comment><comment><USER33> Wonderful how Assange wants everything done on his terms, if I was accused of a serious crime I'd want to be questioned from somewhere they couldn't extract me from too.

<comment><USER34> It's Ecuador demanding the terms, not Assange.

What makes this whole process so strange is the fact that there's multiple countries involved. Each country has it's own idea of human rights, it's own conception of judicial process. Judicial process in one country can easily resemble a human rights violation in another. It's one of the reasons political asylum exists. Ecuador granted Assange asylum because they recognize the possibility of Assange being extradited to a country where he's never resided for a political crime and possibly tortured for is a grave rights violation.

Ecuador is now responsible for ensuring that those rights aren't violated. They're the one's laying out the conditions, not Assange. It would make Ecuador look bad if they allowed Sweden to take charge of him, and then he ended up being extradited to the US by an organ that doesn't recognize his asylum status in another country.

Everybody involved is just trying to do their jobs, it just takes a long time to work everything out because the legal systems involved were never intended to work like this. If it were just one system, it could work as designed.

<comment><USER13> > It's Ecuador demanding the terms, not Assange.

I'd be shocked if Assange didn't agree to them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Oh such crocodile tears…

He could have avoided disappointment by allowing the Swedish authorities to question him!

All that time he was stuck in a Norfolk mansion he could have travelled to Sweden been questioned and if he was innocent as he claims be free to travel the world again.

<comment><USER36> But wasn't he afraid of extradition?

<comment><USER37> Yep. But that is often left out. (No accusation intended. It's just something people forget.)

<comment><USER15> Well he became afraid of extradition conveniently at the point at which he was facing extradition. Before then he was quite happy to spend lots of time in the West apparently unconcerned by the threat. Something that is often left out...

The UK was happy to extradite him to Sweden, we extradite people to the US as long as they aren't going to be executed. So quite why the UK extraditing him to Sweden who would then extradite him to the US is a plausible conspiracy never really gets explained.

<comment><USER38> In fairness, most people only become afraid of something when they're facing it.

As for the conspiracy theory, maybe it was the product of paranoid thinking. A more obvious conspiracy theory to me is that the US saw an opportunity to smear Assange and lent on Sweden to trump up the charges.

<comment><USER39> And yet the best they could do was 'these girls who said that he had quasi consensual ('I was sleeping') sex with them and want him to do a HIV test'?

That's a pretty low bar for a smear campaign.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Hyperlog – Modern Resume for Developers - <AUTHOR> https://hyperlog.io <comment><AUTHOR> Hello everyone! This is Aditya. For past couple of months, I have been working on Hyperlog which helps you build the modern type of resume. The main motivation behind this was that unlike other professions such as Artist/Photographers where they can show their portfolios, developers do not have any such platform. So we help you build the portfolio by doing the complete code analysis of your public Git repositories. We build your portfolio page and you can host this on your own custom domain too.

We are still in early stages of testing out the product, so please feel free to contact me about anything.</comment>


How have YC founders agreed on product names? - <AUTHOR>

And do you need to have the same url as your product name? <comment><USER2> In the book Super Crunchers, the author describes how he went about determining the name for the book: He ran a Google adword experiment between the name he wanted for the book and the name suggested by others. After running the ads for a few days, it was clear that 'Super Crunchers' had a ~50% higher click through rate. Since the book highlights such randomized experiments and their benefits, it made sense the author would have chosen this approach.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, you don't need to have the same company name as your product name, but it sure helps to have the domain name for your product name.

</comment><comment><USER4> Do it the Web 2.0 way! ;-)

pwgen -A0 6</comment>


Three years ago, I sold my startup because I was an idiot - <AUTHOR> http://peterc.org/blog/2010/257-three-years-ago-i-sold-my-startup.html <comment><USER3> I'm going to take the contrary view here and I'll say that you did fine.

Starting a business, operating it for a while and a successful exit are the whole meal, if you had continued to run it you might have crashed it or you might have been in debt now.

There is no way to know what would have happened in an alternative universe, and it's a pretty good thing on your resume to say that you ran a startup that made you and your investors money. That puts you in the < 5% bracket of the entrepreneurs.

Now you simply need to do that all again, with the lessons learned and your newfound energy, capital and the success story behind you.

You'll do very well indeed if you play your cards right.

Don't be so hard on yourself, don't compare with the 'could have been' from the perspective of it could have been more, it could have been a whole lot less too!

<comment><USER4> _"Starting a business, operating it for a while and a successful exit are the whole meal."_

Are you serious? You mean that in general, or in this particular case? Frankly, I am shocked by your assertion. Quoting Andy Grove:

 _"Intel never had an exit strategy. These days, people cobble something together. No capital. No technology. They measure eyeballs and sell advertising. Then they get rid of it. You can't build an empire out of this kind of concoction. You don't even try."_

My thoughts exactly, only expressed more eloquently. What do you want? Make a couple of million and spend the next 30 years bored by the pool drinking cocktails? Or do you want to build an empire? Sure, building an empire is hard work, but at the time of my death, I want to know I chose the path of adventure, not the easy way out.

I am by no means advocating taking enormous risks and chasing quasi-impossible dreams. But if one's startup is taking off, why not stick around and try to scale it up? Building a company of a few 100s of people from scratch sure must be a whole lot of fun. You are creating employment, you are creating wealth. If you sell your business as soon as it starts working, then you do the hard work, and someone else gets all the credit and the fun.

<comment><USER3> It all depends on your initial goals.

If your goal is to create a company that is going to be around in its original form and that will 'change the world' then by all means, stick around.

But if you create 'web-apps' for an emerging field where you'll be faced with 10's if not 100's of competitors a successful acquisition is not bad at all. In such markets shake-outs are the norm, and that period is marked by acquisitions and obituaries.

Most successful start-ups find that at some point in time they're going to be acquired.

Your comment reminds me of the criticism levelled at mint.com when they 'sold out', as though what they achieved and did was all negated by selling to their 800# gorilla competitor.

Personally I think they - and Peter Cooper, albeit at a lesser scale - <USER2> great.

Whether you should stick around or not depends on a lot of factors, your ambition, your ability to manage a larger company (and your desire to do so), your risk profile and so on.

No one size fits all, there is room enough for all strategies and tactics, what works for you may not work for everyone. Peter managed to do what very few people here will ever manage to do, in spite of all the potential, he did it under his own power, recouped his investors money _and_ paid them a premium, had a pretty much text-book acquisition for a company this size. Nothing to complain about.

Could you do better ? Maybe. But you could also do a lot worse.

The joke goes that no deal is ever right, if you manage to sell you should have waited, if you crash you've waited too long.

So a certain feeling of 'I could have done better' post sale is pretty much the norm, and maybe you really could have done (a lot) better, but for all the same money you'd have crashed horribly or you could have found yourself the proud owner of a stagnant business in a field with lots of better funded and better executing competitors. There might be a way to turn that around but it's not a given.

<comment><USER4> _"It all depends on your initial goals. If your goal is to create a company that is going to be around in its original form and that will 'change the world' then by all means, stick around. But if you create 'web-apps' for an emerging field where you'll be faced with 10's if not 100's of competitors a successful acquisition is not bad at all."_

I entirely agree. I know that HN'ers love web-apps and love thinking that "building something people want" is enough. But web-apps are too "easy", i.e., the barrier of entry is too low, and the competition is fierce. If one's business is a website, then sticking around may be foolish. Just take the cash and go build something real, and let people with a large pillow of capital take the risk.

My point is this: Andy Grove and the founders of Intel were not successful because they built "something people want". They were successful because they created something people did eventually want, because they made wise decisions at the right time, and because their skillsets made them irreplaceable almost. If you want to build an empire, then create something the world will need in the future, make sure you're the only one who knows how to do it, and capitalize on your knowledge while the rest of the world is catching up. This is extremely hard to accomplish in software, but it's not impossible in hardware. I am thinking of electronics, photonics, microfluidics, and the like... not web-apps that can be built in a weekend.

<comment><USER5> Dismissing webapps isn't really fair. Facebook succeeded in building an empire. They have a _massive_ barrier to entry via the network effect.

<comment><USER4> The webapp market is limited by people's leisure time. There can't be 10 Facebooks, because if the average person spends 30 min per day on Facebook, then it would have to spend 4h30min on the other 9 webapps. Nobody has that much time. The market for electronics, photonics is almost unlimited... because these technologies are meant to automate, not to entertain. This is not a matter of electronics being "nobler" than webapps, it's just the realization that one encounters certain limitations in the webapp area that do not exist elsewhere.

<comment><USER3> Not all web-apps are leisure oriented. Plenty of them are B2B and plenty of them are giving a tangible return on time invested to the users.

<comment><USER4> You mean software as service kind of stuff? Would you care to provide some examples?

<comment><USER3> Dating sites (b2c), dropbox (both b2b and b2c), tarsnap (b2b), drupal, wordpress, ebay and so on, there must be thousands of examples.

<comment><USER6> FWIW, Tarsnap is both b2b and b2c. My best guess from eyeballing email addresses and talking to some Tarsnap users is that businesses are only 20% of Tarsnap users, although they account for about 80% of the total usage.

<comment><USER3> That's a real surprise to me! (was it to you?)

The way tarsnap is marketed I'd never ever expected it to be b2c, most private individuals I know outside of computing would have a very hard time understanding what it's all about without a lot of explanation. That's really interesting.

<comment><USER6> I didn't say that the private individuals who use Tarsnap are outside of computing. I know a lot of unix geeks. :-)

<comment><USER3> Ah right, of course, why didn't I think of that angle. That should have been obvious. To my defence I'll say I wrote that before my morning tea while on a holiday. Will try harder next time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> interesting... so what are the rules here? I mean, you sold a company, now you are thinking about starting another company that essentially competes with it... is that legally questionable? is it rude? is there usually a time- limited non-compete written into the sale contract?

I mean, I've turned down a few offers for my own business in the same price range. If I could turn around and build another, competing business, it would likely make sense for me to sell. but if I have to find some other line of work? well, unlike you, I value the few grand a month I make over the couple hundred grand I'd get from selling it. I really, really like doing this.

But if I could sell out, then turn around and start over, competing with the company I sold, keeping my knowledge and experience uh, I probably would.

<comment><USER8> What would be rude about it? They bought you for the term of the non-compete, not the rest of your life. If they wanted to own you for life they should formally negotiate that, and pay you off accordingly. How much is the rest of your career in your field of expertise worth? That's what they should have to pay you.

You should talk to a lawyer and get the ground rules for competing with your former company; for example, you may have to take care to document that you aren't making use of IP that you sold to them. But, in general, why not? Ask Steve Jobs about the ethics of starting up NeXT after founding Apple. Ask the Intel folks about leaving Fairchild to found a direct competitor. Ask most founders, really.

<comment><USER7> eh, my expectations are different from yours. I clawed my way up from the bottom, without a lawyer. I contracted for several rather scummy companies, all of whom wanted overly broad and perpetual non-compete agreements for $60/hr (I was rather younger) contracting gigs. (oh yeah, and those contracts? almost invariably they had extremely poor grammar and spelling.)

Now, not knowing such things were unenforceable and generally wanting to keep my word, I refused to sign the non-competes. Sometimes I'd get the work anyhow, sometimes not. But when doing business with a larger entity, I expect to get screwed. The deck is going to be unfairly stacked against me; that's just how the world works, and you've got to expect and to deal with that as is. It's not something I feel I can change.

also, there are all sorts of spoken and unspoken rules in business... I know when I was primarily a contractor, I, of course, always tried to cut out the middle man, and that is considered /extremely rude/ in that market. (I mean, /I/ was never asked to sign something I wouldn't go direct, but usually the client is.) now, it wasn't rude enough to stop people from pimping me out, but I think it was part of the reason I was never able to become a body shop myself, in spite of having good people working for me.

Now, some things are rude, but I do them anyhow, like shopping around for quotes, and telling vendors what other vendors quoted you. I mean, sure, the sales guys think it's rude, but who cares? all the products I buy have many, many vendors, so pissing off any one doesn't matter at all.

Still, before I violate a social rule, I'd like to know it is a social rule and why. and then make an informed decision as to if I want to break it or not.

<comment><USER9> _and then make an informed decision as to if I want to break it or not._

While I'm not a customer of yours (due to bad timing, mostly) I'm going to be mean and note that I've seen a lot of people singing your praises and who really love your services.

The almost immediate crash in the level of service received is something my ex-customers were rather vocal about in the support forums for a few months thereafter. On the plus side, your business doesn't seem to be particularly service driven and customers are very used to acquisitions in the hosting sector (I'm friends with the founders of a big host that sold for 8 figures recently and their customers didn't bat an eyelid).

<comment><USER7> yeah, I doubt that an acquisition would lower the total level of service, if done properly, and it would almost certainly vastly improve the response time. I'm really weak on response time right now. It's a problem. It would probably decrease the average skill of the person answering the support mail, but that's probably a fair trade.

My guess would be that the major downside for the customers is that while I remain committed to being the lowest price player in the field, I doubt anyone wanting to buy me would feel the same. The gentle side of that is that in this industry, you raise prices by not lowering them, so if that was a huge problem for customers, they have plenty of time to move. on the upside, the 'out of space' sign would go away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just think of it as taking "Release early" and "Iterate" to the next level. In this case, your iteration involved executing on an idea, building a business out of it, then selling. You've been there, done that. Now you're equipped with lessons you've learned from your first iteration, and are ready to start your next. And you're not even 30!

It's certainly a better problem than, say, wondering if you can actually build something that will allow you to quit your boring day job.

Good luck!

<comment><USER9> That's a cool way of looking at it! Thanks! :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > In 2006 I got an e-mail from Michael Arrington who wanted to write about > Feed Digest for TechCrunch (yes, one of the biggest and most influential > tech blogs in the world). Being a closet perfectionist, I asked if I could > hold until the magical version 2 was released.

Man, I hate perfectionism. I've done a similarly stupid thing or two. This is something worth striving against.

</comment><comment><USER12> I posted this on the blog, but it is relevant here also:

"As someone who is in a similar position you were, what advice do you have? I have a website that generates a few thousand dollars a month. Like you said, it's enough to live by, but I'm doing everything myself and I'm not sure how to scale.

You mentioned being able to see what you were doing wrong...what was that? Do you have any tips?"

<comment><USER12> fyi here was his response to me:

"It's hard to come up with any gems of advice for you specifically because you're in an area I really don't understand - entertainment. Humor, games, and other sorts of light entertainment are obviously a big business (CollegeHumor, Break, Sickipedia, JibJab, Kongregate, et al. show this) but I haven't got a grip on how they work at all. I've kept my focus on software and technical content and I could write quite a bit about that.. that sounds like it should be one of my next blog posts ;-)

It's generic, but my best advice to you would be to figure out who is using your site and why, and optimize heavily to that demographic. Once you know who's using your site, you can make them keep coming back by optimizing the experience. Once you keep people coming back (or new people coming in), you can target money making products and services at them. It seems to me that entertainment sites are heavily focused on sponsorships and advertising as their main revenue streams with subscriptions and products coming a way behind. CollegeHumor, for example, are running a Converse sponsorship right now, and they can sell this sort of package because they have a strong grasp on the demographic of people hitting their site. It's like how Rolex and Prada always advertise in the glossy fashion or "wealth" magazines.. they want to stay in the consciousness of a certain demographic. With weed smoking, you might have an uphill struggle with that.

Another approach is to find existing successes that relate in any way to your own site and see how they are making money. Even if you can't get any numbers, people's sales channels are usually quite transparent because that's how they get people in to make money. How are other sites related to marijuana making money, if at all?"

<comment><USER9> I'm sorry it wasn't a particularly strong one, but I'm very interested in your story and how it pans out. Hopefully you'll blog about it or post here if something significant happens.

<comment><USER12> For sure. I'm new to it and I never expected to make as much as I have. It's been an invaluable experience.

I actually did secure some direct advertisers from the UK, the payments should be on their way, and then I'll have some more revenue which is good. Still not as scalable as I'd like, though. I only got $2 CPM from them...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> As Peter mentioned, with the services available today, many startup ideas are much, much easier to implement.

What hasn't changed are the needs of getting users, charging enough, and having the guts to do it in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER13> 'it would be an understatement to say I was naïve about the concerns of "running a business."'

He missed the forest for the trees in terms of his industry. As he says at the end of the article, it is only now - 3 years later - that he has enough perspective to see some of what he did wrong.

His story reminds me a lot of Gerber's master technician who is good at his craft but not the business thereof. Fortunately for him, that industry is still quite small but has massive potential, and he could jump in again (assuming the terms of sale allow it).

</comment><comment><USER14> Peter, I think it somewhat boils down to your motivation. If you're thinking you want to start a new business similar to the one you sold solely because it can make you more money and "legally, it's ok," then sure, that's probably a bit unethical and rude.

But face it: by your own admission, you didn't really know what you were doing the first go around. You think you can do better this time, and, most importantly, build something that can scale better and be very useful to a wider range of people and enterprises. You'd be building on past experience to create something better that adds value to the world and (possibly) wouldn't exist otherwise.

Try to look beyond your own particular situation and think, "could the world be better if I started working on this stuff again?" And if you think the answer to that is yes, I feel like you should be able to proceed without any feelings of guilt or rudeness. The fact that you can make some money doing it is certainly motivation (we're human, after all), but it's almost besides the point.

You sold your company, and you honored the terms of that sale. If you think you have an opportunity to do something awesome that you'd enjoy and you're passionate about... go for it!

</comment><comment><USER15> Honestly, calling yourself an idiot is a huge turnoff. You automatically make me want to not cheer you on. It makes me feel like you deserve to fail. Bill gates, Steve Jobs, Paul Grahams and many other famous people have had failures before becoming successful but you have never heard them call themselves idiots (as far as I'm aware). If nothing else they would call those failures "early attempts at success". And the worst thing is that what you did cannot really be called a failure so what is wrong with you? Even if you think that you are no longer an idiot the title and article gives waves of no confidence. My advise, please never call yourself an idiot; your subconscious will start to believe you're an idiot and so will other people. Is difficult to describe but just remembering your article I feel repulsion. I wonder whether other people feel like this. Anybody else or do I just have issues?

<comment><USER16> Can't speak for anyone else, but I disagree. Title notwithstanding, the article is a nice piece of self-reflection. The author clearly looked at his semi-successful past, and managed to see both what he did right, and what he did wrong. Not many people are as able (or willing) to dig deep like that, much less share those thoughts with others. I'm happy he did so so that I have a chance to learn, and I also think it takes great confidence to admit what you did wrong.

<comment><USER15> Nothing wrong with learning from your failures. I do it all the time. I Think back about the times that I screw up and that if I'd had more experience things would have turned different. But hindsight is 20-20 so calling yourself an idiot just because you had no experience and were learning is unfair to yourself. What is the necessity of calling himself an idiot and then trying to convince us that he is an idiot. It smells a lot like low confidence and I'm not sure I want to be around him if he feels that way. The paper could have been written as lessons learned from his first startup. The way he portrays himself is just completely wrong. I noticed he has other articles and I just cannot force myself to read them. He did to good a job in his article convincing me that he was an idiot. How do I know he still is not one. He probably is not because of what he did (he made a good amount of money) but emotionally I still feel like he is an idiot. Weird huh?

<comment><USER9> _It smells a lot like low confidence_

I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve. From endless private conversations and all of the entrepreneurs I'm friends with, I'm somewhere in the middle confidence-wise, but others are better at projecting an image of greater confidence. I'm a humble and extremely introverted engineer and just don't project an image that's either above or below my station. I accept that this is a flaw in certain walks of life, particularly business.

 _He probably is not because of what he did (he made a good amount of money) but emotionally I still feel like he is an idiot. Weird huh?_

Sure, I'm still an idiot in _lots_ of things. There's always more to learn, always more wisdom to extract from situations, always better ways to deal with things.

I think I feel as much uncertainty or intimidation as anyone who tackles difficult work - I'm just not scared to admit my shortcomings. As I said before, I think this might just be a clash in our cultures and approaches to life.

Do you feel the same way about Derek Sivers? He recently wrote about assuming he's always "below average" in things. His thought process is similar to mine: <http://sivers.org/below-average>

<comment><USER16> I think I know the difference between fmora and me. I forgot the article's title (I'm an idiot) before reading the article, so everything I read came off as a lot of honest introspection. Just like with Derek Sivers' article.

On the other hand, it seems to me that others, who go into the article with the idea that it's going to be a lot of low-confidence self-pity type statements, approach it with a different attitude.

Obviously I can't speak for fmora or anyone else, but the impression I get from his statements make me think the title of the article is the main sticking point; taking it too literally colors the rest of the article in a much more negative light. On that note, Derek's article is titled in a "better" way, since saying "I'm below average" has nowhere near the negative undertones that saying "I'm an idiot" has.

fmora - Would you agree with what I'm saying? Or am I misinterpreting?

<comment><USER15> I think you got it. Calling yourself and idiot has huge negative undertones for me. I do understand that smart people tend to undervalue themselves. Trying to convince everybody you are an idiot (or that you were an idiot) just didn't sit well with me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not to put to fine a point on it, but does anyone use feed readers anymore? Hell, does anyone read feeds at all anymore? I'm the geek in my circle and no one I know relies on feeds.

I've tried to 'get it' about why they are good and have given them a try, but I end up back at HN or Reddit for my updates. Am I missing something that everyone else knows about? Is my time being wasted checking web pages instead of checking feeds?

<comment><USER9> I can't answer your overarching question, but the majority of Feed Digest's users were merely processing snd republishing feeds to HTML includes for their sites rather than actually subscribing to or using the RSS output features. Think RSS-to-HTML (or JavaScript.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What blog post or essay have you read that has changed you? - <AUTHOR> I read "I have died many times" by CGPGrey back in 2016 and it completely changed me and my outlook on myself and other people <comment><USER2> This TED talk has had a profound effect on me for many reasons - [https://www.ted.com/talks/martine_rothblatt_my_daughter_my_w...](https://www.ted.com/talks/martine_rothblatt_my_daughter_my_wife_our_robot_and_the_quest_for_immortality)

</comment><comment><USER3> That piece you mention is some good food for thought.

I'm also realizing that the hand wringing at the end about the "Internet never forgets" has turned out to be fairly false. We almost have the opposite problem with links constantly dying.</comment>


Open Philanthropy Project awards a grant of $30M to OpenAI - <AUTHOR> http://www.openphilanthropy.org/focus/global-catastrophic-risks/potential-risks-advanced-artificial-intelligence/openai-general-support <comment><USER3> There's lots of concern about the bizarre relationship disclosure. But perhaps even more bizarre is that this deal has a structure closer to a strategic move than actual philanthropy. Am I massively misreading this?

This page details how their main goal with the $30M isn't to increase OpenAI's pledged funds by 3%, thereby reducing the marginal "AI Risk" by less than 3%. The goal is to have a seat on the board (basically -- they use a lot more words to say this in the announcement). What on earth is going on where a charitable organization with Open in its name feels it needs to buy its way onto the board of a prominent non-profit in order to:

"Improve our understanding of the field of AI research"

"[get] opportunities to become closely involved with any of the small number of existing organizations in "industry""

and "Better position us to generally promote the ideas and goals that we prioritize"

Isn't the whole point of "open philanthropy" that you can direct funds to organizations more open about what's going on?!

</comment><comment><USER4> Scroll to the end. This is a $30M grant to the guy's roommate and future brother-in-law.

Unbelievable.

<comment><USER5> I want to make sure I fully understand the accusation here.

You're saying that the Open Philanthropy Fund - which is funded by an $8.3 billion grant from Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna, also close associates - <USER2> funneling $30M money to an organization that pays below market rates ([https://www.quora.com/What-is-compensation-like-at-the- non-p...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-compensation-like-at-the-non-profit- OpenAI)), run by people who have dedicated their professional careers and millions of dollars to philanthropic causes despite being surrounded by way more lucrative opportunities for anyone with their skillsets.

If this were the scheme, there are countless better ways to do it.

They could just give them the money without any pretense. Dustin and Cari didn't have to tie up this money in OPP. They could have skipped the years of working with Holden and others for years to identify the best giving opportunities, avoided any blowback, and just used their money the way every other billionaire does. Or, instead of just giving it away, they could have made him an absurdly compensated CEO of a new startup.

And none of that would have attracted any attention, no sneering condemnation, just business as usual.

But that's not what they did.

They've spent years painstakingly identifying the best causes they could find - anti-malarial nets, poverty relief via direct cash transfers, biosecurity, intestinal work treatment, Schistosomiasis, prison reform, and yes, AI safety. They've oriented their entire lives around this project, so of course many of the people they're close to are working on similar projects. So it really, really shouldn't be a _shocking twist_ that one of the people they're close to might be in a position to use a small fraction of their available funds for a lot of potential good. There are fewer than 100 people working full-time on AI safety today. If you've concluded that it's an important cause area, there really aren't many options.

And even then, they didn't have to disclose their personal connection. They really could have just left well enough alone. But because they're dedicated to transparency even in the face of stupidity, they made their personal connection prominent and obvious. So now anyone on the Internet can cruise on by and - ignoring the millions donated to third-world poverty and health causes, ignoring the multitude of ways the money could have been quietly and selfishly used, ignoring the fact that non-profits invariably pay below-market rates, ignoring the copious public writing and research that's gone into these decisions - can simply gawk and say "unbelievable".

When people say "No good deed goes unpunished", this is what they're talking about.

<comment><USER6> I don't know - it certainly seems to me that this seriously tarnishes the credibility of Give Well, whose stated aim is to improve _everyone 's_ (not just Dustin's) charitable resource allocation.

The likelihood that this $30m is the best possible use of that money? It just happens to be that this personal connection occurs by chance? Pretty much zero. Of course all opportunities in life are down to your network, but this is pretty cut-and-dry nepotism.

If this were a totally unrelated personal investment by Dustin in a friend, it would not be seen as problematic. By investing through these supposedly impartial organisations that aim to influence everyone's behaviour, their credibility in this mission is clearly harmed.

(At least this my initial response, while allowing that this may change if a more detailed analysis shows this to be misplaced. But without this expression of mistrust, such an analysis is highly unlikely to take place, and I do not immediately see how it could fully alleviate this concern)

<comment><USER7> This personal connection did not occur by chance, but the causality you assign is reversed. Holden did not support OpenAI because his housemates work there. Rather, it is because of their similar worldviews that they live together in the first place. It is unsurprising that people who think safe AGI is a critically important investment end up in the same social circle.

<comment><USER8> Holden isn't an AGI researcher though, he's a person who's made his name arguing that some charities are much more efficient uses of money than others. Indeed when asked to review the Singularity Institute, as well as criticising the organisation itself he gave long and detailed arguments why he _didn 't_ think unfriendly AGI was a threat, was sceptical about trying to combat it through AI research and dismissed the general form of arguments about the crucial importance of donating to it as "Pascal's mugging". At best you could say he was more open-minded towards the possibility his mind might be changed on the issue than the average person.

It would be difficult to imagine that two people with very close relationships to him working for OpenAI haven't influenced his apparent change of heart; whether they've converted him to the cause by sheer force of intellectual argument or not it doesn't look great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> That's awesome! Open Philanthropy reminds me of [https://80000hours.org/](https://80000hours.org/).

In their relationship disclosure:

> OpenAI researchers Dario Amodei and Paul Christiano are both technical > advisors to Open Philanthropy and live in the same house as Holden. In > addition, Holden is engaged to Dario's sister Daniela.

This is so tangled. I don't mean it as a criticism as I'm sure a lot of SV investments would have a much longer Relationship Disclosure sections. So props to them for including this.

<comment><USER10> Well, I would use it as a criticism. This is a tangled web of like-minded people giving money to each other and calling it charity.

Some people conflate this with Effective Altruism, which I think sucks. Compared to the rigorous work done by GiveWell, there's no way to tell if this is effective, or even altruistic.

It's just people assuming that the world will be a better place if more people who think like them have money, an assumption held by basically everyone everywhere.

<comment><USER5> Holden's dedicated a huge chunk of his career to moving hundreds of millions of dollars to alleviating poverty and disease. He's one of the founders of the effective altruism movement. You may disagree with his decision here, but to dismiss his efforts, saying it "sucks" and isn't "effective, or even altruistic", while ignoring the extensive public writing he's done on the subject that led him to these views and strawmanning his position as nepotism, is just awful.

"I disagree with the arguments presented, for these reasons" \- cool. If you think the grant isn't a good idea, make an argument for that.

"This person who has dedicated their life to doing as much good as possible is close to other people who also want to do as much good as possible, and their work has led to convergent viewpoints, therefore this isn't altruism" is cheap character assassination.

<comment><USER3> > strawmanning his position as nepotism

So, you obviously feel strongly about this, but let me explain why your comments are less persuasive for those of us outside this subculture:

The non-profit they donated to is (by any reading of their mission statement) an organization designed to create new technology that "will be the most significant technology ever created by humans" according to their own statements. It doesn't disburse cash or benefits to _anyone_, and actually pledges to keep some of the research secret, and "we expect to create formal processes for keeping technologies private when there are safety concerns" \-- a situation the organization claims will happen, presumably regularly!

Creating influential technology is typically done for-profit, and research is typically funded in ways much less open to individual favoritism (review boards are a great anti-corruption tool), and the results of that research are typically available to (among others) the people that fund it. There is a lot about this situation that a reasonable person would describe as unusual.

In addition, all of these changes -- introducing more direct funding with less oversight, lack of access to results, lack of expectation of benefit to the targets of the charity -- all lend themselves to obscuring a fraud. That doesn't mean a fraud is present, but I'd be extremely aggressive about oversight.

What kind of oversight are we getting? Well, right now they list one of their major goals as the "tricky" goal of figuring out of they're making any progress at all.

I would not give this organization money. Dismissing these critiques as "character assassination" ignores the fact that I've only described aspects of the organization, not of the people involved, whom I have little information about.

<comment><USER8> Moreover, to add further context, the whole basis of Holden's effective altruism work has been around the idea that philanthropic dollars _ought_ to be focused on charities with extremely rigorous proof behind how much they improve people's lives per dollar donated, and how much they need the money.

That context makes advising a donor to direct an "unusually large" sum to an organisation with an extremely vague goal and no tangible measure of progress towards it, little of the transparency demanded of other charities and existing funding commitments well in excess of their spending plans look like an extremely strange decision long before you read the disclosure statement.

<comment><USER5> > Moreover, to add further context, the whole basis of Holden's effective > altruism work has been around the idea that philanthropic dollars ought to > be focused on charities with extremely rigorous proof behind how much they > improve people's lives per dollar donated, and how much they need the money.

This isn't quite true; SCI, a charity that treats parasitic disease in the third world, is the subject of massive uncertainty and conflicting reports of effectiveness. It might turn out that it has very little impact at all. But it's still a recommended EA charity because it looks like there's a decent chance they're doing a ton of good. GW has written extensively about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Two organizations that exploit the implications of the word "Open" as it is used in the world of technology to market their own private companies and organizations.

<comment><USER12> The Open Philanthropy Project uses the word 'Open' to mean ([http://www.openphilanthropy.org/what-open-means- us](http://www.openphilanthropy.org/what-open-means-us)):

"Open to many possibilities ... instead of starting with a predefined set of focus areas, we're considering a wide variety of causes where our philanthropy could help to improve others' lives." and "Open about our work ... Very often, key discussions and decisions happen behind closed doors, and it's difficult for outsiders to learn from and critique philanthropists' work. We envision a world in which philanthropists increasingly document and share their research, reasoning, results and mistakes to help each other learn more quickly and serve others more effectively."

This all seems pretty useful so I don't get what your criticism is.

<comment><USER11> My criticism is that it isn't open, which is more or less absolute. Every organization is "a little" open, sharing the information that benefits them. And that seems to be what OpenAI intends to do: be open about that which suits them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When OpenAI was announced, they mentioned having $1B in funding. Why the additional $30M?

<comment><USER14> See section 2, "Case for the grant".

<comment><USER15> I went through it but didn't see anything addressing why OpenAI needed more money.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can someone explain why both orgs contain the world "Open" \- I would say pretty misleading.

OpenAI hasn't released any open code or anything open.

And is OpenAI even about A.I.? (as several other here mentioned it's not AI)

<comment><USER17> OpenAI has released several open-source packages (see [https://github.com/openai](https://github.com/openai) and [https://openai.com/systems/](https://openai.com/systems/)) and several open research publications (see [https://openai.com/research/](https://openai.com/research/))

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> If some of the comments I read on other AI related articles here on HN are correct,

1 mil / year per expert * 10 experts per year = 30 Mil in 3 years

Maybe $30 mil isn't as much as we think it is in AI business?

<comment><USER19> _1 mil / year per expert_

Is this realistic?

I don't think it's impossible for a dev to be pulling $1M/yr in total comp, but it seemed more likely happen at Google or FB rather than AI.

<comment><USER20> Note that this says "per expert". I'm not sure what exactly you'd consider an "expert", but I think a reasonable definition of "expert" could result in your average expert being a million-dollar-a-year engineer.

<comment><USER21> Does a thing like a million a year engineer exist?

I feel like this number would make more sense for a pool of researchers with a strong lead than a single person.

<comment><USER20> While I obviously don't know for sure, I'm quite confident that there are a nonzero number of employees at any very large Tech Company that are engineers (ie. do development work, commit nontrivial code), and whose compensation is over $1,000,000 USD. I doubt its common, and I would expect that many of those employees are not "just" engineers (ie. at the point where you are doing work that is that valuable, its almost a certainty that you are leading a team, and you are designing things), but I'm confident they exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Assume for a minute that AGI is being developed and in no way shape or form does it function or is it formed in a manner that mainstream AI efforts focus on...

That hypothetical could very well be the reality on the horizon.

What of Safety/Control research that has fundamentally nothing to do with such a system or even its philosophy that the broad majority of these institutions or ventures are centered on? What of deep learning centric methodologies that are incompatible?

Safety/control software and systems development isn't a research topic. It's an engineering practice that is most suited for well qualified and practiced engineers who design safety critical systems that are present all around you.

Safety/Control Engineering isn't a 'lab experiment'. If one were aiming to secure, control and ensure the safety of a system, they'd likely hire a grey bearded team of engineers who are experts and have proven careers doing so. A particular systems design can be imparted on well qualified engineers. This happens everyday.

Without a systems design or even a systems philosophy these efforts are just intellectual shots in the dark. Furthermore, has anyone even stopped to consider that these problems would get worked out naturally during the development of such a technology?

Modern day AI algorithms and solutions center on mathematical optimization.

AGI centers are far deeper and elusive constructs. One can ignore this all to clear truth all they like.

So... If one's real concern is about the development of AGI and understanding therein, I think its fine time to admit that it might not come from the race horses everybody's betting on. As such, it is much more worth one's penny to start funding a diverse range of people and groups pursuing it who have sound ideas and solid approaches.

This advice can continue to be ignored such as it currently is and has been for a number of years. It can persist across rather narrow hiring practices....

The closed/open door will or wont swing both ways.

</comment><comment><USER23> Reading Bloomberg news too much makes me think AI research will only be used to classify ads and make more efficient securities trading algorithms.

I will love to be proven wrong though.

</comment><comment><USER24> " When OpenAI launched, it characterized the nature of the risks - and the most appropriate strategies for reducing them - in a way that we disagreed with. In particular, it emphasized the importance of distributing AI broadly; our current view is that this may turn out to be a promising strategy for reducing potential risks, but that the opposite may also turn out to be true (for example, if it ends up being important for institutions to keep some major breakthroughs secure to prevent misuse and/or to prevent accidents). Since then, OpenAI has put out more recent content consistent with the latter view, and we are no longer aware of any clear disagreements. "

Really, really happy to see this being carefully considered. Good job to the Open Philanthropy folks!

EDIT: That Slate Star link is amazing: "Both sides here keep talking about who is going to "use" the superhuman intelligence a billion times more powerful than humanity, as if it were a microwave or something."

<comment><USER25> [https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be- open/](https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/12/17/should-ai-be-open/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think there are more important causes than "reducing potential risks from advanced AI". Honest to god, $30M will go a long way in saving lives TODAY. Flint, MI anyone?

<comment><USER27> There are always going to be more important causes, under any particular person's view of "more important", which depends very strongly on both subjective values and (in the case of AI alignment work) on precise probabilities of far-future outcomes. A dollar given to the Against Malaria Foundation will do a lot more good, in QALY terms, than the same dollar spent in Flint. And both dollars will do more (direct) good than a dollar given in funding to, say algebraic geometry research.

Yet somehow we think it's important to fund all these things, and articles announcing new NSF grants for math research are not typically met with this kind of whatabout-ism.

<comment><USER28> Nothing about OpenAI actually addresses any real world problem. So i have a problem with their rhetoric as much as their research agenda.

Nothing they're writing about addresses any of the real world problems with how AI can or might be applied in society. They're a non-profit research lab with no clear agenda and no clear connection to how they plan to interrogate _the world_ which seems like an important part of the equation if you care about outcomes.

So, irrespective of subjective judgements, please explain to me how any of this is supposed to help anyone?

Or, alternatively, how isn't this just free R&D for industry unshackled and unconnected to ethics or society?

<comment><USER29> I think the thesis is that most cutting-edge work is siloed in R&D departments of big players. OpenAI hopes to ensure the power of AI will be out there for any kind of organization to benefit from. Under the assumption that a more democratized AI capability is less likely to lead to an adverse outcome than a highly concentrated one.

I'm not sure I buy it, but that's what I think it is.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: US government funds a lot of tech research, why don't startups use it? - <AUTHOR> Some people know about SBIRs (small business innovative research grants), through which federal government gives away more than $1B of R&D funding to small businesses. There are many more opportunities open for small businesses. For example, AirForce recently opened a $100M solicitation looking for machine learning technologies.
I know government grant process can be very cumbersome but so is trying to raise VC money (especially outside of SV). And government money is non-dilutive.
I am noticing more startups (e.g. Palantir, Anduril) starting off of government opportunities, but they seem very rare.
Why isn't gov funding a more common way of starting a startup? Is it mostly because people don't know about these and/or don't know how to navigate the process? <comment><USER2> I don't know about the USA, but in Australia all these government programs come with so much paperwork and bullshit that it's not worth it.

The most successful program, Accelerating Commercialisation (or Commercialising Acceleration, or whatever this year's government is calling it) requires matching funding, only funds a specific project, and takes around 3-6 months to complete the application process. Very suitable for a existing small business trying to create a new product line, totally useless for a startup trying to iterate in a new market quickly.

The grant also comes with a case worker to follow progress, and the money is released in tranches according to achievement milestones. All sounds great on paper, but it completely ignores the fact that the original plan will definitely change in response to new information or market changes.

I've known a few people who've been through the process, and they all said that the money wasn't worth the hassle involved.

And that's the best, most successful government funding program. The others are worse, way worse.

The root cause is that the mindset needed to be a successful bureaucrat is so far away from the mindset needed to be a successful entrepreneur. There's no way any program that would actually be useful to entrepreneurs will be acceptable to the bureaucrats who administer it.

Also, the purpose of any funding program is complete the moment that a politician steps up to a TV camera to accept credit for creating it. Anything that happens after that is pointless/just a bonus. The point of all these programs is not to actually help new businesses, but to help political careers.

My advice to anyone looking to get government help for their business is to not bother, it's just a distraction from communicating with customers. And it'll be five times as time-consuming and painful as you expect, with one fifth the return you expect.

<comment><USER3> I worked on a software project funded from an EU grant (which essentially funded half of the company); from this + some conversations with other entrepreneurs interested in EU grants, my impression is that the reality is similar over here.

It's cool that you can get lots of money for essentially a wishlist on a piece of paper (though to actually get that money, your best bet is to hire someone specializing in writing EU grant proposals). However, the amount of paperwork couple years in, involved in verifying you spent the money appropriately, is so big you'll regret ever taking the grant.

(One could say that entrepreneurs are partially to blame for this one, though. I hear that initially, it was much easier to work with EU grants, but a lot of people wrote up bullshit proposals and stole the grant money.)

<comment><USER4> The last sentence is kind of the key issue. If you're a good entrepreneur skilled at doing your job well, it's very hard to compete with a good crook skilled at doing his job well; and you have to worry about your actual product while he can focus on making the paper milestones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My $.02 as someone who has applied for multiple SBIR grants with one winning proposal.

1\. Government proposal selection is painstakingly tedious and slow. 2\. There are actual politics involved with final selections and winners may be pre- selected to win through information back channels that exist outside of the official process. 2\. Big contracting firms (GD, Boeing, British Aerospace, Leidos, etc.) with a lot of political muscle and connections pair with connected small companies and individuals to help them win these contracts. It's not only allowed that they do this - it's actually suggested. [1] In return they get consulting fees and free R&D for future product lines.

[1] [https://www.sbir.gov/tutorials/preparing- proposal/tutorial-4](https://www.sbir.gov/tutorials/preparing- proposal/tutorial-4)

<comment><USER6> You're being too kind on point #2

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think that many people forget that one can start a company without being a "start up". Foray people, success doesn't always mean raising a ton of VC funding and aiming for a huge valuation.

I started my company over 18 years ago. We have a lot of fun doing really interesting work for interesting customers. We're now a "commercial" company funding ourselves through commercial sales. However before we reached that point we had a few SBIR grants as well as some other US govt grants. Total was about 4M. I'd say that was helpful and valuable especially during the recession. Ironically we've sold more product to non-US governments than US.

We try to only apply to grants that are 95% focused on what we want to do anyway. We've also found that applying to grants we find out about from public solicitations is not worth the effort. To win these grants one needs to find a sponsor interested in your technology, then get them to write a solicitation that is focused on your unique sauce. It doesn't gaurentee you winning the grant but does increase the chances of your being considered.

I am a little jaded on this topic. I feel that my team has really leveraged these findings into real products and, in turn, jobs. However I see TONS of companies that just charge through grants and never do anything greater with the funding. As a small business owner and tax payer (funder of these grants) that is not what I think is an ideal use of the money.

</comment><comment><USER8> Our company did a handful of these before we sought VC funding.

I have to agree with most everything said already.

You'll starve before the contract gets funded - it can take years and you will likely be on a second generation of code by then.

It's hugely political. We partnered with larger competitors and spent a lot of cash on legal fees and patent protections.

Net profit was just not worth it alone - but we had a few prestigious projects that helped us get on the GSA schedule, get FIPS and CC certified, and snag a few hard-earned customers.

Honestly I wouldn't do it again unless it had a contingent long term contract.

</comment><comment><USER6> After years of inside experience with SBIR applicants and the various agencies I can say confidently that is largely a sham to funnel money to those who make friendships and scratch the backs of the various agency heads and their underlings. Also, the things I saw regarding how the agencies and their contacts exchange private data were frightening. People talk about the "deep state" of unelected bureaucrats. It doesn't have to be some grand plan to exert great power. These programs are robbing taxpayers to enrich a small clique with self-serving goals, returning little of value. The Idaho company of "solar freaking roadways" fame is an SBIR boondoggle, that should tell you something, and I think they made it to Phase II.

<comment><USER9> I think you are exaggerating. The goal of SBIRs is to fund high risk research. Solar roadways are high risk; even if it fails completely it's not like a lot of money is wasted, and something valuable is still learned.

Qualcomm was the result of SBIRs, for example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Currently VC backed companies are barred from competing on SBIRs. There is legislation currently in the works to change that. But gov funding isn't more common currently because you legally can't do it.

Edit: I need to amend that to say majority-VC backed companies can't be awarded SBIRs:

Source: [https://www.fedscoop.com/sbir-dod-legislation-mac- thornberry...](https://www.fedscoop.com/sbir-dod-legislation-mac-thornberry/)

<comment><USER11> > In 2003, courts ruled companies with more than 50 percent venture capital > ownership are ineligible for SBIR grants.

This seems like it would be a rare case, especially early in a company's lifecycle. Any company that is majority owned by VCs is either very late stage, or suffered a down round. Nobody is raising Series A or B while giving away more than 50% of their company to investors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's a pretty serious disconnect between the demand of those that the SBIR program is meant to serve, and the mindset of those actually receiving SBIR grants.

On the demand side - many of the intended customers of SBIR grants (government agencies who need a specific technology solution) can get what they want faster, and with lower risk, through an existing contractor. You could gamble with a two person company funded by a few hundred thousand government dollars, or you could go to a Raytheon or a United Technologies and get the same thing made by a team of experts who will build you exactly what you want. In terms of deliverables, the risk profile is much lower (and the resulting upside to your mission is much higher) if you go with the big contractor. SBIR exists to fund some of the riskier technology efforts, but also to give the government some cover in terms of perceived equality. They can point to SBIR and say "Look, the little guys had a chance to bid too! We even gave them money!"

On the receiving side, I've met more than a few researchers who have gotten SBIR grants for their work, and effectively used them to pay for research/proof of concept that they have already done. I.E. the SBIR grant (Phase I) pays for work that they've done over the past year or so. Many of the folks who take Phase I grants that I've spoken to have no interest in commercializing and productizing their work. They are interested in basic science, not product development.

I'm not sure how to get over what seems like a pretty serious disconnect here.

<comment><USER13> The purpose of the program is to help grow the economy by supporting development of innovative and risky new technology. The regular SBIR program is not about building something specific.

<comment><USER12> It's true that a lot of the technologies are risky, but many government departments (DoD, Homeland Security, NASA) put forth solicitation requests asking for companies to build proof of concepts to fill specific needs of the requesting agency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Applying for a SBIR grant is probably orders of magnitude more work than raising VC money in this market.

</comment><comment><USER15> After years of contemplating, I once tried going after an SBIR with a partner. It was for a robotic ship tank inspection system. We put a lot of time and effort (about a month of constant work) into designing a strong concept solution and puting the proposal together. However, we had a few basic questions and the government technical and programmatic POC on the solicitation was non-respinsive after several contact attempts.

We submitted our proposal, meeting all of the insanely meticulous format requirements, but as feared we never recieved a response. Instead, the award was given to an off the shelf product for an incremental upgrade. Clearly, the awardee was already identified by the PM before the SBIR solicitation was even written, so I essentially lost a month of my life by being mislead into thinking the solicitation was truly open. The SBIR was just another way to funnel R&D money to the existing product the PM manages.

Gov't PM's do this because government funding comes in "colors" that specify by law how the money can be used (e.g. Operation and Maintenance, Construction, R&D, etc.). However, for some programs it's hard to secure R&D dollars, so back channels, like working with your supplier to craft an SBIR solicitation you know you will be awarding to them, are needed to fund improvements.

I suspect the fear of this occurnace (wasted effort) is the primary reason startups avoid government funding, and I can tell you first hand it's a valid concern. If you think the U.S. doesn't have it's own backchannels of corruption and unfairness in the contracting community, and that such practices are limited to developing or non-ally nations, you are mistaken.

Ironically, I think one of the reasons this type of behavior has emerged is thanks to the push from our own citizens - largely due to the "fleecing of America's dollars" scare of the 1980's and 90's, which asked America why the government was buying a $100 hammer or a $200 toilet seat. The push for transparency and frugality has driven the government in many cases to a culture (or requirement) to use funding loopholes and side agreements to get work done and also award contracts to lowest bidders regardless of the quality of the offering.

There are good program managers out there, doing their civic duty and following all the rules to the best of there ability. However, to me, the chance of finding such honest brokers and opportunities isn't great. If you want to work with government, your best bet (IMO) is to go to a trade symposium in your specific area of interest and strike up conversations with PM's in attendance to discuss solutions to their problems.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is interesting, because certainly in the UK it's extremely common to take advantage of government and EU money, either as an individual company or in partnership with an academic institution. It's basically free R&D, and even if you can't be bothered with the paperwork, companies have sprung up to work as a middleman doing all the boring bits for a cut of the money.

<comment><USER17> > companies have sprung up to work as a middleman doing all the boring bits > for a cut of the money

This is creating a problem just as much solving one. The billions in grants that are given away every year by the EU are basically controlled by a cabal of private consultancy firms who will cherry pick companies to write grants with; and create tailor made proposals designed to fit the call perfectly. On the one hand this is good as it creates a 'pre-filter' to stop you from wasting your time writing a proposal; but on the other hand it puts the EU's R&D budget into the hands of a small group of private companies.

Either way you look at it, it means that, unless you are 'in' with one of these consultants, getting the funding is extremely difficult (I write from experience from both sides of the coin!)

<comment><USER16> I don't know that this is generally the case. I've never been involved directly in bigger (6+ figure) grants, but I know plenty of academic spinoffs who have had no problems writing their own grant proposals (admittedly this is a specific skill you pick up in academia so maybe not relevant to the general public).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's mostly because most startups are not scientific and most of the funding goes toward scientific ideas and companies. If you don't have good scientific credentials and scientific research to support your business hypothesis, you will have a hard time getting funded.

</comment><comment><USER19> I am interested in applying to one of those programs, but I'd like to know approximate refusal rate to estimate if the effort of applying is worth it. As a technical person with a prototype, that is already useful for some business usecases (but needs lots of polishing before the final release) I find it hard to find a specific grant matching my project, and need some guidance on following the expected application procedure.

It also looks like the entire process could be streamlined. While there is a tutorial linked here: [https://www.sbir.gov/tutorials/preparing- proposal/](https://www.sbir.gov/tutorials/preparing-proposal/) , a simple wizard walking through the entire process would make me much more eager to go with it.

</comment><comment><USER20> Recently discussed here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19659853](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19659853)

</comment><comment><USER21> I worked for a company doing SBIRs. The overhead for taking advantage of these is insane. You need people who understand how to get through the contract process and all the legal requirements. You have to use incredibly bad time tracking software and deal with yearly time tracking and budget audits. Your IT systems must be locked down but in a way defined by the government, not necessarily industry best practices. Finally, as others have mentioned, you have to deal with the politics of defense contracting. Ultimately you'll just be beat out by one of the many small or medium size companies that literally exist to farm these if it hasn't already been given to a large established DoD contractor.

</comment><comment><USER22> As someone that went through the process as a startup (in the US): the biggest impediment is timing/paperwork.

In the best case scenario, you apply as part of a round (filing out a ton of paperwork), wait 3-6 months to hear that you got it, and then have to receive the money in tranches (Which sometimes includes terms like net 30days). Often, you don't get final payment till final deliverable.

How that played out for our company was for us to take out a loan against the award, just so we can get the work done.

So it helps, but as others have said as a small startup it is _not_ easy to do. We had the advantage of folks on the team who had done this sort of thing multiple times, and knew how to navigate the process.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is timely. Our startup just had an article written about our use of SBIR grant funding with some tips at the end:

[https://bbcetc.com/sbir-related/ann-arbor-company-is-an- engi...](https://bbcetc.com/sbir-related/ann-arbor-company-is-an-engine-for- growth-with-tips-to-share-on-sbir-success/)

</comment><comment><USER24> TL;DR - The money available to any one company is small (hundreds of thousands) which means it could only ever be a supplement. Since they are very difficult to apply for, it could be argued you're just better off to spend time raising money from entities that can provide more capital down the road. Also, traditional capital can be spent on all aspects of the business. However, these grants are generally very restrictive on what the money can be used for.

</comment><comment><USER25> There is an interesting project to connect scientific community and funding organizations - Polyplexus[1]. It might be extended to support private research and development probably, you could suggest that using the contact form.

[1] [https://polyplexus.com](https://polyplexus.com)

</comment><comment><USER26> Interesting question! I've been in government contracting off and on for over a decade. I've spent the last 5 or so helping small businesses get contracts and grants. In my opinion, having a 2 sided business - 1 for commercial and 1 for government - is a very good business strategy. But it's hard finding the right people to join the team because we get snatched up by the big shot military contractors all the time.

To answer your question, it is a very common way to start a startup in big government contracting towns. I see that all the time around here (SE US). Government contracts have been spinning up new tech since I've been in the business. But there are high barriers to entry for new players, unfortunately. Most of them have already been discussed already.

</comment><comment><USER27> Lots of small businesses use these funds. It's just not a good fit for a VC backed "startup".

Also, just like SV folks know the lingo and rules around VC investors, you need to get the grant or contract lingo and process.

You need to be wary of wasting your time. One government entity that I know of will happily have you spend lots on money on upfront compliance and insurance, and then offer minimal or trivial contract opportunities. On the other hand, I know another guy who literally got free mentoring and training for his folks as part of a program, and built a 250-person company that was initially seeded by a single contract.

</comment><comment><USER28> Is a startup going to be able to do research? Research takes years, is extremely risky, and even if it's successful may not produce anything that can be a product. Most of the time the output of successful research is a paper.

</comment><comment><USER29> I've always wondered how many of these solicitations already have a recipient already choosen, but the law mandates you have to ask publically first.

Does anyone have any experience trying to bid on one of these contracts?

<comment><USER15> See my response above.

Yes, they technically must ask publicly as it's extremely difficult to justify sole source acquisition. However, in reality, for smaller contracts most PM's will all but ignore applicants they don't know personally. You have to engage face-to-face in some way (e.g. at a symposium, reaching them through your network, finding their phone # or email).

Some PM's are responsive and will entertain a discussion while others just want to keep their job by mimimizing risk and maintaining the status quo, and will simply blow you off. I don't have (and doubt there are) stats on this, but I suspect chances of winning a blind award (without a face-to-face meeting) are virtually zero.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Another factor might be control of IP. IP created with government funding can be pretty restrictive for the company depending on the government program and other factors.

<comment><USER13> With SBIR funding you retain your IP

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> They also sorta-kinda-fund research via tax credits. As far as I know, startups do take advantage of this.

</comment><comment><USER32> It's slow.

I got laid off because the startup I was at was relying on a huge gov't grant to come in, the gov't dragged their feet then boom, the startup had to go more lean.

No clue if they've gotten it yet or just decided to abandon a possible huge payday in a few years (or decades, who knows.)

</comment><comment><USER33> notkid...a green account 12 hours old. Who are you? Contact me from your .gov or .mil address and I'll reply. And following that, if you want a public reply, OK.

</comment><comment><USER34> Funding momentum is shifting to private sector research financing. Apple may spend on order of $10B on research this fiscal year.

But even higher dollar outlays will not solve the problem of the "chasm". An invention made under laboratory conditions requires a lot of finesse before it becomes a mass market consumer product. And product design and go-to-market strategy are not skills found in your typical inventor's wheelhouse.

I'm curious to hear if anyone has had an experience with the "invention services" industry. The few insiders I've spoken to seem to be more interested in revenue generation via litigation, than actually ever developing a product! Seems like a service ripe for disruption...</comment>


Dynamics of Advertising in India: new player beats Flipkart in 6 months - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hiveminds.in/2012/05/rocketing-growth-of-babylon/

<comment><USER2> I do a lot of online shopping and I boast to know nearly all big/small e-commerce site in India. But how did I miss this Jabong.com I have no idea. Believe me or not, I checked with a lot of friends (avid online shoppers like me) and none them have even heard about this one. I guess we need to come out from under the rocks. Also, how does Google keep track of all this traffic?

<comment><AUTHOR> there are google cookies everywhere. And ofcourse some sites have advertising enables. So I guess google is in a very good position to do some smart estimates here.

(What I am not sure is if google is allowed to publish such trends and traffic data)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A correction on the title: beats Flipkart in traffic numbers only. They are doing a lot of aggressive marketing and the surprising part is it is not just online ads. There are bigger things in India which tip-off traffic. A big learning for all sites.

And then there are creepy ways of getting there too like babylon.com</comment>


Empirical Study of the Anatomy of Modern SAT Solvers (2011) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~fbacchus/csc2512/Lectures/2013Readings/Skallah_Empirical_Study_SAT_Solvers.pdf <comment><USER2> Donald Knuth recently released the latest chapter of 'The Art of Computer Programming' and decided to tackle the topic of Satisfiability & SAT solvers ( @ [https://www.amazon.com/Art-Computer-Programming-Fascicle- Sat...](https://www.amazon.com/Art-Computer-Programming-Fascicle- Satisfiability/dp/0134397606) ). Although he refers to algorithms in an vague way (using words like "Algorithm A" or "Algorithm J") and makes a determined effort to convey all information in the most mathematically precise way possible, I'm of the view that it's the finest work of it's kind on this topic. Having a section on something like 'random restarts' is great, but if you are already deep enough to have an interest in a paper like this, you are deep enough to learn about Luby sequences.

</comment><comment><USER3> Kevin Leyton-Brown's research is a good read for SAT if you're interested in the state-of-the-art, and more specifically emperical/meta algorithms: [http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~kevinlb/publications.html](http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~kevinlb/publications.html)</comment>