Why your startup should be a Delaware C-Corp, not an LLC - <AUTHOR> https://launch.gust.com/blog/why-startup-delaware-c-corporation?utm_source=hn&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=launch <comment><USER3> Gust spends no time talking about what happens when you try and sell a C Corp. If it's a stock sale great... if it's an asset sale, incredibly not great... you will have double taxation.

This matters. $10M paid to the company for an asset, turns into $6.5M after 35% corp taxes (using general numbers) and then $6.5M than distributed to shareholders, assume 30%+ (20% + state taxes + AMT (for now)) so $6.5M is now $4.55 after taxes aka 55% paid in taxes.

Given that info just do a stock sale right? Not so easy - not all acquirers want to buy an entire company, that comes with all the liability when sometimes it's just an asset they want with no liability. Often times purchase price is lower for a stock purchase with implied liability, also amortization for the acquisition works differently and an asset purchase again can be more favorable for an acquirer (and sometimes a higher purchase price).

<comment><USER4> Start a company today, and if you're lucky, you'll sell it no sooner than 5 years. In that case, you'll most likely qualify for QSBS, which means you'll pay an effective rate of 0%. Only available for C-Corps. You're welcome.

<comment><USER3> To expand on this as it's an important point and QSBS is the reason why VCs love C Corps... the deduction is the a HUGE benefit but also thanks to our tax system the deduction % is not static...

The % deduction you can take is entirely dependent on the year and sometimes month of when your stock is issued. For example we had C Corp stock issued in February 2010 so our FEDERAL deduction was 75% NOT 100% which it would have been if it was issued in November of the same year (Blah), also California no longer has the QSBS deduction so you still pay the 8%+ here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You can divide equity and issue incentive equity compensation at an LLC easily --- for less money than it takes to properly incorporate a Delaware C Corporation. We have an LLC with multiple classes of stock and vesting, and it took just a 20 minute call with our lawyer to get there. Our last company, Matasano, was an LLC for its entire lifespan (we eventually filed taxes as an S-Corp, but never reincorporated). LLCs work just fine.

You'll need a C Corp when you raise funds. But if you're not doing that right now, it takes less than an hour to get a Delaware LLC on the Internet, and you might as well just do that.

<comment><USER6> > it takes less than an hour to get a Delaware LLC on the Internet

Setting LLC's up is easy (even setting up a C-Corp is considerably easy) but for me the problem is always to maintain it and file taxes and other stuff on time etc. Is there any startup/service that helps me solve that problem?

<comment><USER7> posting to watch. I know similar services on the old continent but there's no point in startupping in europe, it's just a mess all-around

<comment><USER8> You sound like you have experience running startup(s) in Europe. Can you be more specific here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Incorporating as a C-Corporation in Delaware is the gold standard for high > growth startups

Not every business is designed to be a "high growth startup". Consulting firms, bootstrapped startups, small micro-ventures, self-published presses, all of these benefit from the ease and simplicity of an LLC. Unless an investor is cutting you a check for $1mil+ I would lean toward an LLC.

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely! For many kinds of businesses, LLCs make sense, but this post is specifically about startups.

<comment><USER10> LLCs make perfect sense for startups, too.

<comment><AUTHOR> If they don't want to grant equity or take investment, sure. But doing one of those two things means the legal costs of starting with an LLC (which aren't standardized) substantially outweigh any tax savings, and almost no startups prior to that point have positive cash-flow anyway so taxed profits aren't much of an issue.

<comment><USER11> LLCs can grant equity just fine. Please don't spread FUD.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, but there isn't an out-of-the-box mechanism to do that. You have to create a way to grant equity, which means you'll need to pay a lawyer—and hourly rates add up quick.

<comment><USER12> Still FUD. Plus, making equity deals without consulting a lawyer is a bad idea regardless of your corporate structure.

<comment><USER11> Exactly. Too many people trying to push all starts into a Delaware X corp for their own gain. Not great blanket advice for everyone, do your own research.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here's something I'm curious about. First off, I understand that few of you are lawyers, and any of you who are aren't being paid by me so none of this constitutes legal advice. :) I'd certainly talk to a lawyer before acting on it in any case, I just can't wrap my head around how Delaware is such an advantage.

I read that Delaware C corps/LLCs are the way to go because they're inexpensive. I'm in Texas. It looks like Texas would consider a Delaware entity as foreign, and require me to pay additional fees to do business in Texas. So that would appear to nullify any cost savings, since (IIRC) that fee was larger than registering the entity here when I last checked (I.e. I could just register a Texas LLC for $300 vs. registering somewhere else and paying a larger fee to transact business here.)

Is that just another in Texas' long and growing list of stupid things? Or, if your business is internet-based, are you not considered to be doing business in Texas in the sense that a more traditional corporation would? Not sure how that'd make sense, but...

It looks like, according to BOC 9.251, transacting interstate commerce doesn't automatically qualify as doing business, so if you might argue that a majority of your transactions are interstate by virtue of you being internet-based, I wonder if that makes a difference? So I'm wondering if this is a way that Texas is strict that other states aren't because, as I understand it, other states charge significantly more for LLC filing?

[http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/foreign_outofstate.shtml](http://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/foreign_outofstate.shtml)

Thanks.

<comment><USER14> Startup/Venture Capital lawyer here (but not your lawyer). The foreign qualification requirement is fairly universal - California has it, too. There are occasions when incorporating in a different state can be beneficial, but generally if you're raising VC $$, VCs are going to want to invest in a Delaware C-corp.

Delaware is NOT the cheapest, but it is extremely flexible (both legally speaking and administratively speaking - there are very few states where you can pay a premium and find someone to come in on a holiday/weekend to file your restated charter to close a big deal), and it has a very well-established body of law. That means everyone knows what to expect. Think of it like a really great WYSIWYG editor, whereas other states' laws can be like coding a site in a brand new alpha release programming language.

<comment><USER15> > it has a very well-established body of law. That means everyone knows what > to expect

Delawarean here! Having spent some time as a writer/reporter learning about the Delaware incorporation process, I've found that this is one of the biggest reasons why companies/investors continue to prefer Delaware.

Wyoming and Nevada are also known as business-friendly states in which to incorporate, but no other state has the wealth of case law that Delaware has.

<comment><USER14> True, but most people don't actually know the practical effects of having an established body of law. Mostly because it's difficult to compare Delaware with 49 other different sets of rules in a digestible format.

Here's one example of the difference between CA and DE: California, as a baseline, generally requires class votes on amendments to charters. Delaware, as a baseline, generally requires only a majority of all capital stock to vote in favor of an amendment to the charter. This means that in California, the holders of common stock (or the holders of a prior venture round stock) could potentially block a future round of financing, which most VCs would say is not a great result.

<comment><USER16> This gets murkier though because California law declares corporations to be 'quasi-California corporations' if they meet certain requirements such as having principle offices in the state, and then declares that some California corporate law rules apply. Case law isn't clear, so often class votes are held even if not required.

<comment><USER14> Ehh, since VantagePoint (DE Supreme Court affirming Chancery Court, 2005) and Lidow (CA appellate court in dicta, 2012) there hasn't been anything saying that Section 2115 _should_ apply that I've come across. It's not perfectly settled, but it's not unreasonable to rely upon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A reminder: LLCs aren't one tax status.

You can have an LLC taxed as an S-Corp, an LLC taxed as a C-Corp, or an LLC taxed a pass through. Anyone who says an LLC is taxed in a particular way is way over simplifying to the point of confusion.

But, to over simplify on my own, Delaware is popular because it has a history of protecting shareholders over management. The movie Wall Street exists because in the 80s, companies tried to protect themselves from investors -- and Delaware stuck with shareholders firing management (not entirely, but significantly). In theory, investors may pay a bit less if you're in a state without that track record.

But, there are plenty of exchange-traded LLC securities, so it's not a bar or ban to fundraising.

</comment><comment><USER18> Probably a stupid question, but if you're bootstrapping a startup into which you _might_ (but also might not) take investment at some point, wouldn't it be better to do whatever has the lowest cost and administrative overhead, and then sign over all its rights/assets/etc. to a fresh Delaware C-Corp when/if you have investors ready?

So for example if you're in California you might do a California LLC until/unless you have a VC ready to back you. Or if you're in Germany you might do a UG (aka "mini-GmbH").

The point being to get yourself a legal structure and liability protection at the lowest possible cost in both money and distraction, and if it turns into something you want to sell some or all of to Silicon Valley you make a new company to own the old company's assets.

IA(obviously)NAL but it seems like you should keep things simple until you need them to be a certain way.

<comment><USER11> Yes. This is what most people do. The C Corp making no profits with no employees is a total waste.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> LLCs pass losses and gains through to their "members" (the equivalent of a C Corp's shareholders). While this can be tax advantageous to closely held firms, it creates significant complexity for professional investors. As a result, professional investors typically insist companies they invest in be C Corporations.

As for Delaware, there's the most legal precedent on corporate law in the state making its rules the most predictable. Uncertainty increases risk and, therefore, decreases investors' interest.

There are lots of things you should be innovative on when starting a company, corporate structure is almost never one of them. If you're starting a business and think you may raise money from professional investors, incorporate as a C Corp in Delaware.

<comment><USER20> An LLC can choose its tax status - that can be as a sole proprietorship (for single member LLCs; basically it all goes on your personal return), as a partnership/S corp or as a C Corp.

I agree that you should either do a domestic LLC or a Delaware C Corp depending on whether you want a lifestyle business or a high growth venture capital-backed startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The one reason not mentioned here that may tilt it in favor of a C-Corp is if you anticipate that your company will likely be bought at some point (i.e. strong market interest). When you incorporate as a C-Corp (or convert to one), the clock for a QSBS exemption starts ticking (see: [https://blog.wealthfront.com/qualified-small-business- stock-...](https://blog.wealthfront.com/qualified-small-business-stock-2016/)) The QSBS exemption can make your first $10M free of federal tax, and so is a very nice benefit. There is no QSBS exemption for an LLC - you will have to convert to a C-Corp, and the clock starts ticking on conversion.

</comment><comment><USER22> There's legitimate reasons for wanting a C-Corp over an LLC, but we were an LLC for 7 years and almost nothing the author mentions was an issue:

a) Legal liability? "Limited Liability" is what the LL in LLC stands for. b) Dividing ownership? If you keep things simple, like a 50-50 split, not a problem at all. c) IP ownership? What?

Yes, if you're raising money you probably need a C-Corp, but if you keep things relatively simple, the transition doesn't need to be expensive or time- consuming.

<comment><USER23> The page never says a. or c. There is even a venn diagram down near the bottom showing they both have these qualities. It's arguing for incorporation, and then specifically as a c-crop.

<comment><USER22> Ah ok. I was reading the subhead "how is a C-Corporation different from an LLC? Here's the rundown." as implying that the content was right below that about the differences.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> He forgets arguably the most important consideration - taxes.

C-corps have double taxation and LLCs do not. For every dollar you pay yourself from your cooperation you'll have to pay on the order of 15% more.

If you plan to never make money or just make money by raising money then a C-corps is for you. Other good argument is if you plan on going public. Otherwise strongly consider the tax implications before starting a C-Corp.

<comment><USER25> If there's a chance you will want to be raising funds or giving out equity than it might be cheaper to form as a C-Corp, temporarily elect S-Corp status, and elect to remove that S-Corp status when need be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Fun thing about Delaware: they have an equity court run by the state that functions as a secret arbitration panel. But instead of ruling in line with the law, they rule in line with what's deemed "fair," hence the name "equity court."

Unfortunately we don't know how they rule so we can't run statistics on it. But if anyone would like to leak a data set, feel free to leave me a message in this thread

<comment><USER15> You're talking about Chancery Court: [http://courts.delaware.gov/Chancery/](http://courts.delaware.gov/Chancery/)

I'm not sure what you mean by secret. Here are some of its recent opinions: [http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/index.aspx?ag=court%20of...](http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/index.aspx?ag=court%20of%20chancery)

<comment><USER26> I got two things confused. They _had_ secret arbitration as part of the Chancery court and but apparently it was shut down by the federal courts

Thanks for pointing that out

[http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-24/news/sns-rt- us...](http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-24/news/sns-rt-us-delaware- supreme-court-20140324_1_arbitration-cases-u-s-court-delaware-coalition)

<comment><USER27> Arbitration proceedings are normally private and confidential, by consent of both parties, so the fact that it was "secret arbitration" isn't surprising. It looks like the news media were describing this as "secret courts", which seems a little sensationalist.

It seems to have been a way for standing court judges to decide arbitration cases. Without knowing anything about the circumstances, that seems better than having other people who are not judges decide arbitration cases, no? What was the problem with it?

This page seems to have more detail: [http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/commercial...](http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/commercial/articles/spring2014-0514-third- circuit-rejects-delaware-court-of-chancery-confidential-arbitration- program.html) \- since it was a government-sponsored program, the public has the right of access because courts have a tradition of accessibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I haven't got a ton of experience in this arena, but what I have done in the past is: 1) incorporate the larger venture as an LLC ("My Company, LLC"); 2) incorporate the specific project as a C-Corp ("My Company's App, Inc.") – my partners and I own the LLC, which controls the C-Corp, which holds the assets of the project.

Specifically, this makes it easier if we want to sell "My Company's App" to a Facebook- or Google-class buyer entity. The LLC can also incorporate a bank, if "My Company's App" needs to start conducting transactions that necessitate the use of (say) a Federal Reserve client (á la Venmo or Stripe).

<comment><USER29> I don't see how this would make it easier? What advantage do you have?

<comment><USER28> Separation of concerns, fungibility, limited exposure, a lower bar on future legal entanglements … I could go on

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I formed a Delaware C-Corp when I had a different vision for my company.

But now I have no plans to raise capital, get co-founders, issue stock, etc. I just want to run the company as as a solo-founder cash cow.

I never issued a single share (even to myself), never assigned any IP, and the company has no tangible assets. I just ran expenses and payroll through the company. I suspect that would make closing the C-Corp easy. I'll then create a new CA LLC with completely separate books.

I realize HN isn't a free legal advice forum, but any comments regarding the challenges of closing a DE C-Corp would be appreciated.

<comment><USER14> Startup/Venture Capital lawyer here (but not your lawyer). Winding up a corporation can take a little time, but it's generally not terribly complex. It's mostly filing a few forms with the state. However, there are more considerations that you'll want to make as you decide what to do - <USER2> question being, "who is liable for the acts of your company before the CA LLC existed?" Entities, when properly used, can shield you from personal liability. But if the entity is no longer in existence, then you may end up being personally liable for any acts (without the proper planning).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The information in this post is not entirely accurate.

You can certainly issue incentive equity, divide up ownership, AND take money from outside investors with an LLC. We did it frequently at the private equity fund I worked for a few years back.

Little known fact -- if you structure your employee's incentive equity as LLC profit interests, the ultimate payout is treated as capital gains as opposed to ordinary income (which is the case for vanilla options) for tax purposes. It does take a little more structuring but definitely worth the hefty payoff in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER32> Is it true that you may enter the funding cycle as an LLC but that as a practicality you won't exit funding as anything but a C, that angels and VCs will insist on this restructuring? I think the answer is yes but I don't know.

Can someone price the cost of converting a Delaware LLC to the C structure that VCs will expect? I think (again, I don't know) that we're talking about a couple of grand of post-money lawyer time.

Early stage startup founders have a lot on their plates. Getting this nuance right to save a few bucks will cost some upfront neurons and some time for something which is ultimately procedural. The OP suggests that we mentally work through this ahead of time and I see the point. But it's like priced equity vs SAFE. It requires a lot of upfront neuron work.

The LLC vs C tax issue seems to be a bit of a canard. You most likely won't have any profits to tax this early and you won't exit funding as an LLC.

Anyways, as the Zuckerberg Florida LLC example shows, you can get these things slightly wrong and still move forward. Getting something infinitely right will guarantee that you will never move forward.

<comment><USER14> Startup/Venture Capital lawyer here (but not your lawyer). Agreed with chimeracoder below. As for cost, a few grand is a good minimum estimate, but it really depends on the complexity. If you've been around as an LLC for a while, you may have different types of equity that has been issued (e.g. profits interests), which will complicate the conversion process a bit. Your lawyer will also have to review the LLC's operating agreement to make sure there aren't any funky protective provisions or oddities that will complicate the conversion. Unlike most Delaware C-corp charters in the startup world, LLC operating agreements are extraordinarily flexible and variable documents, so it's a custom review almost every time we have to go through one of these conversions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> There are three points of his, with which I have personal experience, where I believe the article is incorrect.

1\. Division of ownership in an LLC can be made very similar to a C-Corp. In all rights and restrictions. In an LLC it is typically called a Unit instead of a Share. You can sell a PPM (Private Placement Memorandum) for Units, at some par value, to raise money. You can dilute Units. Units can have voting rights or not. His statement on division is clearly incorrect from my own company where we had many initial investors. Some were institutional, some were individual, some were via investment vehicles.

2\. He states LLCs don't have Options. This is also not entirely true. The similar vehicle in an LLC is called a Warrant. Warrants can have the same rights and restrictions as Options. Warrants are used to incentivize employees with ownership rather than cash. Again, in our company we used Warrants to attract talent and compensate early employees to great effect.

3\. Protection is another point he brings up. Yes the Corp (C and S) is battle tested in the courts. Yes LLCs have not been tested to quite that extent. However, to flatly state that a C Corp will protect you is a little overselling what the reality is. The Corporate Veil is not impermeable. As a matter of fact, it is most often pierced (outside of blatant misconduct) by attacking under or low initially capitalized companies and closely held businesses. Companies like startups who start small and become successful quickly.

I see this particular article as not having researched LLCs, their use case, and the benefits they possess in some cases over Corporations. I understand no SV VCs will talk to you unless you have a C-Corp. I get it many Lawyers in the startup ecosystem want you to create a C-Corp. But this is truly a small percentage of businesses and even a small percentage of startup businesses.

Why blanket write off any particular solution (or all others for that matter) without first checking to see if it can meet your specific needs?

</comment><comment><USER34>
        Most angel investors and VCs will also insist that your company be a Delaware C-Corporation for legal reasons

I keep hearing this, but what are these reasons?

<comment><USER35> If you invest in an LLC then you will be purchasing membership units. If you have membership units in an LLC, then you have to file a tax form every year (K1) that reports your portion of the earnings or losses from the LLC. The investor will have to pay the taxes on his portion of any profit generated by the LLC, even if the LLC didn't distribute any the profit.

Investors typically have dozens of investments. Filing K1s for all of your investments is a huge amount of work.

<comment><USER36> The LLC issues the K-1 to the investors, you just attach it like the other 1099ish forms you receive from other sources of income (e.g. 1099-DIV).

<comment><USER37> As an angel investor, I don't want to deal with that kind of hassle. If the company is losing money, it may want to carry forward the tax losses to offset future profits. If the company is making money, are you also going to distribute cash to your investors to offset the tax liability you just threw onto them? Will you get my K-1 to me well in advance of the April 15 filing deadline so I can plan my taxes, or will you piss me off by getting me a K-1 on Apr 14 and surprising me with a last minute tax liability? If any of your investors are non-US persons, now they have to file US income tax returns. These are the practical reasons why investors hate pass through entities.

<comment><USER36> Which is entirely fair. I don't think I've ever received a K1 before April 15th, including from the venture funds I invest in.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Anyone starting a business should consult an attorney and an accounting firm, discuss your business, discuss your short and long term goals (are you planning to run the business forever, with partners, or sell it as soon as possible?)

They will help you determine the best solution for incorporation.

There is no cookie-cutter answer to incorporation and anyone that pushes one is probably selling you something and most likely not an attorney or accountant.

</comment><comment><USER39> For those of you who aren't raising money or have cash flush from VCs: how do any of you, if you're in California, handle the LLC 800 dollar min tax? Do federal deductions against the business typically negate it?

I understand the reasons for not having a direct LLC in Cali (Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming are the gold standard I realize)

Just wanted to know in practice if you just bite the bullet on the stupid minimum tax or not

</comment><comment><USER40> I hate to be _that_ guy, but no one should take legal or accounting advice from a blog post. There are a lot of good reasons for your company to be an LLC or C-corp and there are a lot of good reasons to incorporate outside of Delaware.

Nevada for example also has no corporate income tax. Montana, South Carolina, and New Mexico don't specifically regulate money transmitters.

Delaware is great for share holder rights, but if you don't have a lot of growth or external investors yet, incorporating in Delaware may be overkill as you can always do so later.

Mostly, startups should be focused on product, not things like incorporating until you need to. And by then, spend the lousy 2k on an attorney to advise you and do it properly.

<comment><USER37> You're confusing domicile with state of incorporation. E.g. A Delaware corp resident in Nevada pays no state income either. As others have said, if you plan to raise outside capital and have an exit, then you should be a Delaware C Corp. If you are planning a lifestyle business, then an LLC in your state of residence is fine.

<comment><USER40> im not confusing anything. Deleware C corp is beneficial for a lot of reasons. so is an LLC. Many startups might have both.

Corporate structures are significantly more complex than:

> if you plan to raise outside capital and have an exit, then you should be a > Delaware C Corp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Spoiler alert: Gust is not your lawyer, don't take legal advice from them.

<comment><USER42> Why is this the default answer to any discussion on topics such as these?

I look at it as Vaudeville acts vs Hollywood films. Or local hack community college professor vs Youtube Stanford Machine Learning Course.

The legal and tax situation is written into the law. The VC outlook on this topic is common knowledge.

So why do we have to pay expensive consultants (attorneys, accountants) for what are in reality just FAQ's.

Incorporating an LLC is one of the easiest government interactions I have ever had. It is literally a one page form, the hardest part is picking the name of the company (definitely check the US trademark office database and get the .com)

It was the same for the Delaware C Corp I created. A one page document that needed to be faxed.

All the rest of the paperwork was very elegantly handled by Clerky.

I think there is a big risk in going for advice from an attorney and getting bad advice. I feel much more comfortable in broad research on a topic and crowd-vouched and vetted knowledge rather than trusting one sole practitioner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Nothing about S-Corp? We did the C-Corp twice and we've never got to the level we wanted so we switched both times to S-Corp. Currently we're as S-Corp and it saves us a lot of money.

</comment><comment><USER44> Here is my question:

How can issuing options be worth the cost of taxation?

I mean, eventually, you get taxed 35% extra! How can the ability to issue options possibly offset that massive value transfer out of the company?

</comment><comment><USER45> Belgium has a 0% tax on selling shares. Left wing parties want to change that. I hope they're never in enough power to do so.

</comment><comment><USER46> They're overdoing it with:

"you want ownership of these intellectual property assets to be the property of the startup, not the individual founders" ... "means that nobody can hold the company's future hostage purely on the basis of their past contributions"

This ain't so easy nowadays.

</comment><comment><USER30> If I understand correctly, a California company that forms a Delaware C-Corp will not only have to pay California state taxes but also 7.8% taxes to Delaware.

Is my statement accurate ? 7.8% of net profits is such a huge expense I can't understand how any company justifies it.

<comment><USER47> No. That 8.7% tax is for taxable income derived from Delaware i.e. if you physically operate out of Delaware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> One of these days I've gotta write, "why your startup should be a co- operative".

</comment><comment><USER10> Your startup should be a C-corp only if you are raising money and want to take on the additional organizational complexity.

Otherwise the author is wrong to try and say that all startups should take this path and not LLC.

Especially if you're bootstrapping, LLC is the way to go.

</comment><comment><USER49> If you quit your job during the year (let's say June), then you can deduct your LLC losses the next year, and receive a nice tax refund. You can't do it with an C-Corp.

</comment><comment><USER50> Note: You may also lose the ability to get local (state/city) tax breaks and government money if you are an out-of-state corp.

</comment><comment><USER51> Sure, he's correct -- if and only if make a lot of assumptions.

But he is talking about startups, and there, from all I can see and without his many assumptions, a Delaware C-Corp is a lot more time, lawyer money, other overhead, and botheration than just an LLC.

Sure if I have co-founders, which YC seems to want but I don't, or Sequoia wants to write me an equity check for $20 million, which, by the time they would, I wouldn't need, want, or accept it, I'd want a Delaware C-Corp.

But, IIRC, with a C-Corp, I have to have a BoD that I have to keep happy, or they can and very well may fire me -- take my company. So, a Delaware C-Corp has me take a lot of the power I have as CEO and 100% owner of my startup and hand a lot of that power, control, and financial value to a BoD for no good, and many really bad, reasons. "Financial value"? Sure, the BoD could fire my ass, put in one of their buddies as CEO, and the BoD and their buddy could issue nice stock options to the members of the board. Due to vesting, etc., I could leave with nothing, not even $0.00. They could flatly just steal my company from me including all the value, cash, intellectual property, promise, everything -- 100%.

There's nothing seriously wrong with, and a lot of important advantages to, being CEO and 100% owner of a successful LLC startup. Or, all across the US there are pizza shops, flower shops, auto body shops, dentists, etc. that don't have a BoD. My startup has a lot more financial promise than an auto body shop, but I don't want a BoD either.

E.g., with a BoD, have to have board meetings. Then the members of the board have to travel to the meeting. So, guess where the money comes from for their travel (first class air, limo service?), lodging (four star hotel?), fancy dinners? No thanks.

I learned early on that I'm not always good at pleasing people, even if I do really good work. E.g., my Ph.D. is in applied math, and I did the research independently with no faculty direction or input, picked the problem before I went to grad school, and did the core research in six weeks alone in the library in my first summer. I gave a graduate seminar on my work, designed and wrote the illustrative software, wrote and typed the dissertation, stood for my oral exam (majority of the faculty from outside my department, Chair, Member, US National Academy of Engineering, from outside my department, majority people I'd never met), passed, first time, without revision, from a world famous, world class research university, and got my Ph.D.

BUT: In the eighth grade, the arithmetic teacher gave me a D (as is common for boys of that age, my handwriting was awful and so was my clerical accuracy) and fervently advised and urged me never again to take anymore math. Right, honey: I didn't take freshman calculus, taught it to myself, started on sophomore calculus in a course using the same text Harvard did, found the course easy, and made an A. In my high school, all the female teachers (gossips?) were all conviced I was a poor student and a poor math student, but the only male math teacher I had sent me to a state math tournament, my aptitude and achievement tests showed that I was one of the best math students in the school, an especially good high school, I got sent to an NSF summer math program, and on the school's SAT math scores, of 1-2-3, I was #2. #1 went to Purdue. #3 went to MIT. In college I wrote on group representations and got Honors in math. My math GRE score was 800. Then I was sent to another NSF program, in axiomatic set theory and modern analysis. But my high school female math teachers thought I was a poor math student. I was a very good math student, but there was no way I could please those females.

Being good is not enough. Instead, people can get totally pissed at you for no good reason, even if you walk on water in warm weather.

A BoD might just hate my guts. E.g., if I presented some original math derivations, with advanced prerequisites, for a step forward for part of the business, say, as part of getting the budget approved, the BoD might soil their clothes, the board room furniture, and the carpet on the way to the rest rooms and come to deeply, profoundly, bitterly hate and despise me, all for no good reason.

If have something rare and good, don't dilute it with a lot of mediocre nonsense. If are lucky enough to have Michelangelo painting the ceiling, don't send in a lot of house painters to give him advice. Or, when Stravinsky wrote _Right of Spring_ , some Tin Pan Alley guy wanted to recommend a good _arranger_ for Stravinsky's music. For such nonsense, just say not only "no" but, if they insist, "hell no".

Reporting to a BoD has a big downside, a huge risk for no good reason, and nearly no significant upside. E.g., there is a good chance that not one BoD member of an information technology startup anywhere in the world has even the math prerequisites to understand the crucial, core math I derived for my startup; not understanding the math, they will not be able to do their jobs and will hate me. So, no way do I want to put my career and startup in the hands of a BoD that hates me.

</comment><comment><USER52> Once I create a C-Corp can I change it later to a LLC, for selling assets later and paying less taxes, per example?

</comment><comment><USER53> Don't form a C Corp until you have investors ready to pay for it. (100k+ check.)

</comment><comment><USER54> What if I'm Canadian? Is it better to incorporate in Ontario or Delaware?

<comment><USER55> Do you mind paying US tax?

<comment><USER54> I don't mind, in fact I was under the impression US tax was lower than Canadian tax

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Why no mention of S-Corp?

<comment><USER57> S-Corp is a pass-thru, so not acceptable to take outside money. The investor wants a C-corp. But home State or Deleware is debatable. I chose home State vs Delaware for tax reasons

<comment><USER58> LLC's are also passthrough by default, though you can elect another tax treatment easily enough. The problem with s-corps is that a valid s-election requires that all stockholders are humans. The presence of a business entity stockholder would void your s-corp status. Keep in mind that an s-corp is not a different kind of entity, it is just a corporation that has a valid election for passthrough taxation under subchapter s and equivalent state income tax provisions.

<comment><USER57> Yes. And sometimes the investment round you take is from a group of investors that have formed their own LLC - this one LLC takes smaller monies from investors and then, as the LLC becomes an investor in your Corp. So, their LLC need you to be a C-Corp. Or add each of the dozen+ LLC members to your own cap table, what a mess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Reading this made me want to incorporate as an llc... lol

</comment><comment><USER60> AND THE COUNTERPOINTS:

1\. An LLC is easy and you can form a C-Corp whenever it is needed. If your investors are equity/debt firms, they can form the C-Corp for you at that time.

> but most startups usually stick with Delaware and file a foreign > qualification form to operate in their own home state.

2\. There are at least 55 states and territories in the United States which ALL HAVE THEIR OWN SEPARATE incorporation laws. Their legislature hasn't been asleep for the last 30 years, there is real competition in fees, regulations, anonymity, taxes and incorporation structures in many jurisdictions outside of Delaware.

If their courts encountered an unforeseen problem, they can all lean on Delaware's entire body of case law. So the benefits of Delaware's court of chancery are overstated, and the circumstances where you want that or its arbitration are slim.

3\. Delaware's oh-so-progressive corporate laws also include parallel securities transparency laws that can introduce compliance burdens above and beyond what the Federal Government stipulates.

Conclusion: You don't need a C-Corp and you don't need to incorporate in Delaware. Being spoonfed the perks of Delaware is easy and barely anybody is publicly talking about what other states offer, and you will have to do your own research.

KPMG and Deloitte and PWC produce annual documents on incorporation perks in jurisdictions all around the globe. Including individual United States.

</comment><comment><USER61> A Logical Fallacy: We did something we think might be right for us (but we don't really know yet), therefore everybody in the entire world should do exactly the same thing regardless of their circumstances, and divorced from whether or not this actually works for us or not.

<comment><USER14> Agreed. The argument Gust presents here for making a C-corp is pretty darn thin, if not verging on inaccurate.

I agree that a C-corp is the right way to go if you're planning on raising venture rounds, but the three reasons presented (can grant stock, can grant options, and required by investors) are misleading at best. LLCs can grant membership units/shares and profits interests, which can act functionally very similar to stock and options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wonder when we will be able to integrate blockchain based entities like Aragon into the startup economy:

[https://aragon.one/](https://aragon.one/)

We haven't seen things like the first acquisition, the first bankruptcy, mergers, etc . . . and don't even know if those things are exactly possible as we conceive of them today.

<comment><USER63> That sounds like a category error.

Your individual and/or corporate actions happen in a legal jurisdiction - technology does not change that.

<comment><USER64> It'll be interesting to see "solutions" like that run into the first clashes with a legal system that is not inclined to accept "the software won't let us do that" as a valid excuse for not complying.

<comment><USER62> I tend to think about it the other way. I think it'll be interesting to see a legal system's first clashes with "code doesn't do that".

<comment><USER64> Most legal systems have hundreds of years of experience with clashes with people saying "we can't do that". It's one of the oldest excuses around.

The solution tends to be to either assign whatever applicable fines or other punishments applies, or to put someone in jail for contempt until the come up with a solution.

If you have structured your company in a way that makes it impossible for you to comply with a courts decision, then that is your problem - it does not absolve you of the responsibility to comply with the courts decision.

There's simply nothing new there. Blaming technology will rank up there with "the dog ate my capitalization table" on the list of arguments the court will not care about.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Free Speech Loses in India - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/02/wendy-doniger-free-speech-india.html <comment><USER2> Irony abounds. An article that downplays the status of free speech rights in India and mocks Dr. Subramanian Swamy to make its point conveniently sidesteps the double standards of US institutions (for e.g., the same Dr. Swamy was sacked from Harvard because of his free speech rights). Better explained in a comment by Pradip4.

<comment><USER3> I agree with you on the hypocrisy of US media on this one. But I still don't understand what Dr swamy finds so objectionable in the book. I've started reading it, and it seems like a very scholarly treatment of the ignored sections in the history of hinduism. Surely Dr swamy understands the importance of protecting controversial academic works?

<comment><USER4> @cubancigar11 "And ultimately it should Hindus who get to decide the meaning of Hinduism."

Why? Cause I doubt they would agree. To say unless you are X then you can't comment on X is foolish.

<comment><USER5> If it is foolish to you, then so be it. To categorically ignore the power play implied by defining a section without any input from it (and ignore rest of the comment, I suppose, along with the book and its criticism) seems intelligent to you then so be it. I am deeply aware of my inability to explain what has already been explained by others, so I resign.

"Cause I doubt they would agree." That should tell the complexity of defining Hinduism and the amateurish level western 'Indologists' have achieved which they spread around, calling any criticism to their approach 'foolish'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's hard to know, really, what to make of the stuff in this article. On one hand, functioning society, business, and government requires a relatively uninhibited flow of information, and it is particularly dangerous when a government, which monopolizes force, also decides to restrict dialog about issues.

But on the other hand, the limits of free speech are ones that must be decided close to those affected. Brandenburg got off with calling for (and stating he wanted to be a part of!) genocide against African Americans at a KKK rally not because this speech contributed anything to the public discourse worth saving but because the US government had made a series of serious overreaches in prosecuting Communists. Since one couldn't draw a principled line between arguing for eventual genocide and arguing for eventual overthrow of the government, Brandenburg had to be set free.

In the end, I think, that communities have a right to make mistakes, and since free speech can't be unlimited (handing someone a gun and saying "I hope someone shoots so-and-so" isn't protected speech anywhere in the world), the peoples affected get to make this discussion.

One thing that bothers me though: there are a number of fields, like historical linguistics which are malaigned by some in India as colonial (and in fact historical Indo-European linguistics arose from the colonial experience historically) but are argued against as straw men (thinking that the Indo-European hypothesis means Europeans invading India, which it doesn't). I do have a concern that by moving towards a more insular culture in this regard, that it is harder and harder for Indian scholars to make their voices and perspectives heard internationally. It would be tragic if in the interest of protecting the Indian cultural experience, these sorts of things lead to the denial of an Indian perspective in these sorts of disciplines.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've seen some crazy shit go down on CSPAN, but definitely nothing as crazy as senators pepper spraying each other.

<comment><USER6> In many countries, fist fights in parliament are not unheard of.

<comment><USER8> There was at least one beating with a cane related to a speech about US slavery that happened in the senate building, if not while the senate was in session.

<comment><USER7> Yes, the caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. It was because there was such a heated rift between the north and the south that representative Brooks thought it would be more fitting to discipline his opponent with a cane used to beat an unruly dog than to challenge him to a duel, as was the norm at that time. He beat Sumner repeatedly with the cane, then calmly walked away like a total gangsta - definitely one of the most memorable stories from my high school history class.

It's worth noting that not too long after that incident, there was a civil war...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What you have to understand is India is in someways many little countries pushed together. Different languages a religions. So politicians play this up and do BS such as banning books.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's a sad day when my country sacrifices freedom of speech, yet again, in response to a mediocre* book from a largely ignored author which would have faded into oblivion on its own.

* or worse - Read the Amazon reviews, specifically the ones by the author's fellow academics [http://www.amazon.com/The-Hindus-An-Alternative-History/dp/1...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Hindus-An-Alternative-History/dp/1594202052)

</comment><comment><USER10> The news from India these days is rarely cheery.. This sentence pretty much sums up my feeling about my country, these days..

<comment><USER11> Probably because your feeling is based on news?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> IMHO, It is Penguin's fault. There are religious extremists in every country. If you are going to release a book that does not agree to their view of the religion, they will complain. This matter should have settled in court. It is wrong to blame the country for Penguin taking of its book just because an organization asked it to.

</comment><comment><USER13> Here is the report from New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/indian- publishe...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/world/asia/indian-publisher- withdraws-book-stoking-fears-of-nationalist-pressure.html)</comment>


Why doesn't GCC optimize a*a*a*a*a*a to (a*a*a)*(a*a*a)? (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6430448/why-doesnt-gcc-optimize-aaaaaa-to-aaaaaa

<comment><USER2> Because, of course, floating point addition and multiplication is not associative. This turns out _surprisingly_ easy to demonstrate:

        0.1 + (0.2 + 0.3) = 0.6
        0.1 + 0.2 + 0.3 = 0.6000000000000001

and the same for multiplication:

        0.1 * 0.2 * 0.3 = 6.000000000000001e-3
        0.1 * (0.2 * 0.3) = 6.0e-3

It actually isn't "surprising" if you understand how the format works. It essentially uses scientific notation but in binary, with a set number of bits for both the mantissa and the exponent as well as a few changes thrown in for better behavior at its limits (like denormalization). This means that it can't directly express numbers which are very easy to write in decimal form, like 0.1, just like we can't express 1/3 as a finite decimal. It's designed to manage this as well as possible with the small number of bits at its disposal, but we still inevitably run into these issues.

Of course, most programmers only have a vague idea of how floating point numbers work. (I'm certainly among them!) It's very easy to run into problems. And even with a better understanding of the format, it's still very difficult to predict exactly what will happen in more complex expressions.

A really cool aside is that there are some relatively new toys we can use to model floating point numbers in interesting ways. In particular, several SMT solvers including Z3[1] now support a "theory of floating point" which lets us exhaustively verify and analyze programs that use floating point numbers. I haven't seen any applications taking advantage of this directly, but I personally find it very exciting and will probably try using it for debugging the next time I have to work with numeric code.

A little while back, there was an article about how you can test floating point functions by enumerating every single 32-bit float. This is a great way of thinking! However, people were right to point out that this does not really scale when you have more than one float input or if you want to talk about doubles. This is why SMT solvers supporting floating point numbers is so exciting: it makes this sort of approach practical even for programs that use lots of doubles. So you _can_ test every single double or every single pair of doubles or more, just by being clever about how you do it.

I haven't tried using the floating point theories, so I have no idea how they scale. However, I suspect they are not significantly worse than normal bitvectors (ie signed/unsigned integers). And those scale really well to larger sizes or multiple variables. Assuming the FP support scales even a fraction as well, this should be enough to practically verify pretty non- trivial functions!

[1]: [http://z3.codeplex.com/](http://z3.codeplex.com/)

<comment> mark-r I've always thought it would be helpful to have floating point values that tracked the upper and lower bounds of the possible error. That would make analysis of the results much easier.

<comment><USER3> But what about the accuracy of the error bounds?

<comment><USER4> It is easy to track the real result of the computation with floating-point intervals: round down when computing the lower bound, and up when computing the upper bound of each interval.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Completely relevant podcast discussion [http://edgecasesshow.com/083-floating- point-numbers-are-a-le...](http://edgecasesshow.com/083-floating-point- numbers-are-a-leaky-abstraction.html)

<comment><USER6> Wow! Thank you. I didn't realize there were such legit programming podcasts around. Any other similar ones I need to know about?

<comment><USER7> Check out The Haskell Cast:

[http://www.haskellcast.com](http://www.haskellcast.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Basically:

floating point is _hard_. Programmers get it wrong, compilers get it right.

(normally).

<comment><USER4> In the case of C compilers, they get floating-point right by re-defining what the language definition means: [http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0701192](http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0701192)

There has been some progress since the time this report was an accurate description of the situation, but the situation is still mostly terrible: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17663780/is-there-a- docum...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17663780/is-there-a-document- describing-how-clang-handles-excess-floating-point-precision)

And soon, fused-multiply-add will be common enough that compilers will start generating by default the instruction for code that contains addiction and multiplications, causing a regression with respect to the current situation.

<comment><USER9> Using fused-multiply-add unless the user has given the compiler option to deviate from strict IEEE754 results would be a compiler bug. I'm pretty sure gcc gets this right -- it will use FMAC on ARM (for instance) only if you pass it the fast-math option.

<comment><USER4> A C99 compiler pragma, FP_CONTRACT, lets the programmer decide locally whether using an FMA instruction for multiplication and addition is allowable.

The debate is whether the pragma should be on or off by default. I am a strong proponent of the "off" default. Some argue for the "on" default. Even if the "on" camp wins at some point for some compiler, you can always use the line below to make a standard-compliant compiler that is otherwise respectful of IEEE 754 respect multiplication and addition:

#pragma STDC FP_CONTRACT ON

But the point is that you will have to use the incantation explicitly.

If you are an ordinary programmer who does not know about the incantation, you will eventually encounter a situation where, say, (a * b + c == a * b + c) evaluates to false despite the results being finite, and it will reinforce the superstition that floating-point is black magic. And since this example is remarkable, you will tell others about it, the example will be repeated and distorted, and the superstition will never die.

<comment><USER10> I think the most compelling argument for "off" being the default is xx - yy. If FP_CONTRACT defaults to "on", most uses of this expression will become fma(x,x,-yy), which will result in the expression not being exactly zero when x == y.

The most compelling argument for "on" being the default is that most users don't care, and "on" allows compiler optimizations that save energy. Numerical consistency or independence of Russian gas[1]?

[1] Yeah, right. "Numerical consistency or 20 seconds longer playtime of flappy bird on a charge?" is a way better argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Always a great read: "What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About Floating-Point Arithmetic"

PDF rendering: [http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse320/Documents/FloatingPoint.pdf](http://www.cse.msu.edu/~cse320/Documents/FloatingPoint.pdf)

HTML rendering: [http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.ht...](http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> One thing I always wondered about is _why_ are we using floating point arithmetic at all, instead of fixed point math with explicitly specified ranges (say, "here I need 20 bits for the integer part and 44 for the fractional part")? What is the practical value of having a floating point that would justify dealing with all that complexity and conceptual problems they introduce?

<comment><USER4> Have you used fixed-point arithmetic much? You need to specify the width and the position of the dot for each intermediate variable (for instance, multiplying two numbers that have 20 bits for the integer part may require 40 bits for the integer part of the result). Since the operands in 20.44 format had only 64 bits of precision, it only makes sense to represent the result to 64 bits, so the format of this result should probably be 40.24.

If you don't do this, your program may still work but you are wasting space. For instance, if the multiplication of your two 20.44 numbers does not overflow the 20.44 format, good for you, but it means that between the two operands, you were wasting 20 bits in total for leading zeroes that carried no information.

Consider floating-point as a way not to have to make all these decisions at compile-time and still use space extremely efficiently to represent as much precision as possible.

<comment><USER10> Also: when people screw with FP, 99% of the time the answer is still vaguely sane or makes it very obvious that something went wrong. When people screw up with fixed point, 99% of the time the result is indistinguishable from noise.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Um... you know that a _a_ a _a_ a _a and (a_ a _a)_ (a _a_ a) are not the > same with floating point numbers, don't you?

Why would so many people upvote such a condescending comment?

<comment><USER14> The exact same reason I stopped asking/answering questions on SO years ago - too many condescending trolls trying to act smart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Dup:

Previously on HN [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2684254](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2684254)

<comment><USER8> About 3 years ago...

<comment><USER16> 3 years is a loooooong time for the internet. I am going to put a note on my calendar to post this again in 3 years. What is the median age of an active HN account anyway?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Random sidenote, but I've never seen an SO answer be upvoted in realtime until now. Didn't even know they programmed such functionality.

<comment><USER18> It's a pretty impressive system. If you're interested in their architecture, here's a YouTube video worth watching: "Marco Cecconi The Architecture of Stack Overflow - Developer Conference 2013" [0]

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGi8FT2j8hE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGi8FT2j8hE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The non associativity of addition is obvious, but for the multiplication, I understand why it does not give always the same answer, but I do not see why a change of the order could change the accuracy.

<comment> Ono-Sendai The result depends on the number of multiplications, and hence roundings, that are done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> How would a functional language compiler deal with this case? like GHC?

<comment><USER4> It doesn't. If we forget about FPU flags, floating-point multiplication is pure. That does not change anything to the fact that a * (b * c) is different from (a * b) * c.

The problem is not side-effects in multiplication. The problem is that * is not associative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I already knew about the lack of associativity of IEEE floats, but TIL that `pow(x,n)` is more precise than chained multiplications.

Good to know.

<comment><USER22> Technically it is not a matter of precision but of accuracy.

<comment><USER21> Interesting, thanks for the correction.

I'm neither a native English speaker nor an engineer, and I didn't know about the distinction.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There is a discussion from today and yesterday on llvm-dev that deals with floating point guarantees and optimizations: [http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/358...](http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/35858/)

</comment><comment><USER24> floating point in short: computer representation of scientific notation(1) with sign bit, exponent(2) and coefficient(3) crammed in the same word.

1\. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_notation)

2\. base 2, biased by 127, 8 bits (IEEE float)

3\. base 2, implicit leading 1, 23 bits (IEEE float)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating- point...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format)

</comment><comment><USER25> It actually does, if a is an integer.</comment>


Age Reduction Breakthrough? - <AUTHOR> https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/2020/05/11/age-reduction-breakthrough/ <comment><USER2> Since it seems like the upshot of all of this is that Katcher is claiming to have discovered a set of signalling molecules which, when injected, rejuvenate tissue and presumably lengthen life, it runs into one of the most fundamental objections that can be leveled at theory of aging (or cure thereof): of the billions of humans that have existed, how is it that _none_ of them have possessed a mutation which (in this case) endogenously produced the signalling molecules which Katcher is proposing as treatment? In the case of this proposal this sort of objection is particularly strong, since (though the blog post is silent as to what the treatment is) it's given that they are fractions from blood, so they're substances which the body produces in some quantity anyway, and which are sufficiently non-dose-specific that Katcher, with limited resources, could devise a reasonably effective regimen.

Parabiosis is one of the most striking (and just weird) phenomena in aging research, so efforts to understand what's going on with it are liable to bear interesting fruit. I'm just pointing out that there's good reason to doubt that this particular "breakthrough" is the "cure."

<comment><USER3> At risk of sounding absolutely insane:

There's probably no way to prove that this hasn't happened. Anyone who realizes they're not aging normally would likely have taken on a new identity elsewhere for fear of:

1\. being burned at the stake

2\. being trialed in repeated experiments

3\. being deified, and then subsequently being burned at the stake.

\---

I realize my comment sounds like a joke, but I'm entirely serious. If you or I found out we're not aging normally and look e.g. 25 by the time we reach 40, or 30 by the time we reach 45, would either of us remain in our current lives?

<comment><USER4> Someone I work with looks very youthful for their actual age, and that isn't always a good thing.

When the team went on an offsite morale event jet skiing, he was told by the proprietor that he couldn't participate because their policy requires you to be at least 16 years old. He was 27 at the time. He never lived that down with his peers. When he tries to go to a bar with friends, he's sometimes accused of trying to pass off a fake ID. These experiences are deeply embarrassing for him.

Imagine trying to get promoted to a senior director position at a company while looking like you are fresh out of college. In that case ageism takes a different meaning.

<comment><USER5> I think people age at different rates.

My Dad is in his mid 80's and plays four hours of sports a day, or at least he was before the pandemic hit.

When I was in my mid-20's I had to impress the hell out of potential clients to get work, as I looked like I was 15, and girls my own age wouldn't look at me as I was too young. I never drank, so bars weren't an issue. When I was in my early forties, 15-20 year old girls were still coming on to me. I will be 50 next year, and I finally look like I'm in my 20s or 30s, and still get those looks from University-aged girls whenever I venture where they hang out.

A couple of years ago, my now 43 year old partner was mistaken for her teenage doppelganger and asked to the high school prom by three different boys while walking home from work.

It was annoying earlier, but now I look forward to turning out to be one of the immortals.

<comment><USER6> One thing to remember is that people don't have perfect vision either. As long as you are not out of shape or have sagging skin or gray hairs, people will not be able to clearly see any wrinkles or other textures in skin that would give away age.

In general I've seen a lot of people that look young for their age but when looking at their skin up close on their face, neck or hands it gives it away. Women are also at an obvious advantage through their use of makeup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As someone entirely outside this field, can someone with more inside knowledge give any insight into where this lies on the crank/hoax spectrum? A biorxv paper and a well-written blogpost don't really point either way.

<comment><USER8> When the author says things like:

> But Katcher has no research grants or university lab or venture capital > funding, no team of grad students mining databases and screening chemicals > in the back room.

> One thing Katcher has going for him is the correct theory.

I start to suspect the author's opinion is stronger than their evidence.

<comment><USER9> Given that many major scientific discoveries occurred with the prototypical mad scientist working alone, often apart from their main field, this description doesn't seem out of the norm for what I'd expect in somebody trying to urgently raise the signal of a very early and promising discovery.

Let's consider the universe where Katcher _has_ discovered the secret to aging. At some point in that universe, Katcher's work is going to be relatively unknown and unsponsored, and at a later point there will be trillions poured into it. The above quote you posted aligns just fine with the earlier part of that timeline so now you're just left to decide, given your priors about major scientific discoveries, how likely it is that a major scientific discovery can come from a "dark horse".

<comment><USER10> That may have been true a century or two ago, but that seldom occurs anymore now that scientific discovery has matured into an industry.

The vast vast majority of research discoveries happen within the system as part of large collaborations.

It's always healthy to have people going against the grain, but even they can find funding if they have ideas they can express coherently and that stand up to scrutiny.

<comment><USER11> This is still true. Your second sentence is correct, but the rest is not. Most research does come from within the system. Unconventional research does not and cannot come from within the system.

Funding comes from calls from proposals which are within existing, established research fields. Funding outside of a current research field is nearly impossible to find. If your research isn't in an established field, there isn't an NSF/DARPA/etc. call to respond to, and there is no program officer who has any interest in your work.

Similar through the whole research pipeline. New areas of research don't have established venues where you can publish, people to cite your papers, or a community to write academic reference letters for you. People who work in new fields are usually doing so as nights and weekends projects, or are independently wealthy.

And although the vast majority of independent researchers are crackpots, a few are credible and do occasionally make major breakthroughs. Importantly, the majority of breakthroughs outside of established fields are made be people unsupported by NSF, and without good venues to publish (although quite often, those individuals are academics working in their spare time, so half within the system and half outside).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Was told by my wife years ago that there is a Hong Kong tycoon who has been doing this for years. Supposedly hires young people to do nothing but to stay healthy and then has transfusions of their blood. Just checked and he is still alive at 91. But this echoes vampire.

This reminds me of plasma treatment for covid-19 which is actually proven. Perhaps someone will create a market for that.

<comment><USER13> 90 is not that old these days. Both of my parents have reached their 90s without doing anything like this. Let's take a look at that guy in 20 years and see how he is doing.

<comment><USER9> > 90 is not that old these days

True but Hong Kong life expectancy for men is 81.3 years so one should still consider this evidence in favor of the man doing something that extends his lifespan. Doesn't need to be smoking-gun level but still: update your priors.

<comment><USER14> n=1

<comment><USER12> I'm not going to take a side here but just wanted to point out that the previous poster is referring to conditional probability.

P(works|someone doing this is 91) > P(works). n is 1 here so the probability hasn't changed much at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Improving longevity is what the people at [https://www.lifespan.io/](https://www.lifespan.io/) have been trying to do for ages. The research is being done, there are tons of new promising things - with the catch that they are experimental / not tested on humans.

Before you get too excited and wonder where you can buy these magic pills, remember that there are things you can do right now to improve both your longevity and your quality of life: 1) sleep properly 2) eat properly 3) exercise 4) reduce stress

That being said I think that the next 20-30 years are going to be really interesting in this space, and if we indeed have any sort of proven breakthrough this will force us to rethink how we think about our society and our mortality.

<comment><USER10> I believe the most impactful thing you can do is drastically reduce caloric intake - like by 50%.

Experiments have show large increases in lifespan, across mammals.

<comment><USER16> It's weird to me to say so but this intervention is one of the few things that, even if it were to demonstrably increase my lifespan from ~80 to ~120 years, I probably wouldn't do.

I don't know if that's because I enjoy food and bodily activity too much to value a longer life without them or because I'm addicted to food. I've wondered.

What wouldn't you be willing to give up for a much longer life?

<comment> saiya-jin Depends which parts gets prolonged - if you are at 80 deteriorated +-same as somebody who dies at 80, and they just keep fixing the next thing that is going to kill ya, then yes, that's a pure physical misery and spiral down progressive dementia (almost all old folks suffer from some form of it).

Now if we would be 40-like in our 60s and so on, that's another story. But first thing that would probably change is retirement age.

<comment><USER16> Is being 40 and not being able to play tennis or go on long walks because you're too calorie-deprived that different from being 80?

<comment><USER10> That isn't the outcome though. Those on these strict diets are not lethargic.

<comment><USER16> From my own experience doing extreme diets I highly disagree. As soon as your own bodyfat starts getting low, being on a ~1500 calorie diet as an adult male is extremely exhausting by itself. No chance of enjoying physical activity whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I thought one of the main purposes of research publications was to allow others to reproduce/verify or refute your work.

If you look at the methods section, here is what you get for a description of the magic plasma:

'We used a unique plasma fraction "Elixir" developed by Nugenics Research.'

This seems to run counter to the philosophy of reproducibility.

[https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.082917v1....](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.082917v1.full.pdf)

<comment><USER18> To be fair, this would be a contender for the most epic discovery in human history. Would you simply give the solution away?

<comment><USER17> If that's my primary concern, I wouldn't publish until I had the patents nailed down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Most of the explosion in aging research (and virtually all the venture > capital startups) are looking to treat aging at the cellular level.... The > truth, as Katcher understands it, is that, to a large extent, aging is > coordinated system-wide via signal molecules in the blood.

So the SV execs with their fit young blood-bois were right all along?

<comment><USER20> I had the exact same thought. I wonder where those execs get the information from and more importantly, how the information is filtered, because they are clearly a few years ahead of what's being posted on, say, HN.

<comment><USER21> It was widely reported years ago. The future is already here it's just not affordable.

I remember talking about recent news that a few of us had heard about promising "young blood rejuvenation" with a bunch of random hicks in the woods of central Maine in the spring of 2014.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> You may be able to slow aging, but you are still going to deal with wear and tear. Until they actually find a way to promote well regulated regrowth of tissue, that is going to be a problem. I am young for my age, having been born into a family the generally lives to be old. My parents both lived to be 90, my maternal grandfather lived to be 95, and my maternal grandmother was one of three in here family that lived to 100+. On my father's side, his mother died at 88. For someone born in 1890 that was a feat. His father committed suicide during the great depression, but two of his father's sisters lived to 98 and 101. You get the drift. Dinosaurs. But wear and tear still took their toll. My father's hearing was week, and he was losing his eyesight before he died. My grandmother was completely blind before she died. My mom succumbed to a cancer that had recurred.

Wear and tear.

I worked outdoor physical labor through high school, and I have the moles and other skin issues related to excessive sun exposure. I also have several joints that were injured then that have caused problems my whole life. I lost much of my hearing to childhood illness before I was twelve (an misdiagnosed issue that would have been malpractice in today's environment) that I followed up with too much live music, operating heavy machinery, and shooting trap.

Wear and tear.

So maybe we can extend the healthy life of our organs, but that isn't going to magically make injuries go away.

And I am not suggesting that young people should ever listen to people in their sixties, I certainly never did, but if you can avoid damaging your skin, hearing, and joints while you are young, you will live to appreciate that.

</comment><comment><USER23> Hmm. Well the epigenetic aging clock effects are hard to interpret, but they also show recovery of cognitive performance in aged rats treated with their magic plasma fraction. That is kind of exciting.

Nevertheless, there are significant conflicts of interest going on, so confirmatory studies by independent bodies in animal models are required. Then there are the human studies. They obviously want to use the epigenetic clock as a surrogate endpoint in humans, so the trial can be completed in a short time frame. Not sure about that, this is a fairly complicated surrogate endpoint we are talking about. Some more relevant biomarkers of aging in humans which incorporate functional readouts would be required at the very least.

[https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.082917v1....](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.07.082917v1.full.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER24> Age reduction.

Enammel reconstruction.

Batteries.

The three pillars of perpetual breakthroughs.

<comment><USER25> Since 1990 the energy density if lithium ion has has increased by a factor of about 4, and the cost had reduced by a factor off about 6. While keeping in mind that consumer lithium ion itself was quite a breakthrough in terms of energy density in the first place.

Both of these metrics are still improving too.

<comment><USER26> I dunno about enamel reconstruction (though I was under the impression that materials used to _replace_ tooth enamel have gotten enormously better in the last few decades to the point where your fillings will wear down slower than your teeth), but life expectancy has also been slowly increasing over the past few decades, and a significant fraction of that comes from people staying relatively healthy for longer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Seems very exciting - I have huge respect for the author of this blog Josh Mitteldorf (he's a genius) - so fingers crossed - they may be onto something real. Plasma from young donars is already proven to be beneficial to elderly recipients - this appears to be an extension of such research.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'm dimly aware that issues with rat models for aging were pointed out by Bret Weinstein. Any comments on that?

<comment><USER29> I recall it had to do with telomere length in mice, and how longer telomeres were involuntarily selected for when breeding lab mice [0]

[0] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909679/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909679/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm uneasy - this reads exactly like a snake-oil pitch. What next? Spas that supply plasma injections?

</comment><comment><USER31> Very promising results! But I would love to see what happens when this is approved for human subject testing. Let's see if the magic number of injections needed - 4 - is still the case.

<comment><USER32> I read that as four per rejuvenation with no word about how often a rejuvenation would be needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Some details:

>18 rats were divided into three groups. 6 young rats (30 weeks old), 6 old rats (109 weeks old) & 6 old rats (also 109 weeks old) treated with plasma fractions from the young rats.

>Plasma fraction treatment consists of two series of IV injections, four times on alternate days for 8 days. A 2nd series of injections were given 95 days later. In its entirety, the experiment lasted 155 days.

>Blood was drawn at regular intervals for analyses to monitor the impact and cognitive functions were assessed 4 times. DNA methylation profiles of several organs were generated and age was calculated using six epigenetic clocks.

>Using the final versions of their epigenetic clocks the reversal was: liver 75%, blood 66%, heart 57%, hypothalamus 19%. Average rejuvenation across four tissues was 54.2%.

Source some David Sinclair tweets (more in there) [https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/125991292869585715...](https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/1259912928695857152)

</comment><comment><USER34> As much as these things are very speculative, that is the necessary direction that we have to go in in order to maximize the chance of actually finding and then using these breakthroughs.

The only way to actually make significant progress in an area this difficult is to constantly be looking for answers everywhere we can.

</comment><comment><USER35> Vampires have been doing this for millennia right?

Seriously though, does putting Tom Hanks' blood plasma into a young coronavirus nurse age them a little bit? Does the effect work in reverse?

(Just to explain the above Tom Hanks had Covid and gave plasma in a convalescent serum).

</comment><comment><USER36> Does this lend credence to the idea that blood transfusions from young people could make one healthier or extend one's life?

<comment><USER37> Yes, it does.

The hypothesis is that "clock molecules" in the bloodstream provide a global age-clock for about five other tissue-specific age-clocks in the body. Spoofing the global clock signal for a long enough period tricks the subsystem clocks into thinking they are younger than they really are, including the native global age-clock mechanism.

Completely replacing your own blood with a young person's blood, repeating if necessary, would also accomplish the same trick, more expensively.

The real question is whether old tissues can function like young tissues when tricked into trying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> There was a great sci-fi book (imho) by Robert J. Sawyer that posits the use of nano-tech to enable age reduction called Rollback ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollback_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollback_\(novel\))). This just made me think of that book.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's impossible for an old cell to become young again, at least with our current level of technology, because that would require you to reverse all the mutations that have built up over time in that cell. If your argument is that our bodies have many different repair mechanisms, and that as long as we can figure out how to activate them properly, we can then reverse aging, I would caution you that while you're correct in that repair mechanisms do exist, it's important to remember that these mechanisms are themselves composed from the same components as the rest of your body, i.e. they too will age and begin to fail over time.

The only way to actually cure aging would be to develop sophisticated enough outside mechanisms that would be able to intervene and replace these biological mechanisms as they fail. Macro level replacements won't cut it either. Replacing an organ might give you a few years here or there, but it doesn't address the issue that aging fundamentally happens at a molecular / atomic level.

<comment><USER40> > It's impossible for an old cell to become young again, at least with our > current level of technology....

Depending what you mean by "become young again," that's not true. See [https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/old-human- cel...](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/03/old-human-cells- rejuvenated-with-stem-cell-technology.html) The problem here is scaling this up beyond tissue cultures.

<comment><USER39> Again, I emphasize this point:

> I would caution you that while you're correct in that repair mechanisms do > exist, it's important to remember that these mechanisms are themselves > composed from the same components as the rest of your body, i.e. they too > will age and begin to fail over time.

The process of nuclear reprogramming to induced pluripotent stem cells, which is the subject of your referenced paper, is something that I believe to be a great scientific breakthrough, but nevertheless fails to address the accumulated mutations that build up over time in your cells. All those mutations don't just magically disappear.

<comment><USER40> Sure, but, presumably, in most cases, you can repeat the therapy. And, if such treatments are shown to provide additional healthy years, who cares, even if they're not repeatable? I'd pay for a treatment that could be shown to add years to my life expectancy.

<comment><USER39> There are drawbacks that you should consider. Many of the repair mechanisms that exist, which later on become deactivated, are turned off for a reason.

It's important to understand that renewed growth is synonymous with cancer. The older you are, the greater the risk you face as your fail safes and redundancies begin to fail from corruption due to accumulated mutation. It's often better to completely turn the thing off, which is exactly what your body does, after a certain point.

The older you get and the more you age, the more you should focus on preventing the development of cancer over anything else as that will likely have the greatest impact in determining your life expectancy, assuming you continue to stay active, eat properly, and get enough sleep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> nil-sec Are there no people who have to receive regular blood donations? Would you not notice such an effect in these people? I guess the donors are probably not all younger than the receiver but on average this is probably true. Does anyone know of a subpopulation that might qualify?

</comment><comment><USER41> It's worth remembering there's an engineering-approach to undoing aging damage, and a foundation[0] dedicated to advancing this approach.

[0]: [https://www.sens.org/](https://www.sens.org/)

</comment><comment><USER42> Here's an excellent video on the same topic that discusses David Sinclair's research [https://youtu.be/XlFl0jDg0Jg](https://youtu.be/XlFl0jDg0Jg)

<comment><USER43> I like his interview here: [https://youtu.be/IEz1P4i1P7s](https://youtu.be/IEz1P4i1P7s)

Granted I'm not completely sold on the supplements quite yet.

<comment><USER33> I was impressed by that interview and am thinking of trying the supplements a bit to see if they do anything.

This article was jolly also [https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2019/10/29/david- sincl...](https://www.bostonmagazine.com/health/2019/10/29/david-sinclair/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm very curious about how this mere signaling solves all off once:

\- natural as well as stress-induced telomeres shortening

\- oxidative molecular stress

\- accumulative viral damage on body's DNA

\- natural atrophy of thymus (thymic involution)

etc

I'm curious about the proposed mechanisms, if any.

</comment><comment><USER45> Aw, I was hoping for something a bit more substantial here. I think the sens foundation is on the right track but this is a highly implausible approach (though I am not a biologist).

</comment><comment><USER46> So, do you become chimeric by doing this? Beating death Ship of Theseus style?

</comment><comment><USER47> This is really interesting, thank you for posting. :)

</comment><comment><USER48> But as always, there must be a katch.

</comment><comment><USER49> We could also look into whether holocaust survivors share a genetic, pyschological, etc predisposition which allows them to live longer than native born israelis. Certainly there must be a will to live/survive but also a genetic/biological aspect which helped them survive starvation, disease, deprivation and thrive afterwards.

[https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-holocaust- survi...](https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-holocaust-survivors- live-longer-than-native-born-israelis-1.6822053)

</comment><comment><USER48> But aging, followed by death, is important. And not just for the biological evolution, but also for social progress. Besides, lifespan is measured not in years or the total length of the spaghetti consumed but in memories and accomplishments. So, I am not sure what exactly is the point of trying to extend human biological lifespan. There were people that in 30 years had accomplished more than other would not be able to in however many years would have been given to them.

<comment><USER50> It seems important to our current society because it is a pillar, or a given, to how society runs today. It is almost impossible to imagine a society without aging. If/when that day arrives, I am sure it will seem a lot less important.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The laziness of believing that we are going to have a rejuvenation pill in the future is a big scam/joke. Just like pills to recover from baldness. Most people are running on 10, 20% of their full healthy, no pills are never going to change that. Not even a weight reduction pill will help the ones who wants to still be able to eat junk food and drink soda.

</comment><comment><USER52> _Crucially, plasma treatment of the old rats [109 weeks] reduced the epigenetic ages of blood, liver and heart by a very large and significant margin, to levels that are comparable with the young rats_

Since I spend a lot of money on this kind of stuff I figured I'd share. The use of platelet rich plasma (PRP) is rapidly growing in the beauty industry. My wife has had PRP used in various procedures that have indeed created a more youthful appearance (by like 10 years). Basically they can inject it anywhere through hundreds of tiny needles. Most often this is done to the face but you can even do this to the vagina (you'd be surprised how many women over 40 do this). That is, if you want hundreds of needles entering the labia and (horror of horrors) the clitorous too.

There's even a process for men where you can have PRP injected in your shaft and the results (I'm to terrified of needles in my dick to try it) are quite good (firmness, sensation, youthfullness) from what I hear.

The PRP procedures my wife has had, although expensive, have had impressive results.

<comment><USER53> I hope you are not just trolling. I am not sure if I enjoy more the news that there are effective treatments against aging or the rage you are going to induce with this post.

<comment><USER52> Google "vampire facial" and I can tell you from personal experience the results are impressive beyond anything else I've paid for my wife (laser facials, botox, fillers, lip injections, etc...).

I don't understand what the "rage" would come from, or why it's "pot". This is available today, and many people pay for it. The results speak for themselves. People who pay for this stuff don't make a habit of talking about it. I'm going to guess by your comment that you're not as beauty focused as some other people. For beauty focused individuals this is serious business. Ever wonder why your favorite actress over 50 "hasn't aged" past 35? It's not just plastic surgery or makeup. This is how many people make a living in industries where looking old is not rewarded.

<comment><USER53> Pot was a typo for post, sorry about that. The rage would come from people who feel that any indulgence accessible only to those richer than themselves is an outrage. There are many such people in tech circles.

<comment><USER52> That seems like at least half of HN.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Had a computer in my room. Didn't become a Woman Developer - <AUTHOR> https://code.likeagirl.io/had-a-computer-in-my-room-didnt-become-a-woman-developer-f5c14dfe33b <comment><USER2> This article made me wonder whether the same thing can be said of people of every gender, not just women. I mean, I wasn't particularly good at maths as a kid and thought programming was just something I'd never understand. It was only after creating websites and messing around with CMS systems as part of a hobby that I realised it was a field I could actually work in.

How many people of both genders are in this exact situation?

> I never considered tech as a possible career choice. I was always bad at > maths and since my teachers didn't care, I simply gave up and chose to > pursue a literary education.

Web development and programming in general was never exactly a 'suggested' career choice when I was in school or university.

Women may be more affected by this, but I suspect the general issue here (not thinking you can become a developer, having no guidance towards it as a career path, etc) may affect people of all genders and backgrounds.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nobody told you that you can become a developer?

No woman role models? Ada Lovelace, Rear Admiral Grace Hopper to name two.

Nobody told them they could do it, they worked on computers before feminism etc.

You can do it if you have the confidence, willpower, and don't get upset over making a mistake and learn from it.

<comment> 52-6F-62 Don't forget about the incredible women who helped the Apollo missions happen:

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-story-of- nasa...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-story-of-nasas-real- ldquo-hidden-figures-rdquo/)

\---

That said, I want to respond to the line about being poor at maths. I wasn't. I was a 90th percentile student in the sciences as well. But my teachers made it terribly boring, and I was from a very small town where there were little to no resources to reach out to out of interest. Our library had a computer, though. And my mom had an old 286 -- I think that changed everything. Once the internet arrived out there it was my window to a larger world that television certainly couldn't provide. (outside of literature, of course. And I wound up studying literature... yet here I am currently employed as a programmer because of 20 years of personal interest)

<comment><USER3> Well I am sad to hear your teachers made it boring for you. Mine did too but I found a way to make it fun when I learned how formulas worked and was able to teach myself BASIC on a Commodore 64 and make video games , etc.

I'm not sure why my parent post was voted down. I've been trying to get more people to learn programming even women and minorities.

I tried to teach my son, but he isn't interested and would rather work on cars. So one has to have an interest and passion for learning programming as well.

I am glad you finally learned and worked for 20 years or so. Good for you!

<comment> 52-6F-62 Oh I haven't been working in it for 20 years, I've just been doing it out of interest from a young age.

It's only been the past few years I've been working in the field.

Outside of most tech fields, or people who like 'nerds' for their supposed money computers and work involving them in any technical fashion still has a stigma attached to it.

I think you're right that one has to have formed an interest, but sometimes that takes an introduction into what's possible and when you have some know how -- the amazing mutability of these very powerful machines is a lot like a car in ways.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Conway's Law - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law <comment><USER2> My initial interpretation of this is that work from home policies produce fragmented software. Although messaging/chat/etc might overcome this, the thought is still relevant.</comment>