Jessica Livingston's Pretty Complete List on How Not to Fail - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2016/06/how-not-to-fail/ <comment><USER4> Yeesh. #2 hits close to home.

I think I've asked this question but I found myself a cofounder with 2 others that prioritized too highly IMO coffee meetings with "investors", no name board advisors, expensive conferences, and basically everything on that list. My approach was to gently voice my concern and but also let them do it in the hopes they'd see how useless it was. The other thing that didn't help was I was the "technical cofounder" and the attitude essentially was I didn't "get" business, and sometimes I wondered if they were right.

Interestingly both were woman, and I don't recall too much of #3. They definitely participated in women in tech type groups but I thought it was no different than any other useless networking others that aren't focused would do.

This will be definitely something I probe for in the future. Anyone looking for a cofounder? (I'm serious, and I have a cool little project we could do to see if we can build something people want together)

<comment><USER5> The networking is the personal insurance policy by your cofounders against startup failure. The people connections built during networking events will land these cofounders leadership/management positions at other companies if and when startup fails instead of being unemployable or starting at the bottom. The founders, typically technical co-founders, that don't network has no such insurance in place and tend to go back to work for someone else as software engineer rather than upper level technical management positions like VP Engineering.

<comment><USER6> The problem with this line of thinking is that smart companies:

1) Aren't going to hire somebody for a leadership position because they met them networking --- they are going to hire them based on merit

2) The people in charge of smart companies aren't at networking events because networking events are a waste of time

Startups are a way to "level up" your career only because you can skip years of moving up a corporate ladder by starting at the top and building a successful company below you. This doesn't mean that by being a CTO of a 3 person company you are all of the sudden eligible to be a CTO at a big, successful company. The process of being CTO at your 3 person company and growing it into a big, successful company is what makes you eligible for that position at a different company.

The best insurance policy for your career is to be really good at your job, which means working on your job instead of networking.

<comment><USER7> >> The best insurance policy for your career is to be really good at your job, which means working on your job instead of networking.

This isn't true, in my experience. I have a few pretty good jobs on my resume (System Architect at a Fortune 50 company, Manager of Development at a big ad agency). Last year, when I was looking for work, those titles were pretty much entirely disregarded by the employers I applied to. Almost every one of them told me they never trusted titles from other companies and tried to get me to join as a mid-level engineer.

Every time I had a friend inside the company, however, I was routed to senior- level jobs that actually matched my experience. I've spent time keeping up those friendships with occasional notes and lunches. If I had just assumed that being really good at my job would be my best insurance, I would not have found the opportunities I did.

<comment><USER8> Yes, seriously, never trust titles from other companies. I've been in places where _everybody_ was the "manager" or "architect" of something. Test manager, release manager, system manager, configuration manager, etc etc. Most titles barely had any responsibilities at all and were given even to fresh grads as they joined the team. Essentially it didn't mean anything and in reality all 15 managers were just plain developers.

This was not even a startup where people get a cto-title just by happening to be there. This was a group inside bigco.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _1\. Make something people want._

I haven't had a ton of experience in startups...once I had to work out of a startup space. And it amazed me the number of conversations I would hear between aspiring entrepreneurs and random strangers that were variations of, "Please tell me if you think this is a good idea".

Everyone knows what it's like to want something. I didn't really hear about Tinder until after it blew up into something huge, but its proposition always made sense to me: _Do you want to get laid? Do you often base your decision on the looks of a potential mate? Would you be OK with requesting consensual sex without having to fill out a form?_. Yes to all of that. I can't think of anything I regularly use and/or pay for that I can't sum up as a one-sentence "want", whether it's Google, Twitter, Netflix, Facebook, Uber...of course being the first to recognize the desire does not lead to a desirable product -- there's scaling and marketing and implementation and luck, of course.

But that means the entrepreneur who is trawling around to learn what others want is even deeper in the hole. Is there something in startup culture that heavily cautions against pursuing something that you know _you_ want, because selfish concerns do not often scale (even though they've scaled in plenty of cases if you look at surviving startups, though that's obviously survivor bias).

<comment><USER10> It's well-established, within YC at least, that solving a problem you yourself have is one of the strongest foundations for a startup.

Edit: actually Jessica says it in her talk:

 _My advice to those of you who are still looking for an idea is to solve a problem that you yourself have. Then you'll know it's something at least one person really wants. And when you're part of the target market, you'll have insights about it that you wouldn't otherwise._

<comment><USER11> That makes perfect sense. You're going to be best able to judge the quality of the dogfood you're making if you are in fact a dog.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a great talk. While most of Jessica's advice is spot on for many startups, there are some special cases, namely enterprise software.

Once an enterprise software startup has built its product, or even 70% of its product, you have to go to conferences. Conferences are where you meet your users, and enterprise software users and buyers are a hard group to target otherwise. Marketing and top-of-the-funnel sales happen there. Conferences are also the places you gather intel about the rest of the industry to get a read on where it's moving and if you're aligned with it. So the question for enterprise software startups is: How do you select the most important conferences and pay as little as possible to attend?

<comment><USER13> Here's my advice regarding conferences and events in general, out of experience running a enterprise software startup with a decent marketing budget:

\- Most of large conferences and shows are not worthy it, especially the expensive ones that "everyone goes to". People are too overwhelmed, busy and disperse. So both branding and lead generation is ineffective.

\- Mid-sized ones are better, I mean, the more targeted ones, which focus on a special professional-groups with only a few booths and a cozy space you can network like crazy.

\- Always try/pay to get a speaker spot. Negotiate a deal so it's "included" in the price. That's what gives you most visibility, draws people to your booth and kicks off lots of conversations.

\- Don't grab speaking slots right after meals (lunch usually), otherwise you'll get a drowsy audience.

\- The opposite is true too. If you have a speaker slot, try to get a booth so attendees can find you to extend the conversation.

\- Put up the largest screen you can get in your booth or stand, close to the edge, so that passers-by can stop without fear of being harassed.

\- Try to get a booth close to the speaker/conference area so that you can quickly draw people into your booth. Here's a trick: have different slide decks, focused on each of the talks being given (prepared in advance) relating your tech with that subject matter. Then run your decks in synch with the talks. After listening to a talk (ie "Mobile app churn"), many people want to stay in the momentum, they'll be immediately interested if they see "Churn Management Strategies" in big letters on your booth's screen.

\- Focus on demoing the technology continuously instead of approaching people asking if they'd like a demo. People stop by when they see you demoing to someone (even if it's an accomplice). They want to listen in, but they don't want to be sold to.

\- Don't spend money on swag. People that come for swag just want swag (or food). But have something handy (ie. a simple card-seized mini brochure that's not bulky) so people that stop by to see your tech but don't want to interact have something to grab on to that has your website on.

\- Alcohol, if the conference allows it, at the end of the day is actually a great weapon for hearing out your (potential) users. Offer beer at the booth or sponsor a happy-hour. Don't expect to get leads or do serious branding. And don't over do it! (like building a whole Vodka bar with DJ music at the booth). This is more about doing F2F and socializing with people that want to share a drink with you after you take off your salesperson/marketing mask.

\- Have your local reseller/partner (or salesperson) in the booth with you, as co-sponsor. Not just for costs, but they can do a follow up locally much better than your marketing team.

\- Rent the badge reader option, so you don't have to clumsy exchange emails or biz cards. Also works great with antisocial attendees that are just watching your deck from afar. That's an instant email distribution list for doing a great follow up.

\- And don't forget about the follow up email. To all attendees, offer a post- conference webinar where the same content is discussed again so they can share the link with their colleagues saying "you should hear this talk".

Measure everything (cost vs. leads). Make sure you repeat at the good conferences and don't insist with the bad ones. Good marketing is all about consistency.

<comment><USER14> Wow, uh... I'm not in enterprise software right now, but if I were, I'd be asking you where I could send a check. This is __fantastic __advice. Thanks for sharing it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would be wonderful if these sorts of articles (which efficiently generalize advice based on thousands of data points) could back their assertions up with a few telling case studies. It's often too easy to nod sagely at advice like "don't loose focus" but not actually recognize the pathology in ourselves in our day to day lives.

<comment><USER16> Part of the problem is that the teams that lost focused probably quietly dissolved before they got to any of our attentions. (Maybe Yahoo?)

Personally, I find that there's a simple question:

 _Does this move the company, project, or team forward in a measurable way?_

If the answer is "No" then you need to take a long hard look at it and _explicitly decide_ that it's either okay and then stop doing it (ideal) or limit it. And that varies from person to person. Spending time with my toddler is okay in my book. HackerNews, less so.

The next level question is:

 _Is this the most effective task to this move the company, project, or team forward?_

And that is way harder to answer.

<comment><USER17> > Does this move the company, project, or team forward in a measurable way?

I think a better question is, "Is this task consistent with our core values, value proposition, and beliefs."

Limiting yourself to only measurable activities will cut you off from serendipity, which alone can make or break a startup.

<comment><USER16> Good point. And agreed.

But if the problem is lack of focus, there's a balance in there. And it's going to be different for everyone. I think that's a useful bit to remember.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "build stuff and talk to users" is so simple but great advice.

For my first successful startup I did the marketing and build and my partner focused on the users. And we crushed the incumbent in under 2 years completely bootstrapped and they tried to buy us.

Now I have a new startup where I'm handling the build and the customers and another partner is focused on the marketing.

It's a subscription business and talking with users helps retention, acquisition via word of mouth and also product development. Do it even if you'd rather be spending that time building!

<comment> atom-morgan What did you build?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Jessica asserts that conventions are too distracting and you shouldn't go to them.

I don't completely agree with that. Depending on what type of business you're making, the best way to get work done is to go to conventions, because that's the only time you can easily meet with a bunch of people that are related to your industry and make new partnerships, check out new hardware/software solutions to save time or money, possibly hunt for some new talent to join the company, discuss business propositions, etc, can all be possible in much shorter period of time than doing the same outside the convention.

Even just having the opportunity to meet someone face to face that you've been doing business with for the past several months can be useful.

That being said, you don't need to go to a lot of them. Attend only one or two of the most productive ones per year (most productive ones are not always the largest), and you should get a lot done without spending too much time at them.

Also don't go if you're strapped for cash, as they're often expensive (depending on the industry). They're not absolutely necessary, and they can be a waste of time if you don't utilize them properly. But they can be helpful tools.

<comment><USER20> Whenever someone advises "don't do this", it's usually pretty easy to come up with valid reason to do this. Fine.

The lesson here is either avoid the sinkhole of conferences/events. Or, if you are so inclined to go, make sure you understand that unless you are extremely focused and efficient, it is likely to be a waste of time for you.

<comment><USER19> Fair enough. It's also very easy for people to treat what she says as gospel and go "I must not go to a conventions because this very knowledgeable person who has much more experience than I do said they're not useful. So therefore they must not be useful."

It goes both ways.

<comment><USER21> It's somewhat circular reasoning, but my view would be: if you're so inexperienced such that you will blindly follow her advice then you should blindly follow her advice. If you aren't so inexperienced such that you don't blindly follow her advice then you're probably OK to not blindly follow her advice.

This is basically true for every field ever. Generally recommended practices are most important for beginners. Once you're experienced you can start recognizing when it isn't applicable. Beginners oftentimes aren't experienced enough to apply nuanced advice, and nuanced advice oftentimes is masqueraded as general, rather than nuanced, advice.

Somewhere inbetween people might get lost but I feel like approach this gets the majority of people on the right track.

<comment><USER20> But in this case, there are a lot of somewhat experienced people who (mistakenly) think conferences are likely to be valuable. Those are the folks who would be wise to listen to such advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> You can do all of the above and still fail. Often, success or failure is luck- based and completely not skill-based.

<comment><USER23> If it's true that luck is important, shouldn't it be 'smart' to try many 'fail fast' things so there's room in a career to fail 20-30 times and have a more reasonable shot at success?

<comment><USER22> What about those that stuck with an idea and hit gold eventually at some point? What if failing fast is too fast and you don't give an idea enough time to grow? MVPs and failing fast is an idea that started in the past ~7 years, and it works for some people and not for others.

<comment><USER23> I didn't imply there weren't other ways to make it. But there are only a few ways to hedge as an individual dev. One of them is to shoot with a shotgun. It's more or less what incubators attempt to do, but spread out over times since each of us only has one brain to go around.

<comment><USER22> There's no data to indicate that that way is superior to any other way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As a bootstrapper of broadstreetads.com (about to pass the four year mark), I can genuinely say that focusing on building what your customers truly need and measuring growth are two critical pieces of advice that do not get emphasized enough.

I love to shut myself in and write code, don't get me wrong. But consistently tracking sales growth, setting goals, and hitting goals (i.e., execution) is what separates the wannabes from the dids.

</comment><comment><USER25> I also think it's super important to make something you can sell in addition to making something people want. Frankly, there are so many things people want but not every founder has resources or is well-equipped to sell it.

Your goal as a founder is to maximize chances of __your__ success. Having the right founder-market fit goes a long way.

<comment><USER26> Definitely agree. It's easy to think of a cool "new social sharing blah" idea -- but guess what? If you're a new founder, without a large persuasive network to get word out to free users -- you're going to have a very hard time.

On the other hand, if you build something useful, and can start racking up subscriptions by doing some footwork (talking to users, giving out free accounts, etc), then you've got a much better chance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Focusing on growth and revenue sounds like the right thing to do for a p2p dog walking marketplace, or a SaaS enterprise meal planning app, but what about the startups solving big problems? Is month over month user growth relevant to a nuclear fusion or jet airplane startup?

<comment><USER28> growth & revenue are ways to show "traction" \-- a buzzwordy way to measure meaningful progress.

For an R&D based startup working on Fusion, that progress would be measured differently.

Many businesses have Key Performance Indicators (KPI's). Startups should be no different.

<comment><USER29> I've seen meaningful progress metrics in R&D-stage companies working on fusion, synthetic bio, AI, rockets, and more. I think they're especially important in R&D companies, because it's so easy to go off into the weeds or solve the wrong problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Woah, I've been struggling with the idea of "going to conferences" (on the list of distractions).

I have personal projects that I want to finish (not a startup), and the conferences I enjoy tend to feature people showing off their own projects. Whenever I'm at one, I think, "I'd rather be on stage, sharing something I put months (or years) of love into, than be one of the 100-1000 people in the audience watching."

Of course, going to a conference can be inspiring, or introduce me to people or ideas that'll shape my future work, so they're not all bad. I'm interested in how other HN folks approach this conflict.

Semi-related, I experienced something interesting at a hacking conference a few years ago. Mid-conference, feeling inspired, I hid in the volunteer lounge for almost a whole day and worked on a reverse engineering project that I'd been fighting to understand for over a year. I solved it! Being there, and aware of all of the people and activity around me, but _actively ignoring it_ , gave me focus and motivation. That was fascinating, and I've considered doing the same thing again (or finding a really interesting conference and not buying a ticket, so that I could work while I know I'm missing it).

</comment><comment><USER31> Could someone help me understand her list under Point 2, Stay Focused? She writes:

>One of the most conspicuous patterns we've seen among the thousand startups we've funded is that the most successful founders are always totally focused on their product and their users. To the point of being fanatical. The best founders don't have time to get caught up in other things.

>Here's a list of things that I see easily distract founders. These are like the startup equivalent of wolves in sheeps' clothing.

[she includes 8 points, of which I quote 4 below - _I am quoting selectively._ ]

> \- "Grabbing coffee" with investors

> \- Networking

> \- Doing a "partnership," thinking it will get you more users

> \- Going to conferences

Now, I need help understnanding this. She has listed some of the items that separate people building startups in unfundable locations where there are 0 startups, and startups building in the Bay Area.

If you don't need to do these things, why did YC shut down it's Boston program and make everyone do it in the Bay Area?

If you don't need to do these things, why can't you build a startup from anywhere in the world as long as you speak good English and have no costs?

Aren't these things _literally_ the things that make startups fundable, financiable, possible to grow into huge businesses?

I and anyone else on HN who has been in the Bay Area and in startup-dead locations knows the huge difference. She seemed to quote some of it under 'distractions'.

Can someone help me understand why they aren't, in fact, part of focus?

<comment><USER32> Having failed because of some of those reasons, I think it's because those activities are very time-consuming and distract from being fanatical about the product.

It would be different if they were fruitful, but more often (in my experience) they are dead-ends, and worse they spawn other activities that are dead-ends. It becomes a huge time sink. That said, it seems difficult to make legit connections without having them initially. Where I live, there are a few major companies that had succeeded decades ago, and most of the startups in the city seem to be run by ex-employees of those companies.

I think the advantages of living in the bay are 1) more opportunity to bump into someone who knows someone, and 2) having access to more (passionate and active) early adopters.

<comment><USER31> I think I misread it. She actually said:

>The best founders don't have time to _get caught up in_ other things.

>Here's a list of things that I see _easily distract founders._

So if you don't get "caught up" in it it's important; while they can "easily distract" founders, they're important. I think she might have gone too far stating that they're the startup equivalent of "wolves in sheeps' clothing", because wolves in sheeps clothing presumably are _only_ out to hurt you - <USER2> read this way her point comes across well. Spending too much time with them ends up hurting you, even though they can be important. I mean one of them is Networking... try building a startup without that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> as a 26yr old female Electrical Engineer getting involved with entrepreneurship and doing my own software startup, I agree there is too much controversy, talk and fear surrounding being a female in tech.

Don't get me wrong, it is isolating in general but after working for two startups, one bought out by a foreign company and another now has billions in funding, doing software analytics on the trading floor through summer internships in college, and going to a predominately male college for engineering, 70% males overall, and 99% male in my major, I can say I have a diversity of experience even within the tech field and also years of experience working at single companies before moving on, I can say a few things that I think echo what she is saying

1\. Most of the people speaking the most about female controversey are not coders, or engineers or in the nitty gritty of tech. While I appreciate their empathy and willingness to latch onto a cause and speak for us, they often get it wrong, and recently have done so much so that they scare the MAJORITY of men to feeling uncomfortable talking about it. What do I mean? onto point #2

1a. Sorry, before I go to Point 2, another way journalists or people wanting to speak out on our behalf (female women in tech) get it wrong is by assuming we want to change the culture to be this outgoing, social fashion forward world. Actually, alot of us are introverted geeks and like doing the same thing other male engineers do. I definitely think wheather you were or are a cheerleader sorority girl who likes to bake and throw parties or an introverted star wars nerd and each one is an engineer, either should feel equally comfortable at a new tech company and not isolated by the culture, but anecdotally I happen to be an extreme introvert, and the excessive socializing and advice or notion that if we have an environment where we can all be super girly like omg together is the vibe I get from alot of female focused events in tech. It's actually overwhelming and makes me feel more out of place than not. Listen to us, not imposing your idea of how we might feel onto us. Get a good profile of what females are saying who are IN tech, and if there is a difference between that and the ones who are latching onto the idea of it or operating in auxiliary roles surrounding tech. These women are just as important, and are are still subject to sexism working around male dominated industries, but if you want more women IN tech, instead of talking about tech but not in it, listen to the women IN it, you might be surprised.

EXAMPLE

Here is one example where both genders are contributing to the problem but making it harder for women IN tech. my friend is a Biomed Engineer who prototyped and developed her hardware. Keeping her anonymous on here, but she went to a big tech conference in the bay area and was approached by three men asking if she was a "showgirl" at the conference as a starter to the conversation. Of all the things you could possibly say right? How offensive to a female engineer with over 30 pending patents running a multi million dollar company and two engineering degrees under her belt. Welp, those guys are in the wrong, but also why are there showgirls at tech conferences. because hot girls attract geeks to the boothe. But MEN hired these showgirls, and WOMEN are actually fufilling those roles. So both parties are at fault.

Who suffers? The people who suffer are the ACTUAL female engineers who would love to go to a conference and not have it be assumed they are there in an auxiliary tech role until proven otherwise.

once my friend described who she was, both of the guys felt really bad, even embarassed and apologized profusely. They ended up being cool guys she is still friends with. they learned a lesson, but they have also been heavily conditioned by males and females who are both willing particpants in establishing a stereotype that is demeaning to women actually in tech.

2\. Most men I've met and worked with in tech are absolutely fine. It is that in general outlier cases good and back stick out in our heads. If there are 200 employees at a company and only 2 females in my department of 40, probably over a 6 months period the chances are I'm going to be made to feel uncomfortable whether intentionally or not by one person atleast. I'm not saying it's acceptable or ok, or that steps shouldn't be taken to fix it, I'm saying 19/20 guys I work with in a random sampling are just fine, and don't make being a girl a thing, and treat me just the same, or if anything are excited to see women in tech and go out of their way to make you feel comfortable. It's then in your discretion to stand on your own two feet and not take advantage of that, because some women do, which brings me to...

3\. There are some women who abuse their minority status. I'm NOT saying women who have spoken out about being treated poorly are the ones who are abusive, or that they are lying. It is usually ones that have nothing to complain about and the situations are much more nuanced. I'm sorry people will get mad at me about this statement but I feel comfortable saying it as I've observed it and I work in tech and I'm not going to lie to remain politically correct. Both males and females are capable of abusing their position. Not all males do it, not all females do it. So hating men or making them terrified of saying the wrong thing if anything is just going to make you feel more isolated.

There are also women who still have queen B syndrome and like being the only female around, and actively bully other women. This is so obnoxious. However, in my varied experience in tech, I can say one key indicator of a real female engineer, is that most of us would LOVE a female friend because we don't have many. Females that view male dominated workplaces as a fun new playground because of all the men, are constantly having coworker boyfriends, and view other women as competition, instead of empathizing with them, have probably not experienced the long term years of being in college engineering classes and doing their homework and not having female friends, and the desire to be treated as an equal instead of put on a pedastool or having to prove themselves. Real females doing real work in tech know what it's like to be isolated, and when we get together as females, we are all super super grateful for it, and we all feel uncomfortable going to glitzy girl focused events where we are bombarded by girls not in tech telling us how things should be. This has been my experience.

4\. While some of us can't choose who we work for and with, if you are a female IN Tech, not marketing or some soft auxiliary department of a developed company, but you code or prototype electronics or hardware or engineer something, then you are valuable enough that you can move onto thousands of other companies if you don't find one with a culture that fits your comfort zone. Not just because you are a talented brilliant ambitious female, but because you are a talented brilliant ambitious engineer, and they are in great need in any gender, but being a female is always a great added diversity and step into equality for EVERYONE, not just females. AGAIN, it's not ok women should ever have to feel uncomfortable but we live in the real world and not everything is fair, not just for women, but for alot of situations and people in general.

CLOSING COMMENTS

In life in general, forget being a women or startups, a good rule of thumb, and one I took way too long to learn myself in my personal and professional life, if you don't like how you are being treated, then start hanging around different people.

I have plenty of male engineer friends who are low key, we geek out together, order pizza, watch tv, code, switch knowledge, music and talk about latest tech stuff, and its totally chill. What and who makes you feel comfortable but also gets you excited about learning and obtaining your goals? hang around them and your work life and personal life will be better. It's the same as if you want to stop drinking but your friends only method or venue for socializing is drinking, well it's not going to be super fun for you, so hang out with people who gel with your same lifestyle.

I definitely have my frustrations, but my successes and friends male and female far outweigh my desire to spend most of my time feeling negatively. This is coming from a girl who has been through some troubling times with male coworkers. It's not that is hasnt been harder, its just that I have so many things I want to do, I'd rather "show them" by being successful and acheiving my goals than fighting a legal battle. I am glad some women have chosen the legal path, but I actually would be upset if someone chastized me for not spending all my time in court. There are lots of way to bring tech forward with everyone, not just articles and legal battles. Sometimes, just being a good role model, the girl you wish you had to hang with 5 years ago when you had no female friends, goes alot farther in the world of tech females who actually need a friend, not just people reading the hottest news. Any new girl I meet in my company or department or otherwise who is an engineer or software developer, I atleast attempt to make friends and go out to lunch or a grab a drink with them , let them know I'm available to chat or otherwise, and every time I've been endlessly thanked saying I'm the only female friend they have. Well, now I have like 5 awesome female engineer friends and we all are friends as a group now, it's not much, its not enough, but its more than we ever had and it's all we have time for, because you know, we are also coding, starting companies and doing all the same things males do so we are not over here just being social butterflies. As cliche as it sounds, and something I never would have believed about myself years ago when I was feeling isolated, is that I focused on being the change I wanted to see in the world, and the role model I wish I had when I was fresh out of college, instead of fighting legal battles. Sometimes thats the right thing to do, sometimes my path is a good one too, and I don't regret it.

I've had to abandoned some groups, and in one case a company because I was around egotistical chovenistic males who challenged me on everything and even worse it was all subconscious sexism so it was not even easy to address. no its not ok, but I decided to instead of fighting for it for years and years, to move onto something better for me, and now I can spend the majority of my time coding and working on my goals, instead of fighting against people. It was the best decision I've ever made, I'm able to be alot more technically advanced, and by holding my head high and deciding I could do better, instead of tearing other people down.

Atleast three of those guys have come to me years later to apologize (with no prodding on my part), tell me I was a good player on the team, and I know from females who joined that same team later, they are treated very well. Those guys straightened up because sometimes the most powerful thing you can do, is know you deserve better, walk away and discover a place that fosters your worth. If you have real tech skills, this will always be an option for you as a woman, or a man. It's ok to stand up and "fight" and it all depends on your situation. I should have had more support in mine, but honestly I think I made the right choice by just moving onto something better.

FINAL NOTE

She is right, don't be scared. JUST DO IT. If you can actually code or prototype, then do it. Perform, let your product speak for itself and noone can argue with you. That is the cool thing about coding or being an engineer, if it works and people are paying for it, who cares if youre a girl, or a transgender, or have purple hair, wear tennis shoes to work, or if you are a hippopotamus. It's not going to be easy, it's going to be WORTH it, and there may be some extra barriers, but how rewarding for you to be a trailblazer.

I never thought of myself that way until people started calling me a trailblazer or a "badass" years out of college and now that I think about it, hey yeh, I've been through some pretty hard times but damn this is cool, minority or not, I love what I do and nothing is going to stop me. In fact, I had no idea when I first went into this that anyone would want to stop me, or feel threatened by me, and honestly, that is the hard part.

THE HARD PART

The hard part is realizing that some people are actually not supportive of you, subconsciously or not, alot of the anger on your part comes from the confusion surrounding the challenge of understanding this concept, because if youre an awesome person who doesnt need to tear other people down to have success, this isn't going to be intuitive for you to understand other people are actually that lame. Once you realize yes these warped people in self denial who project their own insecurities onto you DO exist, and probably always will in some form or fashion, then you can be like "oh, no I'm better than that sorry". Sometimes again, legal is a good way, sometimes not.

Just do you and find that confidence. if you don't have it, dig deeper, if youre reading this youre already way ahead of the game and have nothing to feel insecure about. Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond and how you let it effect your opinion of yourself or your subconscious belief about your capabilities.

Have that attitude, and support other girls around you, focus on your work and not people, and youll be amazed. In the words of Dr. Suess "oh the places youll go.."

<comment><USER34> >anecdotally I happen to be an extreme introvert, and the excessive socializing and advice or notion that if we have an environment where we can all be super girly like omg together is the vibe I get from alot of female focused events in tech. It's actually overwhelming and makes me feel more out of place than not.

I'm just one more anecdote and a bit of a living edge case, but this has been painfully true for me as well. I deliberately avoid women in tech events/blogs/etc now because of how uncomfortable they tend to make me. Hearing "tech" talks about how it's important for women to get hired because we're just like, so in touch with our feelings and therefore we make great UX --incredibly demoralizing and othering for me.

<comment><USER35> I'm assuming based on your use of pronouns that you are a "woman in tech" (if that is incorrect, please correct me). IF that is wrong, then my eventual stated question later is pointless, but I am forging ahead on that assumption...

I am an old white straight male. When I started out in my employed career - semiconductor design - Motorola - Tokyo Japan in the late 80s, I had to spend a year in the US for "training", but in both the US and Tokyo it was about 70%~80% males and 20%~30% females. Systems. Circuits. Layout. Fab. Prequal. I guess more females in layout, but ... in general that was about how it was.

We all worked together, raised barns together, drank together, went to funerals together. We were mates. Co-workers.

It wasn't until recently that I was told that this was wrong. That I needed to show more concern about female issues in a male dominated world. And maybe this is right - I don't know. I wasn't educated enough to know that treating a talented female engineering co-worker as a talented co-workers wasn't enough.

I guess my question is this: Is ignoring gender when interacting with co- workers wrong? Should I be doing something different when I interact with female co-workers?

<comment><USER34> >I guess my question is this: Is ignoring gender when interacting with co- workers wrong? Should I be doing something different when I interact with female co-workers?

Me being sexed female doesn't really qualify me to answer this question--I'm just some random person and have no formal power to speak as the official representative for Women Everywhere (I'd be a very bad choice for that, too--I am so masculine that I tend to be perceived as male, that's part of what I meant when I called myself a "living edge case" in my earlier comment).

That disclaimer out of the way, two points to your question:

1\. It's highly unlikely that you are treating women identically to men, even though you genuinely believe you do. I'd bet hard money that you don't, actually, because a) almost nobody does, myself included despite my best efforts b) I can already name an instance where you didn't--you specifically asked me this question based on my sex and only my sex, by your own admission. I don't know how much you've read about unconscious bias, but it's a very well-studied and documented phenomenon and I recommend looking into some of the research on it that's been done. Hiring managers are more likely to extend offers to identical resumes that have male names, and the offers they extend to the male-named resumes tend to be higher. Startup pitches given by male actors are rated as more convincing and more likely to earn investment by VCs than the exact same pitches given by female actresses. Women are interrupted much more frequently than men in group discussions, and a group will perceive that women have talked "most of the time" if they talk for >=30% of the time. Men are perceived as more technically competent than women. Women are perceived negatively (too aggressive, "not a team player") for negotiating their salary, in general, whereas men are not. Even if you specifically are 100% egalitarian and have no mental shortcuts that you apply towards women whatsoever, the vast majority of the people they're interacting with are not truly gender blind. This is from people who really believe that they are unbiased, in a lot of cases, and aren't aware of the subconscious stereotyping that's driving their behavior--that's the unconscious part, and it's insidious. So, consciously saying "well I believe the genders are equal and I treat everyone the same and that's what we should do in the workplace, not take sex into account at all and just be buds" can just leave subtle sexism totally unchecked and rampant, instead of truly promoting equal behavior. Harvard hosts a couple free online tests to check your implicit bias, if you're curious to check yourself: [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) (I come off as biased on gender, for the record, most people do, regardless of their sex.)

2\. I think this question, like affirmative action, comes down to whether you think it's more ethical to prioritize equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. Women in general are socialized to defer to the people around them, be more caring, be less assertive, be less confident. That has already happened by the time you're hiring them. If you and everyone in your workplace somehow do overcome your socialization and years of mental heuristics and manage to treat women in the field exactly the same as you do men in the field, the women will still have lower salaries (don't want to be confrontational and negotiate aggressively), apply to your job openings less (women do not apply to a job unless they meet the majority of the listed qualifications, unlike men), be less likely to voice their opinions in meetings, etc. Note here: I'm not saying all women act like this or every individual woman is more likely to than every individual man, I don't as far as I'm aware, but I'm saying that a random sampling of women are in general more likely to than a random sampling of men are. I'm sure you've seen that internet argument half a dozen times already, but in general the argument for treating everyone the exact same way is that you're treating everyone equally and that's the best you can do, even if there's disparate outcomes we shouldn't treat people differently, we should just control our behavior and make sure that's egalitarian. The argument against is along the lines of: we don't tell people confined to wheelchairs "the stairs are open to you too, stop fussing", we build ramps for them--the starting points for the two groups are not equal, therefore treating them the same isn't really egalitarian in the first place, it's just keeping the (unequal) status quo.

I can tell you that I personally would be extremely unhappy if my coworkers decided to behave in specific ways towards me because of my sex, but I'm, like I said, an edge case. And, on the contrary, I've had coworkers (correctly) guess that I am attracted to women and make awkward non-sequitor statements about their lesbian relative/friend and how happy they are for her--I actually am really pleased when this happens, even though it's always extremely awkward and we both know why they're bringing this up out of the blue. It lets me relax about it and just act normally without it affecting my career. (An aside: my first internship, my boss was big on listening to Rush Limbaugh in his cubicle, I wasn't working in a state where sexual orientation was a protected class, and I wasted a huge amount of mental energy agonizing over him potentially firing me over it, 0/10 internal conflict would not recommend.) So even an individual can have conflicting feelings about their minority status being explicitly accounted for by their coworkers, you can't really generalize.

<comment><USER35> I've never worked in a protected-anything state, but why would someone fire a valuable contributor because of orientation after they've gone to the expense of hiring and training them? Was your fear irrational because you were young - or was your fear rational because humans are jerks?

<comment><USER34> If you're in the US, there are already several universally protected classes (race, gender).

Why would a parent knowingly disown and put their gay child out on the street, risking criminal charges and effectively wasting however many years of effort they put into raising their child? I don't know, but ~40% of the homeless American youth population identifies as LGBT. (Source: [http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/americas- shame-4...](http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/americas-shame-40-of- homeless-youth-are-lgbt-kids/)) Happened to a friend of mine as a teenager. People are not always rational actors. Firing someone over their sexual orientation is extremely rare, but not unheard of. (A handful of anecdotes: [http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/18/meet- people-f...](http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/18/meet-people-fired- being-lgbt-2013))

Luckily though, my former boss had similar opinions to you and I was completely fine. I've since moved to California and established myself as a solid developer, so it's not even a serious issue on my radar anymore. I would just switch to a better workplace now if I was concerned.

<comment><USER35> So, in this case, you were young and irrational and didn't understand the cost of replacing a good developer?

I'm still processing your upstream comments, but anecdotally, when I got to spend about a year on the street, Imma gonna to say that in central Texas, there were a lot of people with mental challenges (which is sad) and a whole lot more with drug issues (which is a different problem, and separately sad), and either of them would have swung any way you asked for their next hit. I am not going to claim that this experience is representative in any way.

<comment><USER34> I couldn't tell you if I was irrational or not without knowing the number of tech bosses conservative enough to listen to Limbaugh at their desk and strike up pro Tea Party/anti liberal discussions as a way of making casual conversation, and then the number of those that would fire a developer over their sexual orientation. I don't know what that percentage looks like, so I can't say whether or not I justified in my concern. I know I was wrong in this specific instance thankfully, but I don't know what the real probability looks like given my boss' behavior. I had gone through some negative prior experiences that could have made me jumpy, admittedly.

Maybe the methodology was incorrect or the sample unrepresentative, my only personal experience with it is the one friend.

<comment><USER35> Wow. wow. wow. I find it incomprehensible that this would be a concern. I am sorry that you have been made to feel this way.

I'm probably so far right as to make Rush Limbaugh un-listenable (to me) because: 1) he's irritating and repetitive, and 2) too far left. :-) (that's kinda/sorta a joke)

But I've gotta say that even though they were outnumbered (80/20?), females made up at least half, if not more, of my top developers in a start up in the late 90s. And from what I understood (I was afraid to ask), half of the female developers were homosexual. The point is: I would have had to have been insane to fire them. It would have knocked $20M (maybe $200M) off my market cap the very same day!

I guess I need to thank you. I have a lot to learn about the way that the world works...

(thank yOU!)

<comment><USER34> No problem, glad my anecdotes are interesting/helpful!

To be fair, the internship and his mentorship were both invaluable to me, I was very lucky to be hired, I don't want to make it sound like a sob story. Firing over sexual orientation isn't really tracked so there's no hard numbers, but IME it is incredibly rare--never happened to me or anyone that i personally know, to the best of my knowledge. My concern could have been (probably was? your anecdote brings N up to 2, anyway) completely irrational, like the above poster was wondering.

Hah. Reminds of the story about the time Eisenhower reportedly tried to root out lesbian members of the armed forces: [https://books.google.com/books?id=HO7IKU79zgAC&lpg=PA47&ots=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=HO7IKU79zgAC&lpg=PA47&ots=WVUFNHX6A1&dq=%22forget%20the%20order%22%20wac%20policy&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q&f=false)

<comment><USER35> I don't know. I (maybe I am wrong) have been intending to treat team-members as "some dudes with bumps on their chest that may have various after hours habits that are none of my concern".

In aggregate, upstream, you are saying: 1) No: I am not treating them equally, even if I think I am, and 2) Females have some real needs/concerns that I should care about.

Now that I know that I am inadequate to this task - what should I do to be better?

<comment><USER34> >I (maybe I am wrong) have been intending to treat team-members as "some dudes with bumps on their chest that may have various after hours habits that are none of my concern".

FWIW, this is personally my ideal working environment. I can't speak for women in general, and I'm not a moral authority, but this is exactly the kind of treatment I want from my coworkers.

>what should I do to be better?

I don't know, honestly. I know that's an inadequate response, but I'm not sure how to appropriately address ingrained societal sexism either. As far as subconscious bias in hiring goes, having rubrics and standardized interviews goes a long way at eliminating it. I'd theorize that standardized metrics for performance reviews would help on that front, too, though I don't think that's been studied.

If you browse the million and one women in tech posts out there you can see people talking about it at length, though I would be wary of taking somebody's opinion as truth just because they're female, and I would be doubly wary of taking a tech blogger at her word vs an actual female engineer. Your personal set of ethics re: equality of opportunity vs outcome also plays into what you "should do" quite a lot. Some suggestions (like formalized hiring rubrics) are completely valid whether or not you believe in equality of opportunity vs outcome, but others (like instituting diversity quotas in hiring) are not.

This blog post is well cited and worth a read, it has a few good suggestions IMO: [https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/if-you-think- women-i...](https://medium.com/tech-diversity-files/if-you-think-women-in- tech-is-just-a-pipeline-problem-you-haven-t-been-paying-attention- cb7a2073b996#.h1fsht52h)

And this personal anecdote is a positive story, which I think is just good to keep in mind (that not all individual women necessarily feel or have been through the standard negative Women in Tech narrative): [http://lea.verou.me/2015/12/my-positive-experience-as-a- woma...](http://lea.verou.me/2015/12/my-positive-experience-as-a-woman-in- tech/)

<comment><USER36> Maybe its my interpretation, but it seems that you are in favor of equality of outcome and tools like affirmative action. I have always wondered what proponents for it thinks if it was to be used in gender equal language, like if government would have a policy to always use affirmative action for work groups that has less than 40% women or men. A lot of professions have above 90% of a single gender (a trend that has been increasing in the last 30 years), and universal use of affirmative action would cause a lot of movement from typical male or female professions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> > So while I'll tell you that it is going to be harder for you as a woman,

I read this phrase a few times. I'm genuinely curious - and didn't really see it in the article - what are the reasons for which Jessica is referring?

Edit - downvoted for asking a genuine question...? Did it ever occur to anyone that I may be asking to see how I could help, seeing as I'm involved with a few startups?

<comment><USER38> Some: * "networking events" with alcohol become minefields * investors will literally try to get you to sleep with them for an investment * people will not take your technical team seriously (so you look riskier) * conferences are prisons of harassment * selling to customers takes longer because (again) people don't take you as seriously

That's literally off the top of my head from things I've literally seen first hand.

Can we stop pretending the real world isn't full of douchebags?

<comment><USER39> > Can we stop pretending the real world isn't full of douchebags?

OK. But don't miss the rest of what she said:

> So while I'll tell you that it is going to be harder for you as a woman, > it's not going to be _so_ much harder that it will make the difference > between success and failure.

There's real sexism, still. It makes it harder for women. That's unfair. It shouldn't be that way. But while all that shouldn't be, and all that makes it harder for women, _don 't just look at "harder" and decide not to do it._

<comment><USER40> Her analysis may not apply to women in general, but only to fortunate subgroups. Discrimination compounds at intersections. So the game becomes much harder for Latinas and African-American women.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "The best metric to choose is good old fashioned revenue."

The best metric to choose is good old fashioned profit.

I appreciate that growth can be hindered by making a profit, but isn't that what matters in the end? Amazon, Twitter, Box and many other public tech companies went public without turning a profit so it seems I'm wrong.

<comment><USER42> Amazon still doesn't turn a profit. Neither does Salesforce. Their measures are pure revenue / growth.

<comment><USER43> They actually alternative between being profitable and not being profitable. See this graph:

[https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/net_income](https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/net_income)

Growth is their priority. Yet, they make sure they have plenty money coming in to keep everyone paid, invest back in business, and have a pile of profit on occasion. Years ago, I did a research report on them. Back then, they were making a significant profit with just $200 mil in debt or so. They could've paid off total debt in just a few years if they paused to maintain the profit. They killed the profit on purpose to expand the then-new AWS. Smart decision. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Measuring the right things is very important too. I was at a company that lived and died on user counts. We grew 30X in users over my year there, but no revenue so we ultimately died. (And costs were out of control too, and we lost focus, so much of this article hits home)

</comment><comment><USER45> I think #1 is the key to the whole thing.

I love how Pat Flynn talked about building a market map in his recent book Will It Fly. I think this method is very helpful in finding out if what your doing is something people want.

Derek Sivers of CDBaby has this same mindset. He has always worked off the pull method rather than the push method for what he creates.

Ash Maurya in his book running lean gives you a nice script for customer development interviews. I have tried this with a previous startup idea, and they saved me from going down the road of working on something people did not want. They are probably a bit more involved than Pat's method, but it is something else to consider.

</comment><comment><USER46> Kudos -- really interesting, thoughtful and useful summary. However (yes, there's always a however), I'm always surprised and baffled why these kinds of lists rarely attribute startup failures to non/mis-management of the development process. I worked for a couple of successful startups and have consulted for the last six years (performance stuff) and am dumbfounded by the amount of time developers waste on "crap" \-- trivial bugs, insignificant performance issues, "enterprise" build/QA automation, etc. At one startup, THE key developer went off for six months rewriting the comm stack for a performance problem that didn't exist -- all the while destabilizing and slowing down the product. At my last "real" job, every time I went to the coffee room, I would ask a developer what they were working on and 90% of the time it was "bugs." That's fine if you're working at IBM on DB2 but NOT if your funding dries up in 12 months. IMHO, it is RARE to find a manager/VP who will pull a developer back out of the weeds. I often see an endless series of stand-ups where the status is "fixed a bug" or "recoded an inefficient loop" or "wrote a Java wrapper for the Jenkins garbage collector." It SOUNDS like progress but six months later POCs are crashing and burning because 2/3 of the core features are still missing. Maybe I've had a totally weird career but how come no one talks about this?

</comment><comment><USER47> A parallel to "don't waste time in conferences" is don't waste time on hacker news. Ha! I don't run a startup, so I'm allowed.

</comment><comment><USER48> Not sure I agree about advisors. Getting smart people who have experience in places the team is lacking seems pretty critical to me. Perhaps it's different at YC where you have advisors built into the program and getting 'boards of advisors' is extraneous, but for other teams without those resources behind them this seems like bad advice. Find people who've done it before and learn from them.

</comment><comment><USER49> Summary:

1 - Seed money is given on promise

2 - How to get VCs to invest: Build something people want + talk to users + focus = 10% growth

3 - Be default alive, which means: existing cash + revenue - <USER3> expenses gets you to breakeven

*How to shoot yourself in the foot: Overhire -> Default Dead -> Ugly Duckling -> No VC

</comment><comment><USER50> On "making something people want"... You don't always know. If its a cheaper version of something else then - yah. But if its a new category you don't know. eg Nest - turns out people did want an expensive smart thermostat. But wasn't obvious.

<comment><USER51> I think this is where starting out small and simple usually works. You normally start with an idea that _somebody_ wants whether it's you or a friend. You want your house to warm when you wake up and when you come home. You convince some other people. You build a small prototype. You try it out on people. They either want one or they don't.

We all know companies that have built products that nobody wants. They went through all the planning, product development, market research, production, and the result was nobody wanted it. It's a myth that if you build it, they will come. People have to want your product at each stage of the process.

<comment><USER52> >I think this is where starting out small and simple usually works.

Very much agree. Make something quickly that somebody really likes, and try and find more people who like it. Figure out what people like about it and expand in that direction. Rinse and repeat, as you expand just keep making sure more people want it.

<comment><USER51> The corollary to this is also that if nobody likes your product, adding more features to it isn't likely to help. Lots of developers also fall into that trap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> The only way not to fail is not to try. Even then you could argue that you failed to try :).

<comment><USER54> I was going to post a similar comment. I kind of think the "Don't try" strategy is worth highlighting, because... it kind of points out how silly it is to worry about failure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> So networking, "grabbing coffee" with investors and talking to potential acquirers are a waste of time, yet YC insists that startups go to one of the most expensive place in the world just because it's more convenient to to those three things.

<comment><USER10> Here's a nice example of where we can apply the Principle of Charity ([http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html](http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html)). That's the idea that you should respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument, instead of a weaker one.

Sure, you can interpret YC's advice as containing an obviously silly contradiction. But you could also interpret it as saying that you should fundraise when you need to, but not waste time on coffee meetings when you don't.

<comment><USER56> The romanticised idea of being a founder focuses on the lifestyle. Getting coffee is akin to "Let's play tennis sometime!" in other social circles. People want to be seen as founders but not a lot of them are willing or capable to do the work. Reality is that founding a startup is not glamorous. Its lots of hard work with no promise of anything.

<comment><USER10> Yes, that's one of the advantages of doing a low-status activity. The people doing it really want to.

We're seeing a similar shift with programming, too. When one's formative experiences were in the low-status phase, it can be weird and challenging to realize that's not true anymore.

<comment><USER56> I'm still a bit shy when people ask about what I do. My answer is always: I fix and program computers. They don't probe anymore. To be honest, programming is not glamorous or even "cute". I find it really challenging (in a good way) and interesting. Sometimes even fun. But high status? Allow me to simply LOL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> > Doing a "partnership," thinking it will get you more users

Why is this a distraction?

<comment><USER58> Because (and I have to generalize here since this is a broad topic) partnerships can suck up a huge amount of time, with the following downsides:

1) you get introduced to customers indirectly (the partner's users), this isn't necessarily a bad thing but you'd rather have customers come directly to you.

2) the partner's objectives as a business are not your objectives, they may demand exclusivity of you or prevent you from doing business with their (the partner's) competitors. This may come to bite you if your startup grows, evolves or pivots and a better partnership comes along.

3) partnerships usually involve contracts which cost time and money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Solid advice. I think YC advice gives you the road map, but in addition speeches like Paul Buchheit's "The Technology" can also help stimulate the vision in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER60> Video of keynote by Jessica Livingston

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2B4cVFIVpg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2B4cVFIVpg)

</comment><comment><USER61> How many startup founders do you know think they aren't building something people want?

These are some nice tips, but the problem with this advice is that it probably won't change founder behaviors.

Most startup founders I know would think that they are focused, building something people want, not over hiring, etc...

With the exception of the default alive or dead, none or the other tips are really quantifiable.

I appreciate everything Jessica has done, and she has a wealth of experience and exposure to a wide variety of startups, but this advice is too subjective.

<comment><USER62> She does mentions how to deal with that problem:

> If you do the first two things I told you, make something people want and > focus, you'll get growth as a result. And that means you can use growth as a > test of whether you're doing those two things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> This reminds me of [http://paulgraham.com/die.html](http://paulgraham.com/die.html) and [http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html](http://paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html)

P.s. I haven't seen her talk yet.

</comment><comment><USER64> She forgot #8: Be Lucky

</comment><comment><USER65> just as a side note. She pretty much says that "ugly duck hiring" (hiring start-ups that seem to be on a good track but have burned too fast through their money) may be a thing to make money with.

PS: And i don't like the "not fail" part. You don't want to not fail. You want to succeed. If you fail and succeed the failing is fine.

</comment><comment><USER66> I'm in the interesting position that I've built something that everybody needs, but nobody wants.

I've built a product that manages the compliance process for the Big 5 (i.e. PCI-DSS, SSAE16-SOC2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, and FEDRAMP).

My product, ComplianceChaos[1] competes with RSA Archer, Protiviti, Lockpath, Aruvio, and MetricStream.

From my research, 80% of IT operations around the world can't confidently certify themselves against any of those information security frameworks. When recently talking to Security Directors and above, they claim "I don't need to comply" or "well we may not be the best, but we're not the worst, so compliance just isn't a priority."

We understand that a big business like General Electric will not do business with your company unless you can show some kind of proof that you're compliant with the Big 5. For example, if you're a cloud service provider or SaaS, GE wants you to certify for SOC 2 and ISO 27001.

We also know that if you host on Amazon's FEDRAMP Compliant environment or Catalyze.io's HIPAA compliant environment, it doesn't automatically mean your company is also compliant. Your company still needs to go through the compliance process too."

When I first set off to build this product a couple years ago, the security officers first exclaimed, "We need a compliance tool so that we don't have to deal with scattered documents and long spreadsheets." When I built the MVP and continued iterating on it, security officers again exclaimed, "this is the most beautiful compliance product I've ever seen! Better than RSA Archer."

However, when I asked them to use it, for FREE, they would say, "Well it's nice, but compliance just isn't a priority for us because the business has other missions like doing real security work". Explaining to them that compliance frameworks like ISO 27001 and FEDRAMP is real security work was met with deaf ears. In fact, they would retaliate saying, "Compliance like ISO 27001 isn't security. It's a low bar, bare minimal, and not enough."

When I counter with, "But 80% of the industry can't confidently assert that they've done due diligence in meeting the compliance controls. If compliance is so bare minimal, then why do only 20% go all the way to Attestation instead of all 100% of you guys?" That question would again fall on deaf ears.

I've recently pivoted to a services company, no thanks to TrustWave for getting sued for performing subpar security compliance auditing work. I'm specifically looking at you auditors who ask employees to put their passwords in a spreadsheet.

So here I am, having built a product and auditing service that IT Operations do in fact need, but do not want. They don't want the politics behind it nor the emotions behind it, and wish to sweep compliance under the rug.

How do I solve for #1 Make something that people want, when nobody wants compliance, but definitely needs it?

[1][http://www.ComplianceChaos.com](http://www.ComplianceChaos.com)

I'm going to sleep now, but I would really appreciate reading your responses in the morning and I'll definitely respond too.

<comment><USER67> You need to make the decision makers life easier. At the moment it sounds like you have made something that makes their life harder right now in exchange for some future benefit that might not help them personally. Until someone loses their job because they are not able to show compliance then you are going to have a hard time getting people to use your product.

How do your competitors sell their products?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I want a T-shirt which says "Jessica Livingston"! Very good advice overall.

</comment><comment><USER69> \- Don't do bad stuff. \- Do do good stuff.

<comment><USER26> Believe it or not, it's not always that obvious to new (or even seasoned) founders. Heck "going to a conference" still sounds like a good idea -- in reality, talking to some of my existing users about the product fit could be a much better way to spend that time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> "...shares her learnings about..." \-- this is not English. Failing in the second sentence.

<comment><USER71> Critiquing others without understand the subject matter is a surefire way to make yourself look foolish.

[http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19227/plural- of-l...](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/19227/plural-of-learning)

<comment><USER72> That link is the weakest possible support. The previous poster is correct. Look elsewhere.

<comment><USER71> Incorrect, the weakest possible support would have been me just backing up the idea with my own words, which is not what happened. If you need further proof then that is your burden, not mine.

<comment><USER73> OK, I'll bite.

* [http://grammarist.com/usage/learnings/](http://grammarist.com/usage/learnings/)

* [http://www.johnsmurf.com/jargon.htm](http://www.johnsmurf.com/jargon.htm)

* [http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-the-heck-are-learnings/](http://www.dailywritingtips.com/what-the-heck-are-learnings/)

* [http://customerthink.com/16_marketing_terms_to_ban_in_2011/](http://customerthink.com/16_marketing_terms_to_ban_in_2011/)

* [http://valleywag.gawker.com/dear-dummies-learnings-is-not-a-...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/dear-dummies-learnings-is-not-a-word-1482696634)

* [http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/9_completely_pointless_co...](http://www.ragan.com/Main/Articles/9_completely_pointless_corporate_words_45629.aspx)

 _Learnings_ is a plural version of a singular noun that does not exist. And there's already a perfectly good word you can use to get at what it attempts to communicate, namely _lessons_. (You can even call them _lessons learned_ if you absolutely must shoehorn the idea of learning in there.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Overall, I found the reading very enjoyable. And down to earth, which is refreshing.

Until this part, that is:

> And you know where the founders of these big winners are going to come from? > From this room!

Not sure how to view this part. On one hand, of course she's right. If no "unicorns" ever came from YC, they wouldn't be around still. But it seems to imply that all founders that are going to be wildly successful were in that room. That's either appealing to emotion for morale purposes, or way too elitist. Not sure which.

<comment><USER75> I was giving a talk to 800+ women (most of whom were not affiliated with YC in any way) who attended the Female Founders Conference last April in SF. A majority of them have already started a startup, so of course I'm hoping they will become successful someday.

<comment><USER74> Thanks for the context and taking the time to answer.

I took the time of watching the talk, not just read the transcript. Came up with a completely different impression. They really needed some words of encouragement after the meat of the talk.

As the sibling comment says, I've indeed over-analyzed it. My apologies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> > Make something people want. This is YC's motto, and after 11 years and more > than 1000 startups, I know we picked the right one.

I find this sad. It tells you something about humanity. Don't build something people need. Build what they want. Make it addictive. We either don't know what we need or if we know it, we still want something different.</comment>


Website Hackers Slip Under the Radar with Impersonator Bots - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/14/website-hackers-slip-under-the-radar-with-impersonator-bots/

<comment><USER2> Reminds me of a line from a short story by William Gibson titled, "Burning Chrome:

"..."Congratulations," I heard Bobby say. "We just became an Eastern Seaboard Fission Authority inspection probe..." That meant we were clearing fiberoptic lines with the cybernetic equivalent of a fire siren, but in the simulation matrix we seemed to rush straight for Chrome's database....""

Excerpt From: William Gibson. "Burning Chrome." iBooks. [https://itun.es/us/iD40W.l](https://itun.es/us/iD40W.l)</comment>


Mozilla Launches Firefox Focus for Android - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/20/mozilla-launches-firefox-focus-for-android/ <comment><AUTHOR> As far as I can see, there's no Orbot integration. ): Optional support for that would be a killer feature.</comment>


How To Protect Your Login Information From Firesheep - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/25/firesheep/

<comment><USER2> _And while everyone should have learned by now that there's always some privacy risk when interacting online, hopefully the installation of Force-TLS will at least put less of a damper on today's stint at your local "free Wifi!" boasting cafe._

For most people there is a huge gap between "can read everything I write" and "can gain full control/impersonate me". On the technology side, these two things are unfortunately coupled. It is way more than a privacy risk.

If it were possible to pass the cookie on an encrypted channel but the content of the web page unencrypted this would match most people's idea of how it works. Unfortunately that's not the case.

<comment><USER3> _If it were possible to pass the cookie on an encrypted channel but the content of the web page unencrypted this would match most people's idea of how it works. Unfortunately that's not the case._

Has there even been any attempt to standardize something like this? This problem certainly isn't a new one, so I would have guessed this had been looked into before

<comment><USER4> > Has there even been any attempt to standardize something like this?

Yes. HTTP Digest authentication is an "encrypted cookie".

The problem is that it only protects against passive sniffing. Attacker able to inject packets can bypass it (e.g. replace Digest with Basic auth.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> However, ForceTLS will only work if the server supports HTTPS.

IMO, a better solution is that of a SOCKS proxy as outlined in this comment: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1828631>

Using ssh as a SOCKS server has the added benefit of tunneling _all_ traffic securely, not just that of Firefox.

<comment><USER6> SOCKS has no inherent encryption and is insecure as hell. Although there is an encrypted mode available in some servers, it's not supported by all clients, and it doesn't defend against MITM attacks, which limits its usefulness. (ever see a SOCKS client with a tickbox "only allow encrypted connections? didn't think so) SOCKS alone doesn't gain you any security advantage, it's SSH that does.

Note that if you have a tun/tap driver installed on both endpoints, ssh can even operate as a full-on VPN (-w option), thus not requiring any client software support.

None of the above (or OpenVPN) will work on a non-jailbroken iPhone/iPod/iPad, unfortunately. You'll need a pptp or IPSEC server for that.

Also beware of apps which do use SSL to communicate but don't check certificates. You'd be surprised how many get this wrong. This leaves the connection wide open to MITM attacks.

EDIT: objective arguments > downvoting

<comment><USER7> You didn't get it. SSH can be used for tunneling (encrypting) TCP connections between two machines and it can be set up so that the SSH client acts as a SOCKS proxy. Client apps connect to the SSH client, it tunnels the traffic trough the encrypted SSH connection to the other side where the SSH server decrypts it and connects to the target host. The traffic is thus encrypted between your machine and the SSH server, can't be sniffed from the air (unless the server is also connected to an insecure WIFI ;) ).

<comment><USER6> You didn't read my post: "SOCKS alone doesn't gain you any security advantage, it's SSH that does."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Okay, I must have misunderstood something. At which point does Firesheep get your credentials? Really, the only case I am aware of is if you are on a wifi network, and I'm not sure if all the users on a secure network use the same encryption key.

I haven't seen a hub in ages, so when you're on a LAN you shouldn't be getting any packets that weren't meant for you. When exactly does Firesheep work?

<comment><USER9> I'm not an expert on wifi security, but here is what I found while doing some research:

 _"Wireshark can decrypt WEP and WPA/WPA2 in pre-shared (or personal) mode. WPA/WPA2 enterprise mode decryption is not yet supported."_

Since Wireshark and Firesheep both use WinPcap, I assume this applies to both.

Also, while testing on an unsecured network, I found Firesheep was easily able to grab my HN session off my Android phone.

<comment><USER8> I think that only applies to being able to decrypt packets after you've acquired the key, I'm not sure if it applies here...

<comment><USER9> Yes, you need the key to decrypt, but getting the key is not difficult for WEP [0], and only moderately difficult [1][2] for WPA PSK, if I understand correctly.

[0] [http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/howto-crack-wirless- wep-104.ht...](http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/howto-crack-wirless-wep-104.html) "The actual computation takes about 3 seconds"

[1] <http://www.renderlab.net/projects/WPA-tables/> "computed hash tables for the 1000 most common SSIDs against a million common passphrases"

[2] [http://securityandthe.net/2008/10/12/russian-researchers- ach...](http://securityandthe.net/2008/10/12/russian-researchers- achieve-100-fold-increase-in-wpa2-cracking-speed/) "This means that a WPA or WPA2 key could be cracked in days or weeks instead of years."

<comment><USER8> On the contrary, it is moderately difficult for WEP and almost impossible for WPA, if the key is long, and very very hard otherwise.

For WEP, the actual cracking is the easiest part, it's gathering all the IVs that's a hassle.

For WPA, the rainbow tables only cover common SSIDs and passwords, which doesn't really give you a very high probability of cracking it. The research in the third link you posted hasn't been made practical yet, as far as I know.

<comment><USER10> If you have a WLAN NIC that supports traffic injection, gathering IV:s can be done in a few minutes.

<http://www.aircrack-ng.org/doku.php?id=simple_wep_crack>

<comment><USER8> I know, I've been doing it for a while. It still isn't trivial, you need to get the handshake, do the replay attack, gather enough IVs, crack them, etc. It takes 5 minutes, but it's not plug and play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What's so surprising about this? I don't get it. It's decades old news, unencrypted network traffic can be sniffed. And the solution is almost a decade old as well: use TOR (www.torproject.org) or JAP ( <http://anon.inf.tu- dresden.de/index_en.html> ) to hide your traffic from your local network operator. Be it your favorite dictator, government, employer, husband/wife, girlfriend/boyfriend or mother.

Even if on a WPA encrypted network, the AP operator (or anyone between the AP and the internet provider) can steal your data. (Of course the internet provider could do this as well, they are just probably less of a problem than the next guy with firesheep or an open AP set up for logging your sessions and passwords.)

</comment><comment><USER11> You can simply use "iPig"

<http://www.iopus.com/ipig/></comment>


Rete: JavaScript framework for visual programming and creating node editor - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/retejs/rete <comment><USER2> Neat looking project but maybe the naming is off because of possible confusion with Rete Networks (one of the coolest computer science algorithms and data structures to optimize expert system rules engines for efficiently handling very large numbers of production rules).

</comment><comment><USER3> Oddly, I've been playing with this library just this week. I've also been looking at various alternatives (some of which have already been mentioned in the comments here).

The only functionality I'm actually looking for is the ability to connect and disconnect elements using virtual cables (that flex and look good, just like those in rete). It's for a software synth patchbay (like those used in the Reason digital audio workstation software). So, ultimately, even though this library is impressive, it isn't quite the right fit for my project.

If anyone can recommend an alternative that focuses purely on cabling, I'd love to hear about it!

<comment><USER4> Not sure if it fits the bill exactly but did you look at VCV Rack?

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

<comment><USER3> I've downloaded vcvrack, but not actually tried it out yet. It looks awesome. However, the project I'm working on is a web-based synth using the HTML5 Web Audio API. It's built using Tone.js and NexusUI.js, so vcvrack isn't really applicable, as far as I can tell at least!

Thanks for the recommendation though. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Apparently nothing to do with the Rete algorithm (fwiw). [1]

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

</comment><comment><USER6> Looks really nice! Looking forward to playing with it a bit.

Shameless plug: I built something similar as a part of my workflow platform for JVM (for Java and Clojure):

[https://github.com/mikub/titanoboa](https://github.com/mikub/titanoboa)

The main focus of my tool is enterprise integration and data processing, but I still love to play and experiment with the ideas of developing code directly in browser and how to visualize its execution flow. So I built a live coding / visualization also as a part of my tool. This becomes non-trivial if you apply it to languages other then js (so browser integration becomes a bit harder).

I also think the main challenge here is the server-side part of things, especially when you make such solution distributed - i.e. how you achieve high availability and assure everything gets executed (at least) once even in case of failover, how you cater for multitenancy while achieving sufficient security/isolation between users etc. edit:spelling/formatting

</comment><comment><USER7> See also: [https://github.com/jagenjo/litegraph.js](https://github.com/jagenjo/litegraph.js)

<comment><USER8> man, growing up with Maya and Houdini, making a node editor and dataflow engine was probably my ultimate dream

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Shameless shill: We've been building a set of tools to make software development more visual, kind of like this. There are some examples on our site here, [https://refinery.io](https://refinery.io)

More specifically, you still write code and you visually connect pieces of code together. Think "pipelines of transformations" in a functional programming way. Then you click "deploy" and have it all running on AWS Lambda with rich logging and other goodies.

A lot my inspiration comes from being a former game dev who has used Scratch and UE4's Blueprint engine. I've personally found that it's difficult to get the abstraction right in a way that keeps complexity in check (as others in this thread have commented). That's why you still write code in Refinery -- you're just visually chaining microservice calls.

Would love to hear feedback + thoughts, if anybody is interested in sharing. free at refinery.io is a good email for me. :)

</comment><comment><USER10> We started with trying to create something like this when we started Dark ([https://darklang.com](https://darklang.com)). We ultimately moved away from this style of programming, as we couldn't figure out a way to make it feel "code-y" enough for people to want to write programs in it.

I'm super interested in what folks want to use this for?

<comment><USER11> Creator or litegraph here.

Visual programming works very well when you have data flowing, but it doesnt work when you have loops and branching. But it is nice to support graphs for some tasks, it really speeds up some processes.

<comment><USER12> >but it doesnt work when you have loops and branching

We managed to make visual programming work well with loops [1] and more or less OK with branching [2]. The trick is to look at loops from a functional perspective (i.e. as iter/map), rather than from imperative.

[1] [https://easymorph.com/learn/iterations.html](https://easymorph.com/learn/iterations.html)

[2] [https://easymorph.com/learn/conditional- workflows.html](https://easymorph.com/learn/conditional-workflows.html)

<comment><USER13> I think the ultimate test is whether it can be self hosted. eg. can the program be used to create the program itself!? Or what problem does it solve?!?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Related: Node-RED - _Low-code programming for event-driven applications_

[https://nodered.org/](https://nodered.org/)

</comment><comment><USER15> There's also [http://nodes.io/](http://nodes.io/) which is in alpha release state the last thing I heard.

<comment><USER16> They should spend one hour to have HTTPS on their front-page though.

<comment><USER17> Fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Owner of this project should check out visual programming in Unreal Engine 4 it's completely production ready and has shipped in many AAA titles.

<comment><USER19> I absolutely love the blueprint editor in UE4. It enables me to rapidly hammer out ideas and test new things. Not only that, but it helped me learn a lot about how to go about doing things in UE4 so when I started writing CPP I already had an understanding for where to put what and how to do it.

<comment><USER20> Easily the first visual programming language I used that actually sold me on the idea. Most of my experiences have been with systems that claim visual programming, but then require you to jump top code almost immediately. UE4 blueprints are sufficient to create the majority of a game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> WebbleWorld 3 is at once similar, and different: [https://github.com/truemrwalker/wblwrld3](https://github.com/truemrwalker/wblwrld3) with several academic papers and a book about the concept. Professor Yuzuru Tanaka pioneered the concept of Meme Media.

</comment><comment><USER22> Awesome project. Reminds me of my days of using Apache NiFi. [https://nifi.apache.org/](https://nifi.apache.org/)

</comment><comment><USER23> I'd be curious if there was a node interface framework for React (Rete is Vue- oriented, which is not made obvious until you follows installation docs).

<comment><USER24> Rete has a react based component thing too[1], is that jus5 for custom components.

[1] [https://github.com/retejs/react-render- plugin](https://github.com/retejs/react-render-plugin)

<comment><USER23> Sweet, I stand corrected!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Have you tried Adafruit's make code? [https://makecode.adafruit.com/](https://makecode.adafruit.com/) Visual programming for javascript with options to interact with their Circuit Playground hardware.

It's from Microsoft, with flavors for Mincraft and Legostorm too, [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/makecode](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/makecode) .

It's, of course, not an entire ecosystem for everything, but they do a lot of visual things that may be worth evaluating. I like the colors/shapes of the code pieces, and the ability to switch between the visual code editor and the plain js.

</comment><comment><USER26> Really cool! Is there a way to export a data representation of your graph, like in json or something? Would there be a standard for that, like some control flow representation?

<comment><USER27> Use BPM/BPMN? (Business process modelling)

Not answering you question directly, but it's a way of doing something similar.

A whole set of enterprise tools do things like this, and I've worked a bit with bpm workflow engines that kind of does this in a standardized way.

> BPMN models are expressed by simple diagrams constructed from a limited set > of graphical elements. For both business users and developers, they simplify > understanding of business activities' flow and process. BPMN's four basic > element categories are:

\- Flow objects: Events, activities, gateways

\- Connecting objects: Sequence flow, message flow, association

\- Swim lanes: Pool, lane

\- Artifacts: Data object, group, annotation

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

You can use web tools to draw processes and, execute them on a compliant engine:

[https://demo.bpmn.io/](https://demo.bpmn.io/)

Camunda comes to mind, as an open source alternative, but if nodejs is your thing there a a couple of BPM engines in the works, eg:

[https://github.com/paed01/bpmn-engine](https://github.com/paed01/bpmn-engine)

As with anything graphical based - if it doesn't fit the purpose exactly, it will become a pain in the end.

<comment><USER28> I remember I had to do one project at my university. I hated it. I still wonder if there is a successful product out there which I made through bpm. I doubt it.

<comment><USER27> Same here, actually... well, not uni, but as a consultant and employee. It's "ok" if you own the whole lot, but I have yet to see a hand-over in an enterprise setting work out well, and bring speed and agility. In many ways, for an enterprise, json and web api's is a good enough abstraction to work with the machines.

Tangential to this - Netflix made Conductor as a kind of in-house workflow engine, and uber built Cadence, if you want more codified control.

Wheels keep getting re-invented! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I've had building something like this in the back of my mind for a while. Free idea (the reason I wanted this): use this to build an interface to crypto smart contracts (e.g. Ethereum). Payment processing seems similar to signal processing (which these node editors are good at, e.g. Max/MSP, Unity shader graph).

</comment><comment><USER30> Anyone invest their time learning something like this and have it pay off? Interested in success stories I suppose.

(Edit - I mean something more like nodes.io)

<comment><USER31> NodeRed. I'm pretty good at it by now. We use it in our hackspace for home automation and at work for prototypes.

<comment><USER32> Link with video: [https://nodered.org/](https://nodered.org/) It's an IBM side-project built for IoT.

<comment><USER33> That's how it started, but it's now an independent project of the OpenJS Foundation. And it isn't limited to IoT - it can be used for any event driven application.

(Disclaimer: I'm the creator and project lead of Node-Red)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Very neat, but don't try and sell it to your Dutch consumers with a name like that.

<comment><USER35> Well, though close that would have to be 'reet', wouldn't it?

<comment><USER36> There's rete-cool or reten too, but to be honest I'm not bothered by it in the least :)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: My Big Huge List Of Useful Websites - <AUTHOR> http://johninsfo.blogspot.com/2014/04/johns-list-of-useful-sites.html

<comment><USER2> This would be really helpful if I could search or filter by task. So many times there's something I know a web app must be able to do, but Google produces sub-par results when searching for these kinds of terms.</comment>


Had They Bet on Nuclear, Germany and CA Would Already Have 100% Clean Power - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/09/11/had-they-bet-on-nuclear-not-renewables-germany-california-would-already-have-100-clean-power/#1560c609e0d4 <comment><USER2> Dupe (a few minutes earlier) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19478149](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19478149)

</comment><comment><USER3> How is Nuclear energy "clean" when you're left with the spent fuel to deal with?</comment>


Apple wants to make it easy for non-programmers to build iOS apps - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/04/12/apple_wants_to_make_it_easy_for_non_programmers_to_build_ios_apps.html <comment><USER2> They totally borrowed "Actions" from Blueprint.IO! Guess I gotta go into stealth mode....</comment>


The 15 Minute Meeting - <AUTHOR> http://www.techdisruptive.com/2011/05/10/the-15-minute-meeting/

<comment><USER2> No way would people from different campuses show up to 15 minute meeting. And they certainly would not take it seriously if we ended the meeting on a hard 15 minute limit. They'd have spent more time traveling than meeting.

Sure we have nice brisk meetings with devs in the same job role who might not be on site, but someone from PR or a Vice President is going to think it's a joke.

In the case that it was a top down order from my VP everyone would just have pre-meeting meetings so when the VP sits in we could hit his 15 minute deadline.

</comment><comment><USER3> Imposing timing on meetings is irrelevant at best and destructive at worst.

The real reason these Agile, Googlesque meeting techniques dictate a time is to force attendees to prioritize. You can't dick around in a 15 minute meeting. However, by artificially imposing a time limit you also curb productive discussion. Fact of the matter is, some decisions take longer than 15 minutes to come to.

Instead of focusing on the _time_ a meeting takes, focus on what needs to get done and who needs to do it. Create concrete objectives, then give _one_ person that responsibility: "John will assign work streams to all team members" vs "Do work planning". No ambiguity - success on an objective is binary.

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally these are, fairly often, "smoke meetings". Obviously doesn't work when working with non-smokers, but for those occasions when you just need to spend 10-15 minutes like this with one or more people who happen to smoke (assuming you do too), it's a great way to have a productive meeting while also getting rid of what can be a waste of time (a normal smoking break).

<comment><AUTHOR> Funny, we just had a fire drill and my boss had a quick smoke, which then turned into 10 minute meeting with another person in our office. This then turned into an actionable item between him and myself, which probably would have gotten pushed off until a later date.

I wonder how valuable a mass company wide 15 minute power meeting would be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> i really back these types of meetings, though in my practice, i call them "POWER MEETINGS" (i always hear it in my head like it was said by the VO for Power Thirst, hence the caps). get to the point, get the idea(s) out, and then get to work.

more substance, less filler, and i find more gets done</comment>


Dreams Escalate in Weirdness as the Night Wears on (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dreams-escalate-weirdness-night-wears-180952782/ <comment><AUTHOR> >The effect of time of night on wake–dream continuity.

[https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-38118-001](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-38118-001)</comment>


Ask HN: Dos and donts of first email marketing campaign for a B2B SaaS product? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> From my experience, and this may be because of the industry I am working in, the overall idea is "dont". That is not to say that it doesn't work for other sectors & I'm pretty sure there are lots of evidence to say otherwise, but you should certainly consider if it is appropriate for your target market.

My cold outreach email campaigns have generally been met with silence, with the occasional response of "Looks great but not for us right now", or "We pick our own security tools, so if you show up in our research, we'll reach out to you".

Looking back on it, I completely agree with the responses I have had - if I was on their side of the fence, I would certainly just archive the email & ignore it. With this in mind, I think the effort is probably better spent doing research and content based marketing - getting eyes on your site and/or content for people who are clearly already interested in what you have to say or what you are up to.</comment>