The Obesity Era - <AUTHOR> http://www.aeonmagazine.com/being-human/david-berreby-obesity-era/ <comment><USER3> As a practicing Endocrinologist I will go out on a limb and say excess carbohydrates are the problem leading to obesity. Sugar (or sucrose) is a particular problem as it will stimulate insulin release from the pancreas. Insulin promotes storage of glucose and I am convinced, the growth of fat cells. I have seen patients lose a tremendous amount of weight (34 lbs over 7 months) and lower blood glucose and their amount of diabetes medication simply through cutting out sugar and flour. They also reduced their overall carbohydrate intake. I presented the data at our annual Endocrinology conference recently. [https://endo.confex.com/endo/2013endo/webprogram/Paper9044.h...](https://endo.confex.com/endo/2013endo/webprogram/Paper9044.html)

<comment><USER4> This doesn't address what I think was one of the most interesting points in the article - weight gain is present even in lab animals with strictly monitored diets.

The implication being, of course, that this isn't the whole story, and we are doing ourselves a disservice by chalking up everything to diet.

(I don't mean to say you are wrong about this fact by any means - I'm not any kind of expert, and you sound very convincing.)

<comment><USER5> I was thinking about that myself and came up with the idea that perhaps their diet _is_ changing.

I wouldn't be surprised if laboratory food was centralized around corporations just like human food. Meaning, I bet cheaper ingredients (more wheat/corn) have made their way into it over time. I can't imagine such peripheral industries not being affected.

<comment><USER6> This is an interesting hypothesis. It wouldn't even have to be changing percentages of ingredients, it could simply be the result of increased agricultural efficiency and yields. 100 calories worth of corn feed is quite likely to be subtly different in composition today than decades ago.

<comment><USER5> Yes, pesticides and packaging are thought to be possible factors too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. My anecdote comes from a slightly different angle. I've always been in very good shape, lots of weightlifting and cardio my whole life, and been a very healthy eater. But, the "spare-tire" was always there, even with muscles bulging underneath.

Just for kicks I decided to try Steve Gibson's recommendation to remove sugar and starch from the diet. ([https://www.grc.com/health/lowcarb.htm](https://www.grc.com/health/lowcarb.htm))

No knee-jerk here please, this isn't one of those butter-bacon-cheeseburger things. Nope, I eat tons of fresh veggies, lean meats, all smothered in olive- oil, nuts/flax, etc. I do actually allow myself some treats on the weekends for sustainability.

Still, one month later, for the first time in 20 years I no longer have a spare-tire. It makes perfect sense now that I think about it. As long as you fill yourself with sugar/starch you prevent the body from being able to go into fat-burning mode. Eat too much (as is common) and you go into fat-storage mode.

Bread may have built civilization, but now it builds waistlines.

<comment><USER7> Bread now builds waistlines only because we eat too much of it. I would be surprised if a normal sized person gained weight eating mostly carbs but staying below 1500 calories per day.

<comment><USER5> You're right on some level. But given that sugar and starch are packed into all processed food, I think it makes that level of calories difficult to sustain for most people. Note that the blood-sugar-rollercoaster that cheap carbs give makes you ravenous at the trough. An additional factor in why we eat too much of it.

Meanwhile after an example lunch of fish, veggies, and olive oil I feel full and satisfied almost all day (with the same range of calories).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting read; I've encountered many of the problems signaled out here.

I'm overweight, and I've changed my life and my diet to try and fix it. When I took note of where I was, I was drinking between 4 and 8 mountain dews a day. I ate candy in prodigious amounts, and constantly ate until I was full.

Since then, I altered my diet and eating habits to where I drink no pop, and rarely have any kind of sugary treat. I eat only until I'm satiated, and in usually get out to exercise daily.

The end result? I'm the same weight as I was before. My weight has not changed in over 9 years now.

I sure I could go on a starvation diet (< 1,000 calories a day) and exercise for hours on end - it's worked to a limited degree in the past - but that's not willpower, that's torturing myself. The last time I tried, I was constantly tired and sickly, and after coming down with a nasty bout of the flu and recovering from it, all of my progress had been lost.

I've come to terms with my weight. I'm eating healthy, I'm exercising regularly, and I'm thinking of getting into a gym and working on my strength a bit more. I have accepted that getting to a "normal" weight again is not within my reach, unless something outside of my control changes.

[EDIT] Before critiquing my story with the usual tropes of "you're still eating too much and exercising too little", please read the entire article and realize that it may not be the perfect answer you think it is.

<comment><USER4> This is one of the most frustrating things about how we, as a society, talk about obesity - we act like you can know something meaningful about a person's lifestyle and health from a single glance. Not to mention the related assumption that a thin body is inherently desirable and worth striving for.

A measurement like BMI, which is a great way of looking at a population, is a terrible way of understanding an individual, and the use of weight and BMI as a stand-in for health is infuriatingly wrongheaded.

<comment><USER9> I'd argue that most people - other than knowing they're overweight - <USER2> little about their lifestyle as well (or at least they don't know it as well as they'd like to think).

The prevalence of quantified self & self-tracking is starting to change this & when you're able to measure & track inputs better, you're better able to correlate the results with them as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My friends, I have discovered a miracle cure for weight gain. It's simple, painless, and you don't have to cut out whole food groups. Best of all, I'll tell you what it is - here and now - at no charge! Here it is...

A SMALL PLATE.

That simple. Go out and buy a really individual side-plate, and make that what you always eat off. If you need seconds, OK - but after a few days you'll find that you can actually get by quite happily with one helping.

I'm sure we do eat too much sugar (way too much), but we eat too much _everything_. I started putting on weight when I was 40, and this is the thing that stopped it. It would be fascinating to measure our grandparent's plates, and what size meals they consumed. Despite a more active lifestyle, I bet they ate far less.

<comment><USER11> > I started putting on weight when I was 40,

A late bloomer, huh... did you stay active your whole youth and then stopped for some reason? Or did you have an I-can-eat-anything-I-want metabolism in your youth which then petered out a little? I do wonder...

<comment><USER10> A little of both, I think. It coincided with a more sedentary job, but I've noticed a lot of small aging-related changes in my body (nostril hair going crazy, fingernails getting rougher, that sort of thing) at about the same time, and I don't think they are related to the job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I saw on the news today that 70% of the US is a size 14 or larger now. Shocking. In addition to the need for sugar and starch reduction, a lot of grocery foods are not as natural as we think they are. Having lived in European and Asian countries I can say that the people there are less calorie conscious and sometimes eat more than Americans do but their food options and ingredients seem more wholesome and less processed than in North America. Is it worthwhile to investigate who controls the health standards in manufacturing of food?

<comment><USER13> What is a size 14? That's the size of a woman's dress in the United States, but certainly not anything for man (maybe very large shoes). What standard are you going by?

Also, sizes in the US are pretty much all over the map. Pants sizes in the US are measured in inches, and they can easily be 4 inches different than what a tailor will measure with a tape measure.

<comment><USER12> I was going by a woman's US dress size. This would equate to a woman's Large and approx. 32" waist. For men, the average suit size is now a US 44.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article points to by-products of industrialization (namely industrial chemicals and artificial lighting) as potential culprits in the case of rising obesity, but the distribution of obesity doesn't match level of industrialization across countries. Obesity is seemingly focused in North America plus other anglophone countries, while mostly absent in other highly industrialized countries like Japan and Norway. Red herring, perhaps?

<comment><USER15> Hmm, well one thing I've noticed is that people in Tokyo walk/bicycle _a lot_ more than most people in any American city I've lived in. Not intentionally, really, but simply as a side-effect of the non-car-oriented transportation system and urban design that results in highly walkable environments. Anecdotally, co-workers who had temporary assignments to other locations where they drove everywhere complained of gaining 5-10kg over the year or so they were there.

I regularly see things in Japan like dressed-up women in high-heels, elderly people, and other non-particularly-athletic-looking types, sprinting up long staircases to make the train. In the U.S. I would be quite surprised to see _anyone_ sprinting in public...

Portions also often seem to be smaller. While of course it's easy enough to order large portions in Japan ("oomori kudasai!"), there's far less of the feeling of hard-to-avoid excessively large portions I often seem to get in the U.S. In Japan, "small" always seems to be on the menu, and is often the default; in the U.S., not so much...

I think it's important that such things are not unusual and "intentional" actions that you have to remember to do (and can easily shirk), but rather are a side-effect of the environment, and so happen all the time, even when you're tired, even when you're busy, even when you're out with friends to play, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> People that lack analytical thinking are doomed. They are preyed on from every angle by unscrupulous companies peddling their processed garbage. No sandwich without mayo, no salad without dressing, no food marketed to children without loads of sugar and artificial ingredients. Entire aisles of frozen fatty foods, entire aisles of soda and chips. Shelves and shelves of sugar-laced yogurt. The key lies in the individual's hands, but governments must step in and put an end to the criminal businesses that peddle their poison to a largely ignorant population.

<comment><USER13> Who in their right mind would eat a sandwich without mayo, or a salad without dressing? Come on. Mayo and salad dressing predate big evil corporations, you know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The mechanics of weight gain and loss are fascinating. Every time I read an article like this it makes me appreciate the complexity of the human body even more.

That said, the issue as a whole is not rocket science, and should not be treated as such. While it is very interesting to examine and discuss how the human body treats various types of calories, at the end of the day the closed system that is the human body is still governed by calories in minus calories out. It is _impossible_ for someone to continue to gain weight if they are eating less calories than they are consuming. Literally. Impossible.

The problem is one of human psychology, both at the calorie consumption side and calorie burning side.

On the consumption side, there are two main causes. First, for overweight and obese people, the act of putting food in their mouths and drinking high- calorie drinks has become so second nature that their minds simply stop registering it after a while. This is why in scientific studies and surveys that examine the topic, overweight and obese participants massively under- report what they ate throughout the study while those who have trouble putting on weight (the so-called "hardgainers") over-report it. The mind underplays the importance of events and situations it is familiar with (such as eating) and vice versa.

The second reason is that even when people do pay attention to how much they are eating and count the calories _at that moment_ , they are terrible at estimating their daily or weekly intake. They try to do "mental accounting," the most common example being "I ate a salad at lunch today, so it's OK for me to order some fries at dinner." For obvious reasons, this approach fails hard.

There's also the calorie burning side. Just like most people are terrible at estimating how much they are eating, they are also terrible at estimating how much they are burning. For example, walking counts as exercise for a surprisingly large number of people, yet walking for an hour straight at moderate pace burns only about as many calories as in a slice of bread. And yet the mental accounting comes into play afterward during dinner and they justify their bad habits by telling themselves they exercised that day.

There are other issues, such as the way food companies manufacture their products in very specific ways so as to maximize their consumption, or the way they market to children. But in my opinion these are at the periphery. Ultimately the matter is about the individual. It's about how much they individual eats. Not what they _say_ they eat, but what they actually eat.

<comment><USER13> There's also skinny people who burn calories for no apparent reason, like in the Vermont Prison Overfeeding Study.

I do not lose weight on low calorie diets, period. I get hungry and sick and cold for weeks on end, and my weight does not budge. My most successful periods of weight loss have been on high fat, zero carb, very high calorie diets. I know what I was eating - I measured everything correctly, regardless of all the patronizing "fat people are unaware of how much they really eat" talk.

<comment><USER17> The Vermont Prison Overfeeding Study actually perfectly explains what you experience on low calorie diets.

[http://idealbodyweights.blogspot.com/2009/08/vermont- prison-...](http://idealbodyweights.blogspot.com/2009/08/vermont-prison- overfeeding-study.html)

"The rapid weight loss these prisoners experienced is the mirror image of what happens when overweight people try to lose weight. If your set point is too high and you try to lose weight quickly, your body will fight to defend that weight and slow down your metabolism. But if your set point is within a normal range, your metabolism will speed up when you gain weight quickly."

In other words, if you have been fat for a while, then drastically reducing calories will cause your body to fight the changes, which will make you feel sick and cold for a while. That said, adjustment is inevitable.

Low carb and zero carb diets are great for losing weight reliably though, because without carbs the pancreas does not secrete insulin, which means your body cannot store the excess calories in adipose tissue. So it either has to burn it or excrete it.

<comment><USER18> You are wrong. The body can and does assimilate dietary fat into adipose tissue.

Low-carb diets work by reducing total dietary calories; a secondary contributing cause is satiety from an increase in protein.

<comment><USER17> How does it do that without insulin?

<comment><USER19> Acylation Stimulating Protein

<comment><USER17> ASP stores fat in adipose tissue, but it's nowhere as effective as insulin. ASP secretion is controlled by chylomicrons, which are very short lived, and that makes it so that only a very limited amount of dietary fat can be stored as body fat.

<comment><USER19> >a very limited amount of dietary fat can be stored as body fat

In the complete absence of insulin, maybe, which is almost never the case in normal dietary conditions, since both protein and carbohydrate stimulate insulin secretion. But dietary fat is nonetheless the primary source of body fat; direct conversion of dietary carbohydrate to body fat is not a quantitatively significant process in humans except for in extreme conditions. See De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981)

"Only when CHO energy intake exceeds TEE does DNL in liver or adipose tissue contribute significantly to the whole-body energy economy."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The preponderance of evidence is that net caloric balance predicts weight.

[http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight- loss.htm...](http://examine.com/faq/what-should-i-eat-for-weight-loss.html)

Given the choice between "astonishing phenomenon never before detected in history" and "record-keeping errors", I know which horse Occam is telling me to bet on. And it's not that HFCS has more Higgs bosons.

<comment><USER20> Have you actually looked at the studies cited, and checked the fat—protein—carbohydrate ratios used?

For example, this 2009 study used the following ratios to conclude "low-carb" diets aren't better than regular reduced-calorie diets:

20%—15%—65%

20%—25%—55%

40%—15%—45%

40%—25%—35%

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357)

None of these are actually low-carb. The recommended ketogenic ratio is:

60%—35%—5%

Try Peter Attia's Eating Academy for some highly informative reading:

[http://eatingacademy.com](http://eatingacademy.com)

<comment><USER18> You've missed the point, which is that body mass is directly predicted by total calories and is not statistically distinguished regardless of macronutrient composition. There are multiple studies listed, you just picked one.

Review articles come to the same conclusion:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198)

<comment><USER20> > > [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15351198)

I don't think this citation supports your point of view.

<comment><USER18> > _A systematic review of low-carbohydrate diets found that the weight loss > achieved is associated with the duration of the diet and restriction of > energy intake, but not with restriction of carbohydrates._

Put another way: ketogenesis isn't a magic escape hatch from physics. If you eat foods rich in protein, you are satieted sooner and total calories consumed falls.

 _Total calories consumed falls._

That's what causes the weight loss. Not a particular hormonal-metabolic configuration.

<comment><USER20> So, you're saying that it's actually easier to lose weight with a low-carb diet? Well, then, glad we agree.

As for the "calorie is a calorie" point of view, I recommend reading the following:

[http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories- matter](http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter)

<comment><USER18> We're arguing about different things. Some people do genuinely believe that ketogenesis is on a per-calorie basis somehow better at losing weight due to the distinct hormonal configuration. But the effect is totally predicted by net calorie balance, whether or not that balance is within observability (I can't, for example, control for my own particular thermic reaction to protein vs carbs, can't control for variation in food density blah blah blah it's on the average).

Myself personally, I like to eat substantial food and I train hard, so high protein, high carbohydrates suits me to a T.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "Dear obese PhD applicants: if you don't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth."

ha, what a jerk.</comment>


Ask YC: Is an IPO Alternative Needed? - <AUTHOR>

I've seen this idea going around for the past six months and I was curious about the feasibility/need for it. Currently there are barriers for companies to reach IPO (Sarbox, etc.) which in turn makes it much more difficult for a clean exit for early-stage investors.
So what has been suggested is to create a secondary market (see here: http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2008/08/a-secondary-mar.html) to help fill the widening gap between startup and IPO. This would in turn create some liquidity that would lead to less risk for founders and early investors.
Clearly there are some legal risks in actually creating a market. The only people that could participate would be accredited investors, and there would be some muddling with the SEC and possibly the CTFC.
I'm asking YC because the discussion doesn't seem to hit this demographic. What do you think? <comment><USER2> Investing money based off a future IPO is speculatory and is not good for the economy.

Let me give an example - a lot of hollywood films are banked by people who want to get a good return on their investment. If you are an investor and you want to make money on your hollywood film, what you need to do is analyse the market, find out what the biggest consumer market likes, take a look at past hit films and create a derivate of that. If this type of movie factory turns out mediocre films with profits in the 10-20 million range, then just churn out a large number of them, and you'll make your money.

This type of speculatory investment means that the money tends goes in well known technologies that offer a clear path to returns. The investors are going to minimize risk as much as possible by avoiding experiment - and in my opinion, we are at the moment when we should experiment the most.

A web app does not need investment, it has a clear path towards profitability and costs can be kept very low. A robot building studio however, needs investment. A shoe discounter needs investment.

When an IPO is the goal of a company, it changes the very nature of the company - and it changes it for the worse. The company has to baloon its chest out and thump on how good its doing, and to do that, it cannot afford to be seen to fail in anything.

IPOs should become more difficult if anything, in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER3> No. What's needed (at least around here in Palo Alto) is companies that actually make profits!

Also, Sarbanes-Oxley is not the reason companies aren't going public right now...

<comment><USER4> The cost of listing and compliance is a consideration - listing can add $1m+ to your yearly costs.

It's a big reason many companies are considering de-listing at the moment - with no liquidity in the market there are few reasons to stay on right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes. Lack of exit options discourages VC investment. I dont know if it's "needed" but it would be a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER4> The IPO market should come back pretty strong, possibly as early as later this year - especially if interest rates remain low. With low savings rates there will be a lot of cash people will be looking to invest and traditionally people like to get a bit of it in to higher risk vehicles like start-ups.

Right now the issue is liquidity, all the funds have been sh---ing bricks for the last few months - this chaos and panic needs to subside, then there needs to be a few months stability, then there will be a trickle of new investors, then will come a mad dash as people don't want to miss the next bubble.

One thing to consider at the moment is getting exposure to overseas funding - look at setting up a joint operation in another country e.g. if you are America look at Europe or Asia - having a joint operation will give you 2 places to seek funding and, if you are making any revenue, revenue in different currencies - this way you hedge against your country being sluggish coming out of the recession.

So my advice for starting up now is #think Multilingual#

</comment><comment><USER6> companies can already sell part of their stake. i.e. craigslist has 25% owned by eBay, and its a private company

<comment><USER7> I didn't think that craigslist sold part of their company to ebay. I thought it was a disgruntled employee that sold his private shares.

Craigslist doesn't like being part-owned by ebay. After all ebay sued craigslist for diluting its ownership by granting more shares to new employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How are you going to deal with scams?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's one of the legal hurdles. Theoretically, being an accredited investor means that you have a lower probability of falling for a scam. Bernie Madoff sort of proves that wrong.

There would have to be some form of financial transparency, but much more simpler than what the current standards are for public offerings.

Also, scams do exist in the public markets. Throw a dart at any stock under 2 bucks and odds are you've found one.</comment></comment>


Show r/startups: Ringo - building access the way you want it - <AUTHOR> https://www.tryringo.com/

<comment><USER2> I imagine it couldn't be that hard to change the title from "r/startups" to "HN", but that's just me. Interesting project nonetheless.</comment>


Ricky Jay: Secrets of the Magus (1993) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/04/05/secrets-of-the-magus# <comment><USER2> This is a wonderful interview and well worth a read, especially if you're a "hacker" and not familiar with Ricky Jay.</comment>


Teaching analysts to think differently - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-pathfinder/teaching-analysts-to-think-differently-a87ebb6512bc#.yetobdoik <comment><USER2> If the training is anything like the writing in this article, no one is doing any thinking to begin with, let alone differently. It's a lot of vacuous bullshit. Frankly, you should be training people to identify it as such.</comment>


Startup Britain - <AUTHOR> http://www.startupbritain.org/ <comment><USER2> AAAAAHH! Everything is a Headline! TOO MUCH EXCITEMENT!!! Can't parse any words. back Back BACK!!!!

At least, that was my four seconds on the site. Any survivors who managed to parse some content? Were there articles behind those links? Did those articles have any text in non-bolded, non-48px, non-shadowed text on a non-red background?

<comment><USER3> No. Most of it is trivial advice (for example; under "ideas" it links to TechCrunch) with links to other websites and lots of partner offers.

On one hand, it is a useful collection of links for entrepreneurs in the UK, and the offers, while not exactly brilliant, are worth looking at.

On the other it's not revolutionary.

According to the media there is going to be £1,500 of funding/incentives for startups as part of this project, but I haven't quite figured out if that is launched yet, or whether it means those offers and the other bits on the page (which is not very impressive if so).

I was talking to someone who is involved in this at some level and he said they are developing a mentoring scheme, events/tutorials and some awards/grants etc. But we will see.

Without the latter it's mostly a collection of "government backed" links and bluster.

<comment><USER4> _According to the media there is going to be £1,500 of funding/incentives for startups as part of this project, but I haven't quite figured out if that is launched yet, or whether it means those offers and the other bits on the page (which is not very impressive if so)_

From the news reports I've seen this is just the offers (e.g. the BBC say "New enterprises will be offered help worth about £1,500 in areas such as IT training and internet advertising."), so it's really not too impressive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm surprised this is from the government. It comes across as very spammy - like an affiliate marketing site. The copy reads like a content farm and most of the links are basically ads for different services. Surely the government can't be that strapped for cash?! Good idea, horrible execution.. (Though the site design is quite nice).

<comment><USER3> It has govt. backing (maybe funding, not sure), but this is from the private sector.

I am slightly suspicious of the fact that the people listed on the "About Us" page appear to have things to sell in this field. For example a link to a "startup kit" with a book by Emma Jones is linked from the first page.

It's fine if this is killer material and good stuff, and I hope it is, but it gives me pause for thought.

<comment><USER6> You remind me of the early 2000 Business Link companies. You rang up looking for advice, thinking it's a government initiative, but spend 70% of the time getting a hard sell for their web development sideline.

<comment><USER3> I met a BL person once with my then business partner to discuss bis- development ideas/options, and, yep, it was a total hard sell of the services; they couldn't "get" that our total capital was about £1,000 of our own money and there was simply no way I was going to pay £250 for X useless service ;P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My favourite part is Top Tip 4: Create a logo.

It doesn't matter if the band can play as long as they have a cool name.

<comment><USER8> I wish they had a step 5: "Profit"

<comment><USER9> The Lib Dems wanted one, but they decided to scrap that if the Tories scrapped their "Starve On The Streets" alternative as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the starting tab "Getting Inpspiration", I am certainly inspired

Still at least our lords and masters have taken the time to collate what 20 minutes with Google would have uncovered, as at the moment this just looks like big companies giving away freebies to get business.

Still any focus on enterprise has to be a good thing!

</comment><comment><USER11> It's good they're trying, but it doesn't instill confidence, somehow, especially that picture of Cameron. Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but I'd put more confidence in the weekly pub meeting they have in Brighton than this.

That said, there definitely does need to be something. The US definitely has a better start-up culture. And culture is definitely the right word here. I'd say pg did have a point when he advised moving to the US. Not that I think any Brits should, but that a dedicated area/culture would be really useful in the UK, and something we lack now.

</comment><comment><USER12> Not very "NoScript" friendly ... basically, nothing works (navigation, links) unless I disable it.

This always makes me pause to wonder if there's a compelling reason I should "temporarily" disable NoScript (which often then cascades to more sites I need to "temporarily" unblock), or just walk away. I often do the latter.

<comment><USER13> It's not just unfriendly, it's downright unpleasant. I first tried opening it on my phone, and Firefox basically locked up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Some more marks against this embarrassment to my homeland:

* Lots of text rendered in low-quality jpegs full of artifacts (yet it still downloads a bunch of fonts)

* Stolen artwork (the MSN messenger and iCal icons are in there with no modification except they're grayscaled. And is that the old download.com logo I can see?)

* No expires headers

</comment><comment><USER15> I haven't heard of any of the people behind this, although it is referenced on the Prime Minister's number 10 website[1]. It does look like a lot of the people involved have stuff to sell. Still, anything having a decent bash on encouraging entrepreneurship in the UK can only be a good thing(tm), for various values of good thing.

[1] - [http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2011/03/startup...](http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2011/03/startup- britain-62546)

<comment><USER14> Agreed. Putting Cameron's rubbery, mock-serious face right there up front was not the best decision. Putting it in front of searing beams of light penetrating dark clouds is just taking the piss.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Slightly more informal version:

[http://www.barricane.com/2011/03/05/uk-internet-startup- week...](http://www.barricane.com/2011/03/05/uk-internet-startup-week.html)

<http://groups.google.com/group/long-week-startups>

</comment><comment><USER17> As owner of a web design company in the UK, I am so thrilled that one of their top tips is to suggest start-ups outsource that kind of thing, thanks UK Gov!

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm disappointed not to see Business Link (<http://www.businesslink.gov.uk>) linked under the "best resources" section. As far as I can see it's a better, more thorough source of advice - certainly for issues such as taxes, company registration etc.

<comment><USER19> could have something to do with the "scandal" last year where the businesslink website was found to have cost some £100 million pounds to run for three years, making it something of an embarrassment (dare I say white elephant) to the government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> They link 'find an accountant' to <http://www.find-uk-accountant.co.uk/>

Where you can search for an accountant as an 'Individual' or 'Buisness' [sic]

The whole thing is largely just a bunch of links. I'd love to know how much it cost

<comment><USER9> Less than useless if you already know of several accountants in the area, including one which happens to be a former employer on your own curriculum vitae, and whom you already hire to do your books.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wish the US govt did more to reach out to startups. This may be over the top but if I was young techie in Europe this would be extremely appealing to me. Is this tied into their startup visa thing?

<comment><USER22> Is the US a hostile environment for startups? It seems the US is the most friendly environment in the world for startups.

<comment><USER21> excepting its immigration policy for skilled persons

<comment><USER22> Great, let me know what countries I can immigrate to as a highly skilled person with a profitable company. I've applied to Australia/New Zealand and Canada and been denied from all three. I keep hearing about how the US is unfair to not let immigrants in yet it seems clear our immigration policy is far more wide open than any other country in the world, and meanwhile it is very difficult for Americans to immigrate to the countries that are doing all the complaining. Name for me the country you are from so that I may read of your immigration policies that are more generous than those of America. I look forward to learning all about it. Thanks in advance.

<comment><USER21> Most countries are far worse than the US in terms of immigration policy for skilled workers. However, the US should make it stupid simple for talented techies to get work visas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> That look... Cameron is the new Jimmy Wales.

<comment><USER9> Or the new Jim Jones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why is Richard Branson flying?

</comment><comment><USER25> Looks like your average quango set up to provide branded packaged partner junk to businesses for no real benefit.

<comment><USER26> actually some of it looks pretty handy, like the 'startup kit' for £20 including £30 in adwords

<comment><USER18> It's easy to get adwords credit - Google regularly send out coupons and last time I looked HSBC were offering £75 adwords credit for opening a business account.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's just the thing for those who want to continue living in a police state!

<comment><USER27> Probably the most evil picture of cameron i've seen. On that grey background of death......o dear.

<comment><USER28> That's the sun coming out from behind a cloud :-) It just looks like the Apocalypse</comment></comment></comment>


YouTube's annoying Premium spam - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/23/20946114/google-youtube-premium-subscription-ads-pop-ups-spam-rant <comment><USER2> YouTube Premium is literally the service HN wants: honest payment to support a Google service costs and creators publishing on it. It's a sustainable service which actually earns more for creators than ads and data mining (at least according to last CPC values I've seen for video ads).

And yet, it seems like the author of this piece still feels entitled to complain about being asked to pay the price of service and these comments are full of people advertising products that still use the service without paying the asking price. It's like demanding that music authors just send you MP3s for free without paying for it at all.

I personally hope that more companies allow me to pay for their services instead of being plagued by behavioural ad tracking.

<comment><USER3> It's the opposite for me. I've been paying for Youtube Premium since back when they were calling it Youtube Red, and the nag screens haven't gone away. When I'm signed in, Youtube still sticks up banners that remind me that I have exclusive content I don't care about. I still get reminders about all of the "cool" features I don't want. I still have to jump through hoops to archive content that I care about. I'm paying money for exactly 2 reasons:

\- I want to support creators.

\- I want to watch #%!@X videos without distractions.

Youtube Red only helps me with the first point -- I can support creators, but it's even questionable there whether I'd be having a bigger impact by directly giving money on Patreon. In the meantime, I'm still paying money for Youtube Premium right now and I've gotten to the point where I _don 't use it_, because the experience with an adblocker and proxies is better than the experience I pay for.

At some point, when someone is paying money for a service and then going out of their way to avoid signing into their account or using the thing they pay for, you have to question whether the service is designed well.

<comment><USER4> > and the nag screens haven't gone away

I'm also there since Youtube Red and I'm not sure what you mean. I've never seen a nag screen so far. I wonder if it's some bug, or some kind of targeting failure?

<comment><USER3> From what I'm hearing, it seems to vary a lot from person to person. I would see a lot of popups on the official Youtube App for Android. Youtube was also really interested in getting me to install the Youtube Music app, even though one of the big benefits of Youtube Red in the first place was supposed to be background listening. Youtube Kids was advertised a lot, I didn't understand how I fit the target demographic for that one.

I also saw a lot of advertisements for addons or benefits (here's a Youtube Red exclusive video from some random B-list celebrity that doesn't belong in your recommendations). And I got a lot of tutorials and tips, like popups for how to subscribe to channels. That always felt weird to me, because even if I didn't pay for Youtube Red, surely after a while Youtube would figure out that I knew how to subscribe to channels.

Maybe it's gotten better. Like I hinted at above, I rarely sign into Youtube (I hope they're still distributing the money I give them at least somewhat fairly to creators I like). I'm now paying for Youtube, and separately using a combination of Youtube-DL, NewPipe, Invidious, and proxies/adblockers to build an experience that I consider tolerable. So maybe the notifications have gotten better and I haven't noticed because I haven't checked back recently?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I pay for YouTube premium but I'm still subjected to ads in the majority of videos I watch: the kind that are embedded by the creator directly in the video, eg, a one minute sponsored by Squarespace segment. I don't know how Google is framing YouTube premium (I get it through my Google play music subscription) but it is most assuredly not an ad-free experience.

<comment><USER2> What would a good solution for this be? Ask that creators upload a separate premium version of a video with no ads and with bigger payout for views?

<comment><USER5> I doubt there's a definition of "ad" that would be feasible target on a platform like Youtube. A trailer, for example, is an ad for a movie, but I think Youtube would be harmed if all of the upcoming movie trailers were removed.

As a consumer, I find it pretty easy to distinguish between a "wanted" ad and an "annoying" ad, but I don't think there's a way to enforce rules based on user value systems if for no other reason than every user's value system is going to be distinct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Welcome to the future: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU3GzYcb1g8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU3GzYcb1g8)

Tech companies are an oligopoly with a few actors. Competitions do not offer enough pressure to make them change. Regulation is the only way forward if we do not want to end in a dystopia.

<comment><USER7> Agree. We need some old school style trustbusting.

<comment><USER2> How would antitrust here look like? It's a subscription for a direct service... what's the monopoly solution here? Ordering Google to store and serve videos for free?

<comment><USER8> How about breaking up Google? Seems like that'd solve a lot more problems than it'd create.

<comment><USER2> Which problems mentioned in the original article would that solve? Concretely? Would stand alone YouTube not want payment for their service?

<comment><USER8> If YouTube were an independent company, they would have less leverage in the marketplace overall since they no longer are backed by Google's resources, no longer a part of Google's walled garden. Google will no longer have reason to give YouTube preferential treatment in ranking, advertising, etc. There's a lot of foundational things that will be shaken up, things which will force YouTube to actually be competitive, and actually provide value to users. Competitors will actually have a chance to dethrone them, and then the competitive forces of the marketplace, much like evolution, will lead to the crappiest business practices (like this premium spam) dying off and the market power shifting over to the users/customers.

That's of course assuming there's sufficient competition, and the power doesn't just shift over to Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft or some other anti- competitive giants.

<comment><USER7> Which is why you can't just break up one component of an oligopoly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Dunno if it's a regional thing or what but the last month of Android YouTube has been just _insane_ with ads. I used to only get video ads, then earlier this year got a little banner below the video that was about the ad that played before the video.

But now I have entire blocks of totally unrelated traditional-style ads for nothing YouTube or video related (like women's shoes) in the suggestions section.

<comment><USER10> Nope, same here. They used to have either one 5s ad or a skippable 20s+ ad. At some point they've started to roll two 5-10s ads back to back, or unskippable 10-30s ads, and only the 30s+ are skippable. The topmost video in the app is always an ad as well, in addition to all the text ads you mentioned. I get that video hosting costs beaucoup bucks but the amount of ads is getting ridiculous..

Its happening on other sites in other ways as well (either dark patterns or vast amounts of ads) and it has gotten me to the point where I actively take pleasure in extracting the maximum value for me as customer (so blocking ads, using VPN to pay in rubles or rupees, etc) as most companies these days see you as nothing but entities to suck as much profit out of as possible, with no regard for a reasonable middle ground. Sucks for them, that's a two-way street.

<comment><USER11> It's gotten so bad that I installed Newpipe instead.

Basically I tolerated Youtube ads up to a point, but now that I'm using Newpipe instead, neither Youtube nor the creators get anything.

I wish there was a better way, since it's not pracitcal to contribute to all channel's patreons.

<comment><USER12> Subscribe to Youtube premium?

<comment><USER13> Like many others mentioned, they don't completely stop nagging you simply because you subscribe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The author throws Apple under the bus pointing out a forced full screen modal message advertising Apple TV+. IMO this is an unfair comparison, because the Apple TV+ modal ad came up exactly once and never again (once per Apple TV device). Whereas YouTube is nagging and interrupting the author every day, multiple times a day.

I wish there was a YouTube alternative. I dislike their Apple TV YouTube app enough that I loathe to explore videos. Yet the content creators I watch only distribute on YouTube. I won't pay for YouTube Premium because I know the quality of the app is still the poor same.

<comment><USER15> I use RSS to keep track of my subscriptions and Invidio.us to watch them.

RSS is IMO waaay better than the sub-box because they are in the same place as all my other news.

Invidio.us doesn't have the best interface, but it offers all the necessary features and let's me do picture-in-picture on iPad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Even if you pay for YouTube Premium you'll then get reoccurring pop-ups to sign up and pay for YouTube TV.

<comment><USER17> Yo've pulled out your wallet. Perfect time for a neat upsell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I can't remember if it was on YouTube or not, but the other day, I wanted to watch a video about an Acura concept car, and it forced me to watch a Honda ad. I quit in disgust. People insist that online advertising works, but it's just too much to swallow any more.

<comment><USER19> 4 ads every 12 minutes was quite common on TV. I've always thought Youtube would ramp it up to this level one day. It's only a matter of time until VoD does it too (Netflix? for 7$?).

<comment><USER20> It was quite common _in the US_. We Europeans always considered US TV as totally unwatchable, because of the horrible, constant ad interruption.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure it was _always_ common in the US, I'm sure I heard a rumor that in olden days, cable didn't have ads, or had fewer ads because you paid for it. Some places in Europe pay for OTA TV so that could be connected with the quantity of ads, rather than the inherent superiority of the citizenry in all respects.

<comment><USER20> I think this has more to do with inherent superiority of the consumer defence laws.

BTW ads are an almost unmitigated nuisance: when France banned ads after 8PM on its public channels, their audience numbers soared (so the project which was an obvious gift from Sarkozy to his media mogul friends, badly backfired).

<comment><USER18> Banning ads was a failure, because it harmed the media? I thought the media was who sold ads.

Also, public television in the US doesn't have the same level of ads as other channels.

<comment><USER20> The idea was to ban ads on public TV to augment the price of ads for the private channels by reducing the market size. But instead people watched the no-ads channels more, so the price of ads on the private channels didn't soar but fell instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Someone not spending money and being indignant at the same time is generally not too interesting. Ask any business operator.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you want to get rid of pop-ups, ads, and other annoyances, try Newpipe on Android, and SmartYouTubeTV on FireTV / Android TV

[https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe](https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe)

[https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/](https://smartyoutubetv.github.io/)

<comment><USER23> I'd kill for a YouTube client for AppleTV or to go back to the old one before Google decide to trash the UI with immaterial design everywhere. YouTube has the worst UI on AppleTV by far.

<comment><USER24> Yes, literally only useable because of the voice input on the remote / mobile app

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "It's a pointless subscription that Google is trying to lazily ram down my throat instead of improving its offering,.."

It's now fashionable to shit on google on HN, but Youtube premium is one of the best investments I've made, and I'm glad google is giving that choice. How many times have I not read comments like 'give me an option to pay instead of showing me ads' on HN.

There are tons of videos on youtube that I listen to as podcasts while commuting (and there aren't enough good podcasts in that sector).

</comment><comment><USER26> I actually disagree with this. I am being provided 1080P video streaming into my house 24/7 with virtually no interruption. If they want to spam their premium stuff at me, that's a small price to pay.

I will complain to high heaven about misuse of personal data, but it is perfectly within their right to show pop up ads for their own premium product on the free version. I would be a lifelong subscriber if I didn't think they were abusing my data in the first place.

If there's anything I would complain about, is that the ads don't have enough variety. I see the same damn advertisements over and over. This is part of why I can't stand TV advertising either. Yes, it's patronizing and intrusive in my show, but but it's also repetitive. At least keep it interesting and tell me about some different products...

<comment><USER27> Same here, would buy a in a second if I believed it would make me the customer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I ditched the YT iOS app last night as the web interface is finally quite usable in Safari (iPad). Fullscreen works fine, quality and speed settings work fine, PIP mode works out of the box…

Both on my Pi-hole-powered internal network and my nextdns.io based mobile setup the experience is so. much. calmer. I recommend giving it a shot. If pi- hole is not an option for you, check out NextDNS. Solid tracker & ad blocking either way.

<comment><USER29> Seconded. I've never seen a single one of the popups from the OP myself, which I thought was curious until the author mentioned they were using the Android app, whereas on mobile I only use Youtube from within Firefox, which is perfectly serviceable (and apparently less annoying).

<comment><USER28> Well, I got rid of the native iOS app because the modal nag dialogs had become so annoying that I didn't want to put up with it anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> YouTube Vanced or Peertube don't show ads. They do show stories, which are stupid as well. Just as the recommendations are shit lately. Just more of the same instead of new interesting things.

If I can't block ads then I'll stop using YouTube. Did for half a year when I was on ios where adblock in the app didn't work.

</comment><comment><USER20> I use NewPipe on mobile. No nagging pop-ups, background play, free software.

</comment><comment><USER31> The edge YT has over its competitor music streaming providers is that I get access to both licensed and blatantly pirated material. I've been listening to 70s Japanese Rock, Apple Music has v little, YT has everything, none of what I'm listening to is licensed.

</comment><comment><USER32> For those annoyed by the YouTube app or website bloat: [https://invidio.us](https://invidio.us) is an AGPL alternative front end for YouTube that truly feels premium. It doesn't have pop up ads and even plays videos without javascript.

Source is here: [https://github.com/omarroth/invidious](https://github.com/omarroth/invidious)

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm a premium subscriber but I do agree that the pop-ups on non-paying users are too much. It's a poor proposition to make users subscribe to your service to get rid of annoying pop-ups. It's like an airline company telling customers to pay a fee to get rid of spikes on their seats.

But I also think the shrill tone of the article diminishes the message.

<comment><USER34> I'm using Youtube via Chrome browser with UBlock Origin. I can't remember seeing even a single ad in several years. I'm amazed that Youtube has not figured out how to prevent this, but at the moment it's a fantastic experience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I've had YouTube Premium/Red for years (the only thing I pay for to watch video content), but I'm about to cancel it because they now show ads on videos if those videos are embedded in other web sites. Most of the content I watch is on other web sites that curate content, and now the benefit of YouTube Premium is gone.

<comment><USER24> Can the embed detect your logged in state? Privacy settings may have changed in the browser.

<comment><USER35> Yes I am starting to suspect it has to do with changes in Chrome. I can't find out how to modify site settings to make it work though.

<comment><USER36> I believe the setting you're looking for is called 'uBlock Origin'

<comment><USER34> Indeed. Chrome + uBlock Origin = 0 ads on Youtube over the past several years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> ublock origin on desktop, youtube vanced on android.

</comment><comment><USER38> I agree with every word in this article. I understand adverts but being hit on the head with the google advertising tack hammer at every view is annoying. Makes me want to look for a new platform.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm sure someone already mentioned this, but I would pay for YouTube premium at a lower price just to remove ads. I have no interest in their music service.

<comment><USER40> That's what YouTube Red was. Did you subscribe to it?

If you did, why aren't you now grandfathered into YouTube Premium at that old price?

If you didn't, why not? It was after all exactly the product you now claim to have wanted.

<comment><USER41> > If you didn't, why not?

Not the poster you asked the question to originally, but YouTube Red was never available in Canada.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > Get background play with YouTube Premium.

Are you shitting me? I get background play with Firefox...

Also, I value my mobile transfer limits so... youtuble-dl it is.

</comment><comment><USER43> To each their own but YouTube premium is one of the few subscription services where I feel I get my money's worth. YouTube's content library drawfs everyone else's and I use it a ton for education as well as entertainment. So much so I think I'm going to cancel Netflix as it gets too little use to justify its price in my house. YouTube on the other hand is wildly more popular in my family.

</comment><comment><USER44> YouTube Premium is worth it IMO. No adds, the ability to minimize, and downloading videos locally, _all within the same app_ are killer features.

<comment><USER45> > the ability to minimize

It's sad that a basic element of computing is now considered a privilege people need to pay for.

<comment><USER2> > It's sad that a basic element of computing is now considered a privilege > people need to pay for.

Just like it's sad that being asked to pay the creator and service provider is now something we need to write whole articles to whine about.

How do you thing we'll get rid of personal data tracking and collection if you don't even want to pay a pittance for service you're using?

<comment><USER45> My problem is not with paying. My problem is that I am being asked to pay not for the content itself, but to remove bullshit limitations that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Also, it's very naive to think Google will suddenly stop tracking you just because you're paying for Premium... quite the opposite actually, as you've now given them a valid credit card and billing address.

<comment><USER2> Everything a paid service doesn't give you until you pay is a "bullshit limitation" right? Is all always arbitrary. Why do you refuse to pay for the features if you want them? Why do you feel they should serve you for free?

<comment><USER45> There's a difference between a service not giving me something and a service explicitly breaking platform conventions.

When I open a browser tab with audio in it I expect to be able to switch to a different app and the audio keeps playing. YouTube explicitly uses hacks to break that on mobile. I consider it very nasty to get out of your way and interfere with browser & OS features like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> YouTube Premium is the best $ I pay for streaming. YouTube has incredible inde music and background play makes consuming it possible.

</comment><comment><USER47> Got youtube premium so I can watch videos on my commute. NYC subway, no wifi, no 2g,3g,4g or 5g

<comment><USER48> ...or use youtube-dl (or newpipe on your phone), which does the same for free

<comment><USER49> Yeah there's a cheaper way. But like using Spotify versus ripping CDs or piracy, the convenience of the tool is the value.

<comment><USER50> Convenience seems to be a slippery concept. From my perspective, the convenience of mpv+youtube-dl cannot be beat. Neither the official web player nor the official mobile applications have the features I expect or desire.

For instance, I use text-to-speech to read aloud the subtitles of foreign language content. With mpv that's straight forward, but I wouldn't even know where to start with getting that to work using any of the official frontends of youtube.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Internet Freedom Day - <AUTHOR> http://www.internetfreedomday.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> No Google doodle. No politicians' speeches. No matter; let us remember regardless. Especially if you'll think of today as Aaron Swartz Day.</comment>


France Could Create A Developer Visa To Support French Startups - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/28/france-could-create-a-developer-visa-to-support-french-startups/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29

<comment><USER2> This will be interesting to follow. France is a great place, but needs to work with their rules around taxes and social obligations from employer to employee. It is too scary to be an entrepreneur in France and there is a lot of overhead. I hope they find a good model for startups since the country needs that energy and has the talent.

</comment><comment><USER3> France already privileges work-permit applications from engineers, who probably have an easier time than anyone else getting visas and legal employment in France. This has been the case for many years. Ironically, they seem to be taking a page from the startup book by "relaunching" their own policy.

France's real problems are its education system, which focuses on rote learning rather than Montessori-esque problem-solving, and its heavy state, which taxes and regulates businesses out of existence.

Together, those two factors encourage companies unable to adapt quickly to market conditions.

IMHO, TechCrunch focuses way too much on France and its "tech scene" for the simple reason that Romain is based there, instead of Berlin, London or Stockholm, where much more is happening.

</comment><comment><USER4> Heh, this is odd. France used to be a place where you best work for a large corporation, and keep your job for the rest of your life. Maybe they're eagerly looking at the Berlin scene... Which in itself hasn't been performing as good as it should have. Meh.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Welcome to France, entrepreneurs! It's a wonderful place to do business in, what with the lax regulation and light bureaucracy and all. Oh, and _far_ be it from our economy to be drowning in taxes. Very far.

But don't you fucking DARE to become 'rich', you bastard! -If you earn more than our socialist overlords deem appropriate, we'll just confiscate 75% of the 'excess'. Fuck you, slave. But, you know.. welcome."

<comment><USER6> HAHAHA. The first thing a French founder does is learn English so they can start finding funding.

If only the french treated Startups with the same respect they treated their Football/Soccer clubs...

"You CAN be 'rich', but only if you are a professional football player. They're the only one's who actually deserve to keep the money they make."</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is an auto-generated privacy policy OK for an MVP? - <AUTHOR>

We are launching a betta of our mvp product soon, and we need some legal stuff to be done: privacy policy, terms of service and etc. We do not want to waste time & money on lawyers at the current stage, so we found www.iubenda.com where we can autogenerate a privacy policy. Any experience with them? Any pros and cons (pls beyond obvious) of using such services? Do you know any other services like this? <comment><USER2> I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to give you legal advice. Generally speaking, it's very low-risk to use a boilerplate privacy policy for an MVP.

Ideally, instead of using a service like you mentioned, you should copy and edit the privacy policy of a service that is as similar to yours as possible.

Once you make your first dollar or get your first ~10,000 users, it'll definitely be time to hire a lawyer.

Some important questions though:

1\. How sensitive is your data? Is it PII (personally-identifying information)? That includes full names, addresses, phone numbers, and a complicated list of other things.

2\. Are you in Europe?

3\. Have you formed a limited-liability entity? In the US, that would be an LLC.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your reply. We indeed thought about using those materials, but not sure if it is punishable. 1\. Yes, the data is sensitive: full names, emails, and phone numbers and etc. 2\. We are targeting US market 3\. We have a C-Corp in the US</comment></comment>


How Hot is Toronto's Startup Community? - <AUTHOR> http://www.markevanstech.com/2013/02/21/how-hot-is-torontos-startup-community/ <comment><USER2> I agree, much healthier than 5 years ago. I think it still lacks something in "the culture" department. I can't really put my finger on it.

When I was comparing my experience in the valley, I would say i noticed in the valley : an embrace of risk, a willingness to cannibalize successful entities, and a focus on the future. Which one is missing in Toronto?

In my limited exposure of cities, if I had to rank them, I would put : Silicon Valley, Austin (texas), boston, toronto, denver, orlando, london, berlin, chicago,</comment>


Show HN: HTTPie: a CLI, cURL-like tool for humans - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jakubroztocil/httpie <comment></comment>