First employee of startup? You are probably getting screwed  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dinkevich.com/first-employee-of-startup-you-are-probably-getting-screwed/

<comment><USER3> There are so many variables that go into valuing an offer from a startup that any general article like this can not ring true. Here's some questions I'd ask myself if I were considering an offer from a startup.

(wow, this is a lot longer than I expected it to be)

1) Who are the investors?

Before I joined VA Linux in 1998, I knew they were super close to closing the Intel Capital deal, so I knew (to a certain degree of accuracy) that they were close to having money in the bank. I agreed to take less salary for equity and a promise from the CEO that salary would improve as the company got more solid funding. The CEO was good to his word, too. I might have taken the job without the vc funding, but knowing what was up there was really helpful.

There is more knowledge now about the equity picture of a private technology company today than ever before in history. It's very easy to get an idea of a companies valuations and then if you agree with those values and if you think they'll increase.

Some VCs also have a reputation for screwing early employees and pancaking out those that might leave before an exit. This is very important to know if you're going to be valuing a potential equity stake. So, your equity could disappear without any regard for your feelings on the matter.

2) How far along are they towards going public/another exit.

I joined Google the week before it went public (in 2004), meaning my initial strike was the ipo opening price. Considering that made Google more stable than competing offers from younger startups, and more fun than some of the other companies I had offers from. The former was important as I had just come out of a failed startup and some time consulting, and I wanted stable more than I wanted fun. I got both, but that's pretty rare in companies of Google's vintage (I still have it, which is one of the reasons why I stay).

The point of this is to understand what the future of a company looks like. I knew what Google looked like, and for other companies when considering/working with them, I asked myself what do similar 'exits' look like. That leads to understanding of what an equity position means.

You can look at an offer and ask yourself: Will the company actually increase in value before an exit that makes this equity worth it?

3) Is there an established bonus system?

A lot of companies have no bonus and weaker benefits/salaries pre-ipo. They have the equity stake offer and so these other considerations are sidelined until they become larger and those equity offers stop attracting good people by themselves. These differences can mean 70 to 80k less per year for a senior employee. So, know what you're worth and decide if it is worth the risk.

4) Are the people running the company any good? Are they ethical?

This is actually hard to answer, but I've seen plenty of acquisitions become less lucrative than a similar job in an established company. I won't mention the company, but I've seen large companies (not Google that I know of) end up giving less in financial terms to acquired employess than they give a new hire wrt equity participation. It's kind of sad how little people know about the companies they join.

I'll say it again: I often see companies on HN get acquired, but for many of the employees, and not a few founders , of startups, this is a much worse deal financially than taking a job with an established firm. Your mileage may vary, and take it with a grain of salt, but remember you are trading money now for the chance of much more money later.

There's so much more I'd like to tell people here about considering offers, but I've already blathered on a bit much on this. I also readily admit I have a different approach to risk as a husband and father (2004) than I did as a single developer (1998)...

</comment><comment><USER4> Yes, if you take a $50k/year paycut for $25k/year in equity, you're getting screwed.

But mess with the numbers just slightly - a $4M premoney valuation, and 2% of the company - and suddenly you're getting $100k/year in equity for a $50k/year paycut.

Now of course that equity is risky. It still might not be a good deal, unless you think you have at least a 1 in 2 chance of success.

But the point is: you can obviously get a very good deal as a first employee without taking on the risk of quitting your job with no paycheck. Make sure that it IS a good deal first though!

The first employees of all the startups I know personally have gotten very good deals.

<comment><USER5> Two things:

If there's a 50% chance of a positive outcome (which, obviously, is an _extraordinarily_ high chance), aren't you getting a ($100k _50%) / ($50k_ yrs) risk-adjusted payout? If so, you should just take the $100k.

And, this analysis assumes the company doesn't go back to the VC market for capital; when it does (most will), you have to factor in the (strong) risk of dilution. We're also glossing over other risks, like participating preferred stock for investors.

I got a great deal from one startup, watched people get a reasonable ("worked out to the equivalent of years of good-but-not-amazing bonuses") from another, had a positive outcome from one that was still under what I would have gotten from salary, and nothing from 2 more. Equity is a decidedly mixed bag.

If you have the choice (and in this market, developers do), opt for money over equity. If you can mentally partition the "extra" money into "investment" and invest it for a return in something more liquid than startup equity, so much the better.

<comment><USER4> Unless you think you're a better judge of company valuation than the market, the current risk-adjusted value of the company is approximately the valuation set by the recent round of funding.

The fact of future dilution is irrelevant, since this impacts the investors as much as the employee.

This analysis does ignore liquidation preferences. It also ignores the fact that the options have a non-zero strike price (though probably substantially below the preferred stock with those liquidation preferences). But in the end, startup outcomes tend to be binary: very high or nearly zero. In both of those cases, liquidation preferences and strike prices wash out in the noise.

I agree though: equity is almost the definition of a mixed bag. That's why, as an employee taking substantial compensation in equity, you need to take an investor mindset in choosing where to work.

<comment><USER5> I don't understand either of your first two sentences.

The 50% risk thing came from you: you suggested calculating based on a 1 in 2 chance of successful outcome. If you're forecasting based on a 1 in 2 chance, you divide by two, right?

Second: as an employee, what do I care whether investors take a haircut? We're computing _my_ outcome, not some notion of fairness.

<comment><USER4> The point is, if investors are in at $2M, we are assuming $2M is market price. The point of market price is that includes things like "google will compete with us" or "my share will be diluted when the company raises again" as well as "the company might fail".

Now, since you personally are investing in the company (albiet with your labor rather than capital, but it's still an investment since you're paid in equity), you have to decide if it's worth investing in this particular startup. You do that by thinking about whether the startup is going to succeed or fail, since outcomes are pretty much binary.

<comment><USER5> I think I understand what you're saying.

I disagree, though, that startups have binary outcomes. In fact, one of the big problems in "investing" in startups (cash or labor) is the misalignment of incentives. It's common for the founding team to pursue outcomes that will enrich them but zero out common stock holders, and it's common for investors to push back on exits that would enrich everybody but not satisfy fund goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article should probably be retitled 'Working for half your market salary? You are probably getting screwed' - but then the whole thing sounds a little obvious, no?

If the company is strong, paying you appropriately won't make or break it. If the company really can't afford to pay you appropriately, you should be a cofounder.

<comment><USER7> Agree. You're only getting screwed because you're willing to get screwed.

You should always make sure you're getting what you're worth when entering any business relationship, and make sure that any gravy (stock options, bonuses, etc.) is exactly that. Gravy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> His numbers are way off. 2M is not a "high" pre-money valuation--most startups nowadays raise a seed round at a 5-10M pre-money valuation. So for $50k, an investor will get 0.47-0.91%, whereas the employee in this example gets a strictly better deal at 1%.

That said, I agree that $50k/1% is a low offer. Lots of startups (at least in the SF bay area) are offering 50-100% higher than that, and these are good startups with experienced founding teams, funding from top investors, paying customers or traffic already, etc. So definitely explore your options! There are great deals out there.

<comment><USER9> _His numbers are way off. 2M is not a "high" pre-money valuation--most startups nowadays raise a seed round at a 5-10M pre-money valuation._

I'm not saying your statement is wrong, but am I the only one who thinks _something_ is wrong here? Are most startups worth 5-10M right after seed? I would say no.

Conservatively, I would tend to agree with the author. 2M is high for a company that only has seed money.

<comment><USER4> Why is it "wrong" for something to be priced high?

Try this thought experiment: Mark Zuckerberg (or whoever your favorite entrepreneur is) comes to you and says he's quitting Facebook. He's going to start a new company, and he'll let you invest at a $20M valuation. Do you accept?

<comment><USER10> No...? What makes you think Facebook is a success Zuck can just repeat at will? Having been lucky once already does not make him a better entrepreneur; though the brand will surely help promoting his new startup, and a billionaire has certain connections mere mortals don't have. But neither of those fact are tied to him being a good entrepreneur... look at Bill Nguyen to see where this line of thinking leads you. Color is doing great, isn't it?

<comment><USER4> Don't focus on Zuckerberg. If you think Facebook was just luck, pick someone who you think succeeded by skill. Would you invest in their next company at a $20M valuation?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would seem to me that there are many more factors that go into making a decision like this worthwhile versus getting screwed.

-Type of company(do you like the product, is it something you can see yourself wanting to wake up for?)

-Type of founders (like-minded, fun having, professional but not bureaucratic - comes to mind as possible wanted features)

-Equity(literal percentage wise and decision making-wise, are you going to be leading a team in a year? or still grinding away all day?)

-Perks(Gym in workplace? What about sports area? Video game room? Movie theater spot?)

-Location(Where will you get to work, a nice second story office overlooking the bay? a park?)

-etc...

These are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Edit: Fixed my line spacing.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, they are paying half, but they can afford a Gym, or an office overlooking the bay? That sounds like an even bigger screw up...

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> That's the thing, working as one of the first people at the startup is a pretty intimate close team (or at least should be). There's a lot of "safer" and or more compelling ways to pull folks in. a) Offer a moderately accelerated vesting schedule for early employees. b) have the initial work be as a sort of moonlighting in terms of time commitment (more suitable / appropriate when either taking a bootstrapping approach and or building out the MVP.) c) seriously, it's your first hire, you folks will likely (and perhaps unfortunately)spend more time together than you will with your respective significant others.

Point being, yes it's "just business", but if you're not setting things up to be awesome for that first hire, are they going to be sufficiently awesome do as to be worth spending so much time together? And if they're that great, how much do you wish to ensure that you guys are likely to choose to work together again?

I'm likely way over reacting, but still, it's a matter of some importance, exercising choice over who you spend time with, so why settle for less than awesome or treating them awesomely?!

</comment><comment><USER14> Yep, fell for this too. Joined as their second hire, working under a senior developer... who promptly left. I assumed his role (and responsibilities), but not his pay. Not to worry I thought, stock options are coming. 11 months later I got papers for less than 1/4 percent with no vesting schedule (must stay until exit). Handed in my notice soon after.

That said, the experience I gained in the year helped me land better paid contracting gigs after, so... swings and roundabouts.

</comment><comment><USER15> Discussion from a year ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2949323>

<comment><USER16> Patio11 nails it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2950077>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sure I got screwed and the investors got a way better deal.

But then again, every other startup would have given me the same deal or worse, and the alternative would have involved me still being in college taking out student loans. I think I'll stick to my mediocre salary and nonfounder equity[1].

[1]: Since day one, the company has done quite well and my pay is no longer mediocre, and my equity would be a nice 6-7 figures bonus if the company sold today.

Quit focusing on the injustice of an employee share versus a founder or investor share. Quit comparing yourself to others, and instead focus on whether the numbers offered to you make sense for you, personally.

<comment><USER17> "every other startup would have given me the same deal or worse"

Not true. I talked to a bunch of my entrepreneurial friends about this when I encountered this situation again and again. Their own hirees were treated more like I'd expect - a clear advantage to taking the offer - lower pay meant higher equity although it was _never_ as bad as this case.

Glad things worked out for you though. There are winners in the industry and it's nice to see it when it happens!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> 50K$ worth of work and 50K$ in cash are not the same thing. The former has a higher risk associated with it than the latter. For example, there are the risks that the employee becomes unable to work for health reasons, disappears or just isn't suited for the job. Also, the full value of the latter is only delivered, if everything goes well, after one year.

</comment><comment><USER17> I used to fall for this trap.

But now I just calculate my expected return based on a 10% chance of a buyout for $100M or so (cockily I'm assuming I can screen the obvious losers out with common sense alone though that is of course debatable) and if it's not a net uptick from the current gig, I pass on it. And up to now, I've _always_ passed on it, and none of them succeeded.

Other than that, the only startups I'm interested in are ones where I have one of those nifty 3 letter titles and 5% of the company in my pocket.

<comment><USER19> How many have you passed on?

Have you tried to characterize how likely it is that your filter is actually good enough that 10% of the companies that pass it are successful?

Just seems to me that 10% could be something of an overestimation and needs some validation.

<comment><USER20> 10% might be a good rule of thumb if the old adage that "9/10 startups fail" is somewhat accurate. Is $100M the average exit though? Anyone have that data?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Yeah...this depresses me. I am one of those guys that is going to get screwed. The only thing I guess I would say in response is that I would be an investor instead of a first employee if I could, but I can't. I don't have the capital sitting around to play with and there is a difference between differing salary and having cold hard cash to inject into a company. In other words, an investor giving $50K is more valuable than an employee deferring $50K in salary.

Also, in many cases, the employee is getting value that the investor is not. Specifically, the employee (i.e. me) likely doesn't have a ton of start up experience and is able to leverage the work as employee #1 to then start his or her own start up later. The investor on the other hand has likely been involved with many start ups and isn't as much interested in learning or experience. They just want a return on their investment. So, from that sense, this article is sort of comparing apples to oranges.

<comment><USER22> > In other words, an investor giving $50K is more valuable than an employee > deferring $50K in salary.

You couldn't be more wrong. $50K saved is the same as $50K invested. They have the same impact on revenue, profitability and life expectancy of the company. Sorry to get personal, but the fact that you don't understand that is probably why you're 'employee #1' and not 'co-founder'.

Another point: companies are generally disinterested if you tell them that you have eventual plans to leave. As much as both parties know it's unrealistic, hiring managers generally prefer a long-term commitment without a hint of an 'exit plan'.

> The employee [...] is able to leverage the work as employee #1 to then start > his or her own start up later.

Not if they/you don't get access to the company financials, or investor meetings, or insights into the decision-making process (let alone a part in it).

<comment><USER23> Saved and invested are definitely NOT the same thing. They have very, very different impact on life expectancy etc. You can't buy a copying machine with virtual dollars.

Cash is king.

<comment><USER22> "Virtual dollars"? I never mentioned 'virtual' anything.

You should familiarize yourself with the concept of opportunity cost[1]. As an employer, every dollar I save on a developer salary is a dollar I can put towards a copying machine. As a developer, every dollar I forgo by accepting a sub-market rate is a dollar I can't spend on something else.

'Saved' and 'invested' are both changes in bank balance. One is just a lot more visible than the other.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost>

<comment><USER24> Funding from investors is more valuable moneywise than funding via developer equity because it gives you cashflow.

In the real world, you can't spend a negative balance even if it is higher than an alternative negative balance.

I agree, though, that once you do have sufficient cashflow, then the two are equivalent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I did this for a bit although I got 3% of the company. The resume bullets and name recognition since I left have more than made up for the low salary, at later jobs.

</comment><comment><USER26> If you're an early employee of a startup, you have better de facto information rights than any investor, even a board member. If not, you're seriously incompetent, or the company is totally dysfunctional. i.e. if things are going really badly, you'll know before the investors do, and could jump ship.

The only thing you might not see is acquisition offers, but you can assume those are constant noise and meaningless until a certain point.

</comment><comment><USER27> All depends on that first employee, for some that would be an amazing deal for others it is laughable. If I was out of the school but with some skills and liked the company in general I would jump on it. Now the idea, founders, investors would have to absolutely blow me away (order of magnitude higher then anything I experienced). I like to get payed in cold hard cash and now not later.

</comment><comment><USER28> That looks like a post from someone who fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics involved in evaluating value in a startup environment (and likely in business period).

There are too many variables to consider in order to make a generalization like that. Even if you have a firm handle on the financial variables (how much you're earning, what your opportunity costs are, what the company will be worth, etc.), it doesn't at all consider the intangible value. So your friend is going to get 1/2 pay for 1%... maybe the experience alone in being able to evaluate his self-worth in the future or in being able to start up his own company will more than make up for a couple of years at 1/2 salary? Who knows. I'd be willing to bet that this blogger doesn't.

</comment><comment><USER29> People don't know how to negotiate. Equity is the founder's only payoff, so they're going to be incredibly stingy about it, while playing up the intrinsic benefits.

Also, people don't know how to measure opportunity cost.

<comment><USER30> "Equity is the founder's only payoff, so they're going to be incredibly stingy about it, while playing up the intrinsic benefits"

There's also a lot of weight behind the "this is how it's done". 1% used to be very generous when founders had to roll the dice with 12+ months of their life to get seed funding and take big dilution when they did. Nowadays, it's cheaper/easier/faster to start a company, easier to get early stage funding, etc. It might make sense to reward employee #1 with a bit more equity... IF you can't pay them market rate (you buy equity by taking risk-- if you aren't underpaid, you aren't risking much beyond opportunity cost).

See: <http://startupboy.com/2011/12/13/why-you-cant-hire/>

<comment><USER31> What is a bit more? 1% more? 5%? 10%?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> When joining a startup company that is anywhere from 5 to 50 people, what are some things I can/should ask for in a contract negotiation?

Can I ask for acceleration of my options if the company gets acquired before my cliff? Can I ask for a guaranteed contract with a buyout, in case they want to let me go before my options vest?

<comment><USER33> You _can_ ask for these things, and I think a company's ability to have an informed conversation with you about your options will tell you a lot about the founders (both in terms of their expertise and their character).

Keep in mind, though, that founders have a _lot_ more discretion with respect to how much they pay you than with respect to your options contracts. Garbage options contracts (no triggers, no guaranteed contract, huge cliff, etc.) are generally insisted on by VCs, in order to prevent employees (read: you) from negotiating an agreement which makes the company a less appealing acquisition target. Pay is generally more flexible.

So I'd suggest asking those questions, having an informed conversation with the company about the way options are structured, and then insisting on a good, solid salary and treating the options as gravy. By the time you get diluted, you end up in a locked up IPO gone south, or the acquirer comes up with some creative stock-and-cash acquisition with employee pool conversion that scams you, there's a very low chance of your options being worth anything anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I wrote up a similar sort of article last year:

<http://auscillate.com/post/238>

Curious what the HN community's take on that is. The conclusion is basically the same, but I attempted to be a bit more rigorous with the numbers.

</comment><comment><USER35> this part about 50% of the market salary to work at the startup in US was always quite weird to me. Here in Israel I was working at startups my entire career, expect for the first 3 years spent at NetManage. Through out all those years I got above average salary. No established company ever offered me more then I could get at some hot startup needing my skills.

different markets different rules I guess.

<comment><USER7> Or perhaps, different markets, different willingness to gamble?

If people take a step back from the situation and compare the "ground floor startup opportunity" against a full salary job, they might realize the 50% salary reduction is more complicated than the absolute dollars foregone. Startups tend to demand more overtime than established companies, and quickly, the already reduced effective hourly rate starts dwindling down into fast-food employee territory.

Sure, the startup work might be fun, but you could get the same or more money from another job and do fun things after work.

Also, be prepared to add some risk to account for the chance that the currently well-intentioned startup owners will screw you over if things get bad.

Once you factor in the failure rates of startups, standard vesting times, etc., all that money you're giving up translates into one very expensive lottery ticket.

So if you go in with your eyes open, i.e., you're willing to forego that salary difference with a possibility of a zero return, then yeah, knock yourself out, because if you do win the lottery, it's a huge pay day. If you don't win the lottery, you knew it was a gamble, so no big deal.

Before jumping into bed with a startup for a huge salary cut though, a person might do well to ask him/herself if they'd be better off at a job with full pay and using half the salary to play the stock market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> (Please read this comment carefully.) The author's comparison at the end of the article is correct.

It is obvious that it is much better to get the package "2% of company shares, Priority on exit, Invest small part of his capital" for the same $50k (i.e. the programmer's guaranteed lost income) when you are paying the money directly.

Further, investing $50k directly does not even involve working full-time or part-time (except on financials related to the round), and has an equal chance of both lost money (company doesn't get on sure footing), and returns on the money, that the programmer faces.

So bottom line. If you have identified a company that you think has good chance of success, you should simply decline to work for them for equity and a lowered wage: instead, find a source of great personal wealth, and invest a small part of it directly in the company.

Working for your equity means you're getting screwed. Being very rich gives you a lot better deal.

<comment><USER37> The alternative is not "be born rich"; it sounds more like "save the extra 50K, then start your own company". Yes, this is harder than it sounds - <USER2> it's still easier than choosing your parents.

<comment><USER38> If you can afford to take a $50K/year paycut, then you can afford to just invest $50K/year of your current earnings.

<comment><USER5> If you are making $50k/yr, or even $100k/yr, you cannot invest in startups; professionally-managed startups won't take investments from people who aren't Reg D accredited.

Even if you were accredited, virtually all startups are closely held and selective about who they'll take capital from.

Private company equity vehicles are one of the least attractive asset classes you can hold; they're among the most illiquid and volatile places you can put your money. Startup investing works almost exclusively for people who can (a) afford to spread money around lots of startups _and_ (b) have startup investments be a small part of their portfolio. That's a description that matches very few professional developers.

Your exposure to the upside of startups is going to come from starting or working at startups, not from investing in them yourself.

<comment><USER7> You don't have to invest in startups. You could just invest in tech companies in the stock market.

<comment><USER5> Sure, but exposure to technology industry != exposure to startups.

A good thread:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3814407>

<comment><USER7> Fair enough, but having been through the boom and bust of the late 90s, exposure to startups can also be overrated.

Yes, the upside potential can be huge, and you get to play with some bleeding edge technology, but you're also dealing with a lot of inexperienced owners/managers, VC's with their own agendas, overworked employees, and an unhealthy amount of greed.

Yes, there are startups that manage to avoid this, but like in any industry, good companies are the exception rather than the rule.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I've decided that I am too stupid to figure out such schemes. I just figure out how much my work is worth to a company and then ask for that. As I see it, working for equity is essentially begging to get screwed by someone who understands the finance game better than me.</comment>


Real-time search of CT logs (logs of HTTPS certificates) - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/300546272 <comment><AUTHOR> You can test yourself at [https://beta.keychest.net](https://beta.keychest.net)</comment>


Recognizing non-programming open source contributors - <AUTHOR> https://allcontributors.org <comment><USER2> Doc maintainers, tutorial keepers, binary builders, graphic designers, website maintainers are some of my favorites.

<comment><USER3> UI translators as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So this is basically a bot that opens PRs to add contributors to your readme under different headlines. Nothing specifically about recognizing code or non- code contributors.

Are we really too lazy to open vim and add a line?</comment>


Termping : ♥ + Node.js + Streams + CoffeeScript - <AUTHOR> http://pravj.github.io/blog/2014/07/27/introducing-termping/

<comment><AUTHOR> This blogpost is all about Development of a game(kind of) termping, which is a prototype of one of the oldest video game Pong. but this prototype runs in your system's terminal. [https://github.com/pravj/termping](https://github.com/pravj/termping)</comment>


ArnoldC – A programming language based on Arnold Schwarzenegger one-liners - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/lhartikk/ArnoldC/wiki/ArnoldC <comment><USER2> Some silly suggestions for the future versions:

throwing an exception: YOU KILLED MY FATHER BIG MISTAKE

catching an exception: COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE

finally: REMEMBER SULLY WHEN I PROMISED TO KILL YOU LAST

null value: @YOUVE JUST BEEN ERASED or @HASTA LA VISTA BABY or @I LET HIM GO

positive infinity value: @YOURE FIRED

negative infinity value: @WHAT KILLED THE DINOSAURS THE ICE AGE

NaN value: @IM PREGNANT

<comment><USER3> HASTA LA VISTA, BABY is already an operator in ArnoldC as the method terminator, best not to have it used twice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Feature request: Add exception handling with the one-liner "IT IS NOT A TUMOR"

<comment><USER5> And promises should be implemented using "I'LL BE BACK"

<comment><USER6> "I'LL BE BACK is the keyword for RETURN "

<comment><USER7> "I'LL BE BACK" should really be call/cc.

<comment><USER8> "I'LL BE BACK" \- for recursion

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> BTW one of the more popular renders in the film industry is called "Arnold" and it is named after Schwarzenegger. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_(software)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_\(software\))

Examples of usage here: [https://www.solidangle.com/](https://www.solidangle.com/)

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm disappointed that "WHO IS YOUR DADDY AND WHAT DOES HE DO" doesn't appear to be a key phrase.

<comment><USER11> Should be the command for accepting a line of input from the user

<comment><USER12> I would have thought that was to define a new sub-class

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From now on I will interpret all-caps text as Austrian action-hero monotone rather than shouting.

</comment><comment><USER14> There's no exceptions because Arnold does not try/fail at anything.

</comment><comment><USER15> Thanks to you I'll now not be able to help reading all CONSTANT_VARIABLES in Arnold's voice.

</comment><comment> vezzy-fnord Thanks! Time to migrate our proprietary in-house database from LOLCODE to ArnoldC.

</comment><comment><USER16> My favorite was "I'M THE PARTY POOPER" from Kindergarten Cop.

<comment><USER17> Maybe the break in a switch statement... could merge with Impossible's request:

      WHO IS YOUR DADDY AND WHAT DOES HE DO (foo){
          SEE YOU AT THE PARTY 'bar':
              //kill bad guys
              I AM THE PARTY POOPER;
      }

<comment><USER18> As ArnoldC doesn't use braces there needs to be a key phrase to end the switch. I recommend NO MORE COMPLAINING

And the default case could be nominated by GET IN AND START PADDLING

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> KILL ME I'M HERE - Break loop

YOU'RE ONE UGLY MOTHERFUCKER - User input

IF IT BLEEDS WE CAN KILL IT - Throw exception

CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES - Handle exception

<comment><USER20>
        >IF IT BLEEDS WE CAN KILL IT

I think that would do better as a switch or case handler semantic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> For perfect accompaniment, listen to Austrian Death Machine [1].

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

<comment><USER22> Thank you for showing me a great, funny band!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> EPIC! The author included a list of video clips for each line he used. [https://github.com/lhartikk/ArnoldC](https://github.com/lhartikk/ArnoldC)

</comment><comment><USER24> This is one of the funniest things I've seen this week!

<comment><USER24> Well, I read some more. Safe to say, one of the funniest things in a very long time. As an Arnie fan, this is so much fun! Being on GitHub, can't wait to see what other funny ideas people bring into it. :D

<comment><USER25> The next step is obviously Samuel L. Jackson.

<comment><USER24> Or Mr. T

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> C you at the party, Richter!

</comment><comment><USER27> Here's an ArnoldC->Ruby transpiler based entirely on regexps : [https://github.com/franckverrot/arnoldc.rb](https://github.com/franckverrot/arnoldc.rb)

I urge the author of the language to create ArnoldCSpec, so that other implementations can be given the opportunity to challenge the main one. :-D

</comment><comment><USER17> This could be a solid foundation for TerminatorOS, the operating system for killer robots with speech synthesizers.

</comment><comment><USER28> Here's a list of most of the phrases: [https://github.com/lhartikk/ArnoldC/blob/master/src/main/sca...](https://github.com/lhartikk/ArnoldC/blob/master/src/main/scala/org/arnoldc/ArnoldParser.scala#L9)

</comment><comment><USER29> You all might enjoy "Terminally Blonde" at about the 6 minute mark: [http://www.thirdcoastfestival.org/library/664-re- sound-27-th...](http://www.thirdcoastfestival.org/library/664-re-sound-27-the- remix-show)

</comment><comment><USER30> What won me over was the fact that the else statement is "BULLSHIT".

</comment><comment><USER31> Now, the world just needs an ArnoldC#, for interop with LOLCODE.net

</comment><comment><USER32> I HAVE DETAILED FILES - Something related to file I/O maybe?

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE - Equivalent of Perl die()?

Other suggestions for future expansion:

COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO LIVE

TRUST ME (An assert()?)

I NEED A VACATION

</comment><comment><USER33> Trying to resist the urge to write a 99 bottles of beer example with that.

</comment><comment><USER34> NOTHING CLEAN RIGHT

</comment><comment><USER35> This is hysterical. That being said, nice work!</comment>


Blockchain Developer Nanodegree on Udacity - <AUTHOR> https://www.udacity.com/course/blockchain-developer-nanodegree--nd1309 <comment><AUTHOR> Will have to wait until the Blockchain class goes live, but I've found Udacity courses to be top notch. I've completed several of their web dev, Android and iOS classes and found them to be up to date and well organized. Possibly the best online education available on those topics.</comment>


Sylvester the Cat's Common Lisp IDE - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/joaotavora/sly <comment><USER2> I've been a lisp hacker for decades, and always code/test from inside emacs using shells. (Emacs+CL is pretty much my OS!) I've never really found SLIME to be much more useful than basic emacs. This, however, looks like it might attract me to actually moving a little bit away from raw emacs. The mains reason that I tend to use raw emacs is that I hop around multiple servers quite a lot, and I find it annoying to have to carry around my emacs environment, and when servers get reloaded, all my personalization gets wiped, so I've learned to make the most of the raw emacs env. This thing seems to provide enough additional machinery that it might be worth dragging around.</comment>


Why the Facebook Experiment Is Lousy Social Science - dnt404-1 http://www.ischool.berkeley.edu/newsandevents/news/20140828facebookexperiment <comment><AUTHOR> I wrote a comment debunking OP's arguments, but it was too long for a HN comment and my noprocast settings kicked in so I can't post it as two comments; so I copied it over to G+: [https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/1PqPdLyz...](https://plus.google.com/103530621949492999968/posts/1PqPdLyzXhn)

tl;dr: Let's summarize his complaints and my counter-objections:

1\. no consent: irrelevant to whether this was good science or 'lousy social science' 2\. crossed boundaries between corporations and academia: likewise irrelevant; also, welcome to the modern Internet 3\. small effect size: misunderstood the statistical design of study and why it was designed & expected to have small effects 4\. used LIWC with high error rate for measuring emotionality of posts: if random error, biases effect to zero and so is not an argument against statistically-significant findings 5\. and LIWC may have systematic error towards positivity: apparently not an issue as negative & positive conditions agreed, and the studies he cites in support of this claim are mixed or unavailable 6\. also, other methods are better than LIWC: sure. But that doesn't mean the results are wrong 7\. maybe LIWC has large unknown biases applied to short social media texts: possible, but it's not like you have any real evidence for that claim 8\. Facebook news posts are a biased source of mood anyway: maybe, but they still changed after random manipulation 9\. experience sampling is sooooooo awesome: and also brings up its own issues of biases and I don't see how this would render the Facebook study useless anyway even if we granted it (like complaints #1, 2, 6, 7)

Now, I don't want to overstate my criticisms here. The author has failed to show the Facebook study is worthless (I'd wager much more money on the Facebook results replicating than 95% of the social science research I've read) and it would be outright harmful for Facebook to aim for large effect sizes in future studies, but he does at least raise some good points about improving the followup work: Facebook certainly should be providing some of its cutting-edge deep networks for sentiment analysis for research like this after validating them if it wants to get more reliable results, and it would be worthwhile to run experience sampling approaches to see what happens there, in addition to easier website tests (in addition, not instead of).

<comment><USER2> I don't feel like you make an adequate case for some of your counter- objections.

#1 is particularly troubling since you seem to argue it by misrepresenting his argument instead of addressing it directly. The alternative is to perform the experiment w/informed consent, not to _keep the results of your unethical experiment secret_. I think this is actually an issue that is important when considering whether an experiment is 'good' or 'acceptable'. Tuskegee is what I think of when people try to argue that informed consent is unimportant. Even though anyone can tell you that the stakes in this kind of experiment are incredibly small in comparison, there IS a measurable risk of harm when manipulating emotions, so ethics matter here.

#2 - you seem to make no effort to address this either. To me, it is particularly troubling if the business and academic sides of FB freely interacted here because each side has an incomplete understanding of the other side's motives and priorities and constraints. The business side is focused on revenue and actionable metrics and legal liability (that's their job), while the research side is naturally going to have different objectives and have a perspective that is more rooted in the practice of good, ethical science. There's real trouble if research ethics & principles end up subjugated to the interests of the business people (which they often do).

Seeing you utterly dismiss the first two points with 'Oh good, so the author isn't a complete idiot.' is not exactly a revelatory argumentative triumph. You can do better.

<comment><AUTHOR> > #1 is particularly troubling since you seem to argue it by misrepresenting > his argument instead of addressing it directly. The alternative is to > perform the experiment w/informed consent, not to keep the results of your > unethical experiment secret.

No, the alternative is to go through a long rigmarole which may or may not approve the experiment and enforce conditions which may or may not themselves constitute severe biases of their own (knowing one is in an experiment, even if the subjects have been deceived as to the content, is itself a problem).

> #2 - you seem to make no effort to address this either. To me, it is > particularly troubling if the business and academic sides of FB freely > interacted here because each side has an incomplete understanding of the > other side's motives and priorities and constraints.

There's nothing to be addressed here. Businesses have always allied with scientists when they find common interests, from astronomers preparing tables for shipping to Gosset inventing a good chunk of modern statistics for optimizing a beer brewery. All he's done is talk vaguely about 'boundaries' and insinuate dark things.

> Seeing you utterly dismiss the first two points with 'Oh good, so the author > isn't a complete idiot.' is not exactly a revelatory argumentative triumph. > You can do better.

Those points are fundamentally irrelevant to the overarching claim he makes that it's _bad science_. I think he's wrong about the more... philosophical aspects of things, but I don't have to show he's wrong - he has to show they materially affect the truth of the results. He has to show that #1 and #2 actually matter, and he hasn't. Instead, he spent an incredible amount of verbiage on vaguely related topics and he flubbed the technical criticisms. I don't give him a pass on that and neither should you.

<comment><USER3> > No, the alternative is to go through a long rigmarole which may or may not > approve the experiment and enforce conditions which may or may not > themselves constitute severe biases of their own (knowing one is in an > experiment, even if the subjects have been deceived as to the content, is > itself a problem).

Having gone through some IRBs, there is a good reason and enough historic precedent to warrant this "long rigamarole". The point is that you can't simply say "but everyone on the Internet does it" and expect people who support traditional research ethics not to say "wait a minute, that shouldn't make it OK".

<comment><AUTHOR> The circumstances which prompted the formation of IRBs would not have been solved by IRBs: IRBs would not have stopped the military from harming downwinders, would not have stopped Nazis, etc. That's all one needs to know.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The uproar over this particular experiment seems like a bit much, but it doesn't hurt to start to have these conversations about research on users using the web. There is only going to be more of it going forward.

<comment><USER5> Purposefully experimenting, on a large scale, with peoples emotions when they don't know about it to try and make them sad or angry is a big deal. The Facebook paper looks at whether negative posts cause people to be more negative. What happens if someone with depression, who visits Facebook to vicariously share in others happiness, is placed into the negative-contagion test group? Is Facebook responsible for any harm that results?

There's a reason why psychology studies (any human study really) require informed consent. There is potential for great damage and Facebook apparently doesn't care.

Now I can hear someone saying that advertisement is the same thing. Advertisers are trying to change peoples' emotions, yes, but we know and recognize that while watching an ad. People using Facebook do not expect to be manipulated like the study did.

<comment><USER6> You need to be upset about any online company that does A/B testing also then without consent. Does this new button make people happy and want to subscribe to our content vs. our old design? This outrage is overblown and really only exists because it is from Facebook.

<comment><USER5> A/B testing is not the same thing as manipulating content based on negative/positive connotation and tracking user emotion change as a result. They're conceptually similar but the resulting change in user expression is not. A/B testing is optimizing your site and user interactions with it, Facebook's experiment is trying to change a users interactions with the world.

I would be just as upset if it were Google or my local grocer.

<comment><USER6> Sure it is. All advertising is manipulating user emotion, and A/B testing different advertising methods / button layouts on your site to improve conversions is one such use.

If this is something that upsets you I suggest being upset at every commercial on the radio / newspaper / tv / billboard that you're unfortunately exposed to every day.

<comment><USER5> People know ads are trying to manipulate them, they don't know that Facebook is actively trying to make them feel happier or sadder. Just because two things are similar does not make them morally equivalent.

People have been calling out various bad practices in conversion: [http://darkpatterns.org/](http://darkpatterns.org/)

<comment><USER6> Emotional manipulation happens every day in all kinds of fields other than advertising, I wouldn't refer to all of these as "dark patterns."

<comment><USER7> > Emotional manipulation happens every day in all kinds of fields other than > advertising

So it's not bad because everyone else does it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hi guys, author here, thanks for taking an interest in my critique of the FB experiment. Quick FYI is that the post is up on Medium:

[https://medium.com/@gpanger/why-the-facebook-experiment- is-l...](https://medium.com/@gpanger/why-the-facebook-experiment-is-lousy- social-science-8083cbef3aee)

...where I can fix things like broken links. It was republished on my school's website, but unfortunately I don't have control over the HTML there. In the cases where stuff broke, it's because I linked to the author's personal manuscript and not the official journal page (because the former is freely available to everyone rather than behind a paywall).

I care a lot about Big Data research, especially involving social media, and think we too often ignore the conceptual leaps required to make inferences about the human experience from social media.

Here, the leap is: sentiment_analysis(what people say on social media) == how they really feel.

The point about LIWC (the sentiment analysis tool used here) is that (a) it's flawed, and perhaps not in a "random error" kind of way, (b) we don't really know how well it works because it has not been validated in social media or Facebook posts specifically, which should make most researchers nervous (but somehow doesn't), and (c) there's evidence from other data sources that suggests LIWC is biased in a way that would underrepresent the emotions of interest (namely low arousal emotions like sadness, depression, loneliness, feeling left out, etc.; these aren't picked up by LIWC as well as other negative emotions like anxiety).

See e.g.:

O'Carroll Bantum, E., & Owen, J. (2009). Evaluating the Validity of Computerized Content Analysis Programs for Identification of Emotional Expression in Cancer Narratives. Psychological Assessment, 21, 79-88.

The point isn't that using LIWC means the experiment is invalid, the point is that it should give us pause and caution us against stating the conclusions of the experiment too strongly. I think the authors do state their conclusions a bit strongly.

The other main critique is about biases inherent in social media as a datasource itself. The private, randomly-solicited emotion samples of experience sampling are more likely to capture Facebook's true emotional impact than the non-private, self-selected emotion samples of status updates. Let's just take arousal bias. If we know that people are more likely to post when they're emotionally aroused (excited, angry, fearful/anxious), but the emotional consequences we're concerned about involve low arousal emotions (sadness, depression), then there's a serious chance we'll miss exactly the emotions we're arguing don't exist. That's a big problem.

I think we're a bit too enamored with the idea that Big Data provides an unbiased window into the human experience. I think a tremendous amount of social science would argue otherwise.

Stepping back a bit, the Facebook experiment raised many interwoven issues for me, which is why they featured in the broader piece I wrote. About Facebook's culture, about ethics in corporate vs. academic research, about Facebook's emotional impact (foolish to believe there is none, I think), about how we use Big Data in research, about how we cope with Facebook's presence in our lives, for better or worse.

You may have a great experience with Facebook, and that's great. Others struggle with the medium. I mention social comparison not just because it's been the focus of research on social media, but also because the authors of the experiment bring up social comparison (as well as the "alone together" argument) in their work. Because they try strenuously to rebut the unfavorable findings about Facebook's emotional consequences, I thought it was important to point out that their study seems designed in a way that would systematically underrepresent exactly those negative emotions they're arguing against.

Certainly, some negative emotions were "contagious" through social media (anxious news reports, for example), as were some positive emotions. But is the emotion that gets retransmitted the full emotional picture? Probably not. Probably many emotions and feelings get withheld. The social science would suggest that when positive posts make us feel bad, we won't go back on Facebook and broadcast those feelings to all of our friends.

Thanks a ton for engaging with my critique and responding with your own. Writing that was a labor of love, and I learn a lot from the feedback, good and bad. Sorry it was so long.</comment>


Ask HN: How to know when to give up on your startup? - <AUTHOR>

Hey guys, throwaway here for obvious reasons.
I have been bootstrapping a media sharing startup while working full-time for the past 1.5 years. Recently in June, it was getting so what I believe to be a lot traffic and growing. Growing 30%/mo since January, we hit a high of 250,000 uniques/mo in July.
My co-founder and I quit our jobs to work on it full time, and to grow it out, but now after the summer the site traffic has declined. It seems I quit my job when it "peaked", maybe this site was a passing fad? This month I only got 167,000 uniques -- a 35% drop.
So here I am. I'm not sure what to do. Should I shelf it, or take this as a sign and just give up? I told myself I'd try one more month to turn the traffic again towards a positive track, but I'm running out of savings and running out of ideas on how to turn the traffic.
I guess what I'm looking for is advice from those in my situation before -- did you shelf your project, or just keep working on it? I want to keep working on it, but I also want to make sure my reality is in check and that I'm not deluded by my own hope for it to grow bigger. How do you know when to quit? <comment><USER2> Why are you measuring your level of success in uniques per month rather than dollars?

How many dollars are you pulling in? Does it cover your costs? Do you think that more hits per month would be enough to make it cover your costs, or do you need to rethink how you're bringing the cash in?

edit: Don't worry too much about a drop from July to August though! I know it's disappointing, but you can't start thinking that a single setback is a trend.

<comment><AUTHOR> Mostly because I have no clear business model. Users to me is potential that I can possible later convert into a round or selling.

It pays for itself, but doesn't make me any money. =/

<comment><USER3> Then your problem is that you don't have a business model (much less a validated one), not that your traffic is falling. Even if your traffic is growing as before, you need to be similarly worried.

Get your business model figured out as quickly as possible, and cut your expenses like hell in the mean time. Get cash coming in from other sources at the moment (does not need to be from your startup). Hell, slap on some AdSense on your 200,000 uniques/mth site.

Honestly, quitting and going back to a job because of this little "setback" that still nonetheless leaves you at 167,000 uniques per month is pretty cowardly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I went through the same thing except I quit my job almost 4 years ago. What I will say is that ups and downs are part of the startup. The success of most startups and businesses is determined how much the founders are willing to endure until they find that secret formula, but in most cases it wont come over night.

Many of my friends have startups that looked like they were done, but turned into great successes.

If I were you I'd do the following:

1\. Look at your traffic sources where was your traffic coming from before?

2\. Audit your product to understand if there are things you can do to bring previous visitors back, and bring their friends with them (social integration).

3\. Look for other opportunities to monetize. If you're strapped for cash look for other ways to make money like consulting gigs.

Realistically you are just getting started, so if you have it in you just keep pushing/learning/iterating.

</comment><comment><USER5> August generally gets the biggest dip in traffic for most sites because of all the vacation and other non-in-front-of-computer activities. I would look into what changed from traffic sources but not really worry unless you don't get much of a bounceback in september.

</comment><comment> g-garron Maybe you should try to get a job again, or part time job.

That way you can generate some income for you, and still have some time to give your startup another chance.

Just my two cents.

</comment><comment><USER6> Are you sure you did enough testing? If you had a nibble, test it until you get more interest, and iterate.

</comment><comment><USER7> A lot of online businesses are somewhat seasonal.

If students use your product heavily, this is normal.

</comment><comment><USER8> Apply for YC's next session.</comment>


Free Software Foundations effort to make Windows 7 open source - <AUTHOR> https://www.fsf.org/windows/upcycle-windows-7 <comment><USER2> Campaigns like these shake my confidence in the FSF as a serious organization because it shows how little they understand about large, private software projects.

Open sourcing large proprietary software products like this involves:

\- Licensing agreements with potentially thousands of third parties (Adobe, Apple, Xerox, IBM, SCO, Oracle to name a few)

\- Trade secrets (also thousands, involving third parties)

\- Distribution restrictions

\- Export controls

Tracking down all involved parties is hard enough. Getting them all to agree is even harder, and more often than not is impossible. I suspect that even if all of the brass at Microsoft were keen on open sourcing Windows 7, it still couldn't be done.</comment>


World Cup 2014 Predictions and Results - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/world-cup/ <comment><USER2> Now I wonder if an octopus would be more reliable this time.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a whole lot of 1-0s in their "projection" of the knockout stages, and not a single game in the entire tournament where a team scores more than 2. Not at all realistic.

<comment><USER4> You're missing the point. They are showing the most likely scores. Take a look at the betting for any of the matches and you won't find the most likely correct score being 3+ for any side.

Of course, taking the entire set of games into account, there's likely to be some games with higher scores, but when you consider each game _individually_ , as this web site does, the likely result will not have many goals.

<comment><USER5> Then what is the point really? You could figure all this out by looking at the odds, which are probably more useful then this info-graphic.

<comment><USER4> Well, yes. But the point of these pages is to show opposing views and how different people and different systems come up with the chances.

Personally I love the mathematical complexities involved in trying to come up with odds/chances for events. It's applied maths with the potential for monetary reward :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nahhh.

This would be my prediction if the WC was a long series of randomly defined games. The specific games calendar has effects, though.

My own model goes from the Elo ratings at [http://eloratings.net](http://eloratings.net) (with Elo, a pair of scores gives you an expected result) and simulates 10^7 World Cups, updating scores for each simulation as it goes and so on.

There aren't any clear favorites, although of course there's an elite group (IIRC 5 or 6 teams together have 25% of likelihood of being champions) and Germany is slightly ahead. But in the modal scenario Brazil is eliminated by Spain in the eighth-finals.

<comment><USER7> Not sure updating the Elo ratings throughout the simulation is a good idea. The rating should reflect the 'optimal' estimate given the current information. A simulated result is not actually new information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nice visualisation but assumptions seem to be based on past performance in world cups. The Netherlands is supposed to have the 6th best defense in the competition, which is ludicrous.

<comment><USER9> _> assumptions seem to be based on past performance in world cups_

Not even that: England has a 35% chance of winning their match against Italy, which only has 33%. Overall stats in the competition are twice as good for Italy, as you can see at [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-25233859](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-25233859)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wonder if the host advantage is taken into account (not that Brazil need any kind of advantage).

As last time France hosted the world cup they won, yet they were not the best team in the tournament.

<comment><USER7> I have a similar model for league matches, and the home advantage usually works out to something like 0.1 goals per match. It's important in estimating the odds, but rarely tips the balance with respect to who the most likely winner is.

<comment><USER11> "Soccernomics" claims iirc that the home stadium (not exactly the same as home country) advantage is a full 1 goal

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Hey, one of the Bloomberg developers here. Thanks for the comments.

The prominent most likely score is a bit confusing, if you click through to the match detail then the histogram shows a range of goal differences. So for the first match we predict a goal difference of >2 to Brazil, although the highest probability for an actual score result is 2-0 (16%). Our model makes projections for up to 8-0 in both directions, but we aggregate them for display in this interactive.

</comment><comment><USER13> This is awesome but the predictiveness is quite unpredictive. I guess that's what happens when you quant everything

<comment><USER14> Or it's what happens when you look at data in the simplest way possible. We know there will be upsets, we know some players play better together than others, etc. This could have been enriched to show something quite interesting.

On a side note, personally, I think England will surprise everyone by making it to the finals.

<comment><USER3> You mean out of the group stage? That wouldn't be too much of a surprise; oddschecker.com has England and Uruguay about equally likely to qualify, with Italy a bit ahead. And if Luis Suarez isn't fully fit, England have every chance.

<comment><USER15> We shouldn't forget about Costa Rica too. They finished above Mexico in qualifying, they have a decent team and they will probably have a slight climate advantage in the games at Forteleza and Belo Horizonte (vs. England).

I wish I could also share the optimism about England. If we do get out of the group stages we may have to play Brazil or Spain in the quarter finals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Favorites win every game! Try doing your March Madness basketball bracket like that and you will not get very far. Saying the 1st and 2nd seed teams will be in the final is not a reasonable prediction.

<comment><USER17> But that's how predictions go, same as the betting odds.

It doesn't mean a lesser team can't win or a bigger team not loosing all their group games (as France did one time)

<comment><USER18> It's possible you're thinking of a previous event I've forgotten, but presuming you're referring to South Africa four years ago, France actually lost 2 and drew 1 - sorry for pedantry :)

<comment><USER17> that's alright, was actually thinking of 2002 when they did the same (lost 2 and drew 1). Anyway, they did badly

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> To go an entire World Cup without conceding a goal is unprecedented, and I would expect the probabilities to reflect this. I seems that the probabilities are calculated independently.

<comment><USER4> They aren't claiming that. The page is just showing the most likely outcome for each individual game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Brazilian here. The brazilian politics already bought the World Cup. It's 100% chance for Brazil to win. Mark my words and make some bets.

</comment><comment><USER21> This would be more interesting if people made and posted their own predictions, which this graph lets you do!

</comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if they analyzed the Messi factor correctly against Spain...

</comment><comment><USER23> It's funny to see all scores being 0-0, 1-0, or 2-0... ;)</comment>


Ask HN: How do you find clients when you have no network and can only do remote? - <AUTHOR> I have no network, no ability to relocate, can't get a full time job right now, and urgently need to make some bucks real quick, even if it's less than I would otherwise qualify for.
But several articles and comments here suggested that upwork.com and similar freelance websites do some really shady things and that it's not good to use them for any kind of work, even temporary.
And having worked remotely for the past 5 years has really limited my ability to build a network. I don't have LinkedIn and even if I did, it's more meant for building a network than for finding a quick gig.
I've got plenty of frontend/backend/mobile/desktop skills, having made several websites and iOS apps, and 5 years experience working remotely, so I'm definitely confident that I'm qualified to do some freelancing and get a good pay, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to get a job using these skills but without a network.
Any advice would be deeply appreciated. Thanks HN. <comment><USER2> I wrote about how I learned to get consulting leads: [http://www.gkogan.co/blog/how-i-learned-to-get-consulting- le...](http://www.gkogan.co/blog/how-i-learned-to-get-consulting-leads/)

TL;DR - Decide who is your ideal client. Identify their 1) common pain points and 2) which online communities they participate in (may or may not be HN). Write advice that will help them with their pain points, and share it in those communities. This will in effect advertise that you know how to solve their problems. Don't be too modest to say you're available for consulting projects, and make it easy for people to contact you.

PS - As someone else suggested, you may want to add your contact info here. There's a big overlap between people who browse HN and people who need and have the budget/authority to hire contractors.

<comment><USER3> How long did it take to go from 0 to clients?

<comment><USER2> Around 2-3 months. Lived off savings and a credit card. First client came from a referral, but that didn't turn out to be a consistent source. First long- term client came from seeing me on HN.

If I had started with the strategy I explained above, I'd probably get the first client much sooner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are pretty good Remote Job sources these days, try them. There are quite a bit of contract works too, which you can start off with. Also, do not forget to walk into your area's agencies, they usually work with freelancers/contractors.

\- [https://www.workingnomads.co/jobs](https://www.workingnomads.co/jobs)

\- [https://remoteworkhub.com/remote-jobs/](https://remoteworkhub.com/remote- jobs/)

\- [https://www.crossover.com/](https://www.crossover.com/)

\- [https://remote.com/](https://remote.com/)

\- [https://weworkremotely.com/](https://weworkremotely.com/)

\- [https://getbetterluck.com/](https://getbetterluck.com/) (one of our own internal tool)

<comment><USER5> Ad [https://getbetterluck.com/](https://getbetterluck.com/) \- usual struggle - when I search for "UX", it also shows job offers containting word "linux".

<comment><USER4> We're working on and will keep improving the app. Try being a bit more specific with your search keywords, permute-combine keywords, use the "Setting" for a more granular control of what shows up.

Anyway, that same "linux" posts also has "UX" and that might be the reason for your result.

Do you remember which post was the one that you got the wrong one?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would immediately update your posting with a CV, website, git, whatever.

You are on the front page of arguably the PREMIER network of people with access / need for technologists.

<comment><USER7> Good idea, thanks.

Updated my profile with an email. Don't have resume in order yet. But have done plenty of Clojure, front-end and back-end work, made several iOS/tvOS apps that ship on the App Store.

If anything comes from this, great, but I'm not betting on it, so I'm going to focus most my efforts on the suggestions to give try toptal, upwork, and freelancer.com a serious try for the short term, and to build a network for the long-term.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like a person problem. You are at the top of HN. Get off your ass and take the few hours it takes to get a resume done. Maybe that's your issue in finding work. You ask for help but are not willing to do the most basic thing required to get a job?

<comment><USER7> I have a resume, sorry for the miswording. But my wife values privacy and so isn't comfortable with me just posting it up here on HN willy nilly. And although I am comfortable with it, I feel obligated to respect her wishes.

<comment><USER9> You may have a good reason to not disclose your identity, but how do you plan to get paid. Do you want to get paid anonymously in bitcoins or you just want to provide your identity to the future employer only which does not make sense to disclose privacy only to your future employer. I am confused here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The problems with Upwork and Freelancer, while significant, are regularly blown out of proportion. I don't recommend them for more than finding short gigs when you're in a pinch, but they are useful for that. Do be prepared to lose a lot of jobs to bidders from the third world. Take advantage of anything that you can use to differentiate yourself.

Also, get a stack of business cards and start going to local business networking events. Look up the local Chamber of Commerce, search meetup.com, and see if your county has any small business development classes or lunches you can attend.

That's my short-term advice. I'm still trying to figure out what to do in the medium- and long-term myself.

<comment><USER11> > Look up the local Chamber of Commerce, search meetup.com, and see if your > county has any small business development classes or lunches you can attend.

I'm curious if anyone has had success with this. I know Brennan Dunn talks about it as one avenue to pursue, so I've been thinking about going to the local business networking thing. I guess I just have trouble conceptualizing going from meeting people who are running local brick-and-mortar type businesses to convincing them that software is a solution to their problems.

<comment><USER12> I'm a mobile app developer and I have got most of my work from meetups and local business events. Just remember that going to the geeky meetups will only get you so far. You need to think who would buy your services and go to meetups made for them. I've had the most success with product management and other business related meetups.

<comment><USER13> Obvious in retrospect but a very good suggestion. I mostly go to geeky meetups and usually lament how everyone is the same. When I go to the odd business meetup, I find a very diverse crowd. Finding the right business meetups can be hard though. Any thoughts on how to find them?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think the biggest thing you can do is establishing credibility with potential clients. The easiest way to do that would to be an existing set of clients, which you don't have. That's fine, everyone has to start from somewhere.

Your clients could or could not know much about the software development life cycle, and how to evaluate if you have the skills to meet whatever needs they may have. Perhaps you could network with existing freelancers who are too busy to take on new clients.

Spitballing here, but maybe working on or creating an OSS project could give you credibility to those freelancers. Or maybe you could work under a successful freelancer to establish yourself in the space. Maybe the site you built will lend you credibility to others.

Alternatively, if you have business ideas you'd like to try out, you could try working for yourself and creating your own income. Also, it doesn't hurt to sign up for LinkedIn. It might not be immediately beneficial, but once you find your first client, maybe they'll write you a glowing review.

> having worked remotely for the past 5 years has really limited my ability to > build a network. I don't have LinkedIn and even if I did, it's more meant > for building a network than for finding a quick gig.

Yeah, it's hard to build a network. Time to start putting in the effort. I sense a tinge of can't-do attitude here (but obviously, the tone interpreted in written communication is subjective) -- I don't know if it's the case or not, but a can't-do attitude is not what you want to have for freelancing work. Your lack of a network, or having an expansive one, is ultimately the result of your personal decisions. You have to be willing to give it a shot. If networking sounds not fun, or like a chore and otherwise unpleasant, you're probably better off just working for a big tech company. Personal skills are far more important in freelancing and entrepreneurship when compared to standard full-time employment.

Best of luck. Now go out there and kick some ass.

</comment><comment><USER15> While it may not fill an urgent need, have you considered finding a comfortable and stable remote job? Hackernews 'who is hiring' is a great spot; weworkremotely.com, remoteok.io.

You seem to have experiences, which is excellent. In the short term, if you're in the throes of an emergency, perhaps get some help from love ones while you get your feet back on the ground.

Looking for a project under stressful circumstances feels like it might create an uncomfortable environment to do good work and sustainably remedying what you're going through.

Good luck, whatever route you choose!

<comment><USER7> Yep, and I've applied for pretty much every remote job from the last HN "who's hiring" post. None of them went past the initial interview. What I took from that is that there's not a lot of remote work available right now in general. I'll look into the two websites you recommended, thanks.

<comment><USER16> You know, don't take this wrong, but I worry about the conclusion 'that there's not a lot of remote work available'. Rather, you seemingly got some initial interviews, so there must be jobs available. Instead, it just seems like you weren't a good fit for them.

Seriously, keep applying for work. You'll eventually get a break, particularly if you're getting initial interviews just off the strength of an application.

<comment><USER7> In the past month I only found less than 10 remote jobs, and I had the skills to apply for about 8 or 9. To me that feels like a very small pool in the first place. And yes the 8 or 9 didn't hire me but that was probably because like someone else mentioned here, there's just tons of applicants, maybe I was severely undercut by someone who doesn't have a wife and 5 children to provide for.

<comment><USER16> Okay, I'm not going to leave this one be. Have you ever considered that the way you communicate may be a bigger issue? Consider this line, from your HN profile:

 _Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com if you have a job to get done and money to pay for it._

At best, that is extremely unprofessional.

Or, even consider these phrases from this very comment:

 _In the past month I only found less than 10 remote jobs_

 _To me that feels like a very small pool in the first place._

 _maybe I was severely undercut by someone who doesn 't have a wife and 5 children to provide for._

In other comments, you've talked about how you don't have a 'public' resume ready, and how you only have two public projects, that you built in an hour or two over the last few weeks.

I'm looking for a job myself, so I understand that it is a hard slog, but seriously, you need to tone down the negativity.

<comment><USER7> Sorry that came off as negative. It's more or less a very limited amount of time. That's one of the reasons I can't get a "regular job". My wife has an illness we haven't gotten a stable diagnosis for yet, which makes her exhausted all the time, leaving me to watch our 5 children (from teen to baby), which is a full time job in and of itself. The few times I do anything during the day have to be done in tiny windows in which the kids aren't trying to burn down the house and terrorize each other. And I've been consistently getting less sleep than I need because I try to get little amounts of job searching or entrepreneurial work done during late hours. So any time I have to dedicate to doing any of these things, including commenting on HN, is sleep-deprived and rushed.

<comment><USER17> I just don't understand why your CV is considered too personal, but you are telling all these things.

Although that might be hard, I would recommend to reorganize your life such that you can separate your professional life from your personal/emotional life. Don't get a remote job. Move to wherever you can commute to work. Even if babysitting would take a considerable part of the paycheck, pay for it.

Probable not the comment you wanted to read, but I just wanted to address the elephant in the room. This is not about not finding online gigs. This is deeper than that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This will not help the OP immediately, but for anyone to avoid this situation in the first place, there are a number of techniques (some quite easy) that can help, described in this article I wrote:

[https://www.wisecashhq.com/blog/how-to-have-clients-find- you...](https://www.wisecashhq.com/blog/how-to-have-clients-find-you-rather- than-you-chasing-them)

More short term, I would definitely try to find a single gig, maybe via some subcontracting or via sites like toptal, just to build some runway and to make sure the techniques described above have enough time to bear fruit.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was a freelancer with no network 10 years back. I used to get cheap projects and some crappy clients. Some 5 years back, I got to work at a startup (luck and my relentless application to jobs did the trick). I had to move away from my hometown. Remote was _not_ an option. We got bought by LinkedIn and I was an engineer at LinkedIn. That blew my network up! I get remote work offers in my hometown.

In my experience, face time matters if you are from place no one knows about. There is a reason most engineering talent is in and around Silicon Valley.

I am not sure about github or other technical profiles as the people who make the decision of hiring you never visit github or understand code. I am taking about the CEO of a small company who will hire you and not the cool SF startup that we read more often.

Companies want to reduce risk, remote increases it because of the unknowns. If I were you, I would again start with upwork and similar freelancing sites. The shady things you hear are distractions and everyone has a different experience. There is a reason the upworks of today still exist and are doing business.

I wish you the best! :)

</comment><comment><USER20> I am in the same boat, albeit a completely different field, still it might help. Have you considered becoming a news and information resource for nonprofits, trade associations, and small businesses? I am a lobbyist and grassroots advocacy manager. I work from home, have no network, and limited ability to do so. I stumbled on to some schools that were interested in public policy, and laws. I rang one of them up and offered to monitor the law and legislation for them, and let them know when things came up that they might find interesting. Very low price, about a grand a month. That one school told someone else, and now I've got four schools. Just enough to pay the bills and eek by. I focused on keeping the price way down to entice people, make it up in volume.

</comment><comment><USER21> [https://www.reddit.com/r/slavelabour/](https://www.reddit.com/r/slavelabour/)

I've had a few coding tasks completed by Redditors on this subreddit.

<comment><USER7> This is pretty neat, thanks! Unfortunately all the [TASK] listings are like super tiny amounts of money. To clarify, I'm talking in the hundreds/low- thousands per project.

For example, $200 to make a website that I can probably whip up in a few hours and put on AWS for them. Or maybe $2000 for a more complicated website that takes 2 weeks. That kind of stuff is what I'm looking for.

<comment><USER22> Where is your portfolio and resume and links I can look at... may have some work for you...

<comment><USER7> Email me in my profile and I'll send you some links. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You know how to develop iOS apps. Can you think of any company that has an iOS app you could do better? How about contacting them with suggestions and a gallery showing the apps that you have already written

</comment><comment><USER24> I work with hotels. They face the same problem (how to get customers). There are basically two approaches: either pay someone a commission, or build a brand.

Building a brand is hard, it takes a long time, but it's worth a lot and is monetized over time.

Paying someone means accepting you're going to pay 10-15% or whatever price to someone like 10x consulting or some other sort of agency to find you work. This can be the right option if you aren't in it long-term or just plain don't want the hassle of brand-building.

</comment><comment><USER25> I would recommend joining Gigster or TopTal if you can. Both services are in a completely different league to Upwork in all regards — great clients and projects, high-quality work opportunities, money. I freelance for Gigster, so I know more much more about them than I do about TopTal. The business models the two companies operate are different. From what I understand, TopTal connects the workforce with customers on a long-term basis, and the pay is per hour, while Gigster allows freelancers to take several gigs at any given moment and the pay is typically set according to the scope of work and the dev's reputation. With some very rare exceptions, all work is remote. So far, my personal experience with Gigster has been amazing. I have worked on a variety of projects that have really helped my resume shine to shine, I've met lots of cool and friendly people (many of whom are among the best in their field), and I've earned quite decent money in the process. Many Gigsters have a stable six-figure income. While this may only scratch the surface of what people are paid in the Valley, when you think about combining it with the freedom to live/travel wherever you want — be it in Thailand, Costa Rica or Greece — you get a true perspective of the potential of joining Gigster.

</comment><comment><USER26> You need RFC1149 networking [https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt)

</comment><comment><USER27> In a short time? Forget about it. No one who doesn't know you first hand will engage you in a $10-20k contract. Let alone the fact that there is such a position available on short notice.

So your options are really limited: Credit card debt? Family debt? Low paying jobs?

In the longer run, there is no way around building a network. If you want high quality work, you have to build a network. It's like some guy coming to a big city and want to hit the high-end clubs, meet with high-quality people and get back home with a 9/10 girl to sleep with. Not gonna happen.

He's probably going to fail at entering the clubs (first step) and then blame it on the clubs having bad policies and stuff. If you want high paid work, you have to establish yourself first.

Establishing yourself in a certain market/niche take _years_ of hard work on establishing yourself. It can happen on different dimensions and will depend on your style (blogging? Forums? Conferences? How about writing a book? Contributing to a popular open source project? How about becoming a main contributor of a popular open source project?).

Good luck. Tough times but I'm pretty sure you'll come out of it and it'll shape your perception down the road.

<comment><USER28> I've landed several jobs in that range without meeting someone in person. But it requires a certain amount of salesmanship and establishing proper scope.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't know how helpful this will be OP: but thinking about problems in your domain and writing about your solutions is a good way to establish competence. It's the difference between organic leads vs active advertising. The former has the client coming to you and the latter has you chasing the client.

Which of these do you think works the best? In my experience its the former by far (all of the people who have sought me out had the most reasonable and interesting project.) But I do understand that in the beginning you're going to have to grind to get anywhere (share your work where ever you can) which means putting in A LOT of unpaid hours doing research and development for new stuff. It's worth it though.

If you keep working on your portfolio and learning new skills then you will never have to look for work again. Just think of the security that would bring: To know that if anything happened to the company you're working for (or you get fired) you can sign a new contract the very same day. Would be amazing for most devs... But in my experience this can only happen if you specialise.

The problem is, there is too much competition for the skills you listed. As an example, if you were to learn some skills in say - big data or AI then you would be much more competitive. I know that's a big ask but one thing I think is true about the tech industry is that anyone can succeed if they put in the effort. In the end its a meritocracy, so the good developers quickly go to the top and the bad ones are weeded out... Remember companies ARE looking for good developers all the time, you just have to make yourself heard and do something worth showing (this doesn't necessarily mean applying to a company. Get creative. There are a lot of ways to stand out)

Good luck OP

</comment><comment><USER13> If you need to make money right away, I strongly suggest you reconsider upwork (don't know the other sites you mentioned). I know a friend who worked on it as a dev. I use it as a client. The money from initial contracts might be bad, but it has the potential to turn into a more lucrative deal with a particular client (if you prove your value). This is a great way to build up experience as a consultant .. you can then say you worked as a consultant for X, Y, Z big name brand. Here is the thing .. pick your customer carefully. You want to make sure you are working with a customer who is as tech savvy as you. I work in deep tech so was able to communicate very effectively with my upworker, we were able to estimate things similarly, etc. I have seen postings on other free lance sites where someone wants you to build a highly scalable version of twitter for 50 bucks. You want to be able to avoid those people.

</comment><comment><USER30> For quick jobs, you can look for contract opportunities. Especially in software development, there should be plenty. Sometimes it might be worth to think about lowering your rate in order to secure something and build some trust/goodwill first before then raising your rate. Note that I'm not saying lowering your rate to the point that it's dirt cheap - just low enough to get something going to build trust with a client.

Look at all the job postings for contractors and freelancers and start with those. Build up your portfolio and share your skills online.

What I've also done is track relationships, make notes and pay attention to details using a self-made app. It helps keep me organized. I started off with a spreadsheet but it became too cumbersome and I needed to make sure I maintained relationships with my previous clients while still on contract so I can minimize the time where I have no work.

</comment><comment><USER31> I had similar problem while ago. I've decided to leave my previous workplace and search for a new one full-time.

I was applying to both remote and office-based offers, but only in my location (which suffers from lack of good job offers currently-most of them are dedicated for students with low payment).

It took me 2months to finally land in a new workplace)and it is remote which was my very dream form of working-I've done some remote freelance in the past and loved it)

I've applied to dozen job offers, most from LinkedIn, some from remote portals mentioned by other users in this thread.

In the end I've got a job from a job offer that was on stackoverflow, so maybe check there because I don't see anyone mentioned this as a source of job offers.

Keep on trying, as You can see it won't magically come to You without any action. Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER32> Try getting into Toptal [https://www.toptal.com/#connect-unmatched-coders- now](https://www.toptal.com/#connect-unmatched-coders-now) It is good for both clients and freelancers because Toptal screens both for quality. I am there as a freelancer for half a year and am satisfied. It feels like they are looking after you, and you can pick and choose what you want to work on and how much. They will try to match you with the clients, or you can pick jobs, but they will never force you to do anything. And there is nothing like screen recording and tracking like in Crossover. Also, I would never work on Upwork or similar network where everybody can say about them what they want and bid on whatever they want (with low prices).

<comment><USER33> Toptal is paying you based on your geographic location so it is rubbish and makes no sense.

<comment><USER32> You can set whatever rate you want. You can set 1000$/h, but of course, no one will hire you. Anyhow, my rate on Toptal is much higher than what I could get as a senior dev in my country, so it is good for us and as I can tell from reviews much of the world. Devs from the USA complain but from what I can see there are still many devs on Toptal from the USA and many Toptal events in the USA. So to each, it`s own. Another good thing is that you can be part of Toptal and have it be a backup source of work. You can choose your availability without any penalties. As for the companies/clients of Toptal. They get tested devs, guidance (for inexperienced clients) and they have mediators (Toptal) who would guarantee the quality of the devs and intervene in the case of a problem. It is best rated freelance platform, for a reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Potential alternative to Upwork that sounds better: [http://gigworks.blogspot.com/2017/04/moonlight-work-for- soft...](http://gigworks.blogspot.com/2017/04/moonlight-work-for-software- engineers.html)

<comment><USER35> The problem with Moonlight is lack of companies on it. The large amount of developers on there compared to the number of projects and the lack of a real site (the app is just Google forms and emails) make this site feel like a waste of time.

I really wanted to like Moonlight, but I think it has some issue right now.

<comment><USER36> I can personally vouch for Moonlight - I am working on a contract with them right now and didn't have to race to the bottom on pricing. While I certainly couldn't _live_ off this single contract it does not hurt to have your name in the hat for the companies that are looking.

<comment><USER37> It's been over a month since I've applied and nobody at Moonlight has contacted me or even follow up to give me an update. The competition might be too steep there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> You could be a mentor in an online bootcamp. For example: [https://www.thinkful.com/apply/](https://www.thinkful.com/apply/)

It's flexible part-time remote work, and you don't have to find clients yourself.

</comment><comment><USER39> Many years ago I did just that on Elance (now Upwork) and RentACoder (now Freelancer.com). I started with a couple of jobs in below the $100, then some below the $1,000, and then some in the low thousands. Striving for excellent ratings is key.

<comment><USER40> If you don't mind me asking, what do you do now? Are you still freelancing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> There are several suggestions on how you can get an immediate gig here.

I have something else to add. Once you do get a gig and start on it, budget some time and money to grow your network. There's no real substitute for a real circle of influential and well connected contacts in my experience. Perhaps attend conferences related to technologies that you're interested in, participate on online fora (mailing lists, stack overflow etc.) to help people with their problems in exchange for visibility, get a linkedIN profile, go to local user group meetups (or atleast attend nearby ones less frequently if you're in a city that doesn't have many such groups).

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER42> Hi,

I would suggest you to have a LinkedIn profile and update it regularly and start building the network now.. It is never too late. Meanwhile, for the job which you cannot wait for, there are many remote job portals like remoteok , weworkremotely , remote.co ,remotive, workingnomads, WFH.IO ,dribble etc which you can try .. But I would suggest you check angellist (angel.co) which offers jobs from mainly startups all over the world.

Another tip : Apply to local companies which are offering full time jobs , attend the interview and try to convince them to offer you a work from home based role ( It might work out, you never know).

Hope you find a suitabLe job real soon.

All the best ! :)

</comment><comment><USER43> Try [https://toptal.com](https://toptal.com)

Once you pass their screening process, you will get jobs in one or two weeks

<comment><USER44> Something I find rather intimidating about toptal is their top 3% advertising, when I think of top 3% work I think of, say, writing an RFC of a widely used internet protocol, inventing a language and writing its optimizing compiler, automated air traffic control, debugging live code on nuclear reactor SCADA systems, that kind of stuff. I'd be interested in work at a calmer more laid back environment like only top 5% or top 10% job responsibilities. Its possible everyone there is massively underemployed, but probably not.

What I'm getting at is there's nothing wrong with a site that matches brain surgeons to brain surgeon jobs, unless you'd be chill getting an ophthalmic surgeon gig, where do I go? upwork is famous for posting gigs that would pay $125K in SV but the dreaded "average pay rate" is reported as $9.81 or whatever.

Possibly "top 3%" is meaningless in the sense of "ninja rock star" is meaningless and anyone who can fizzbuzz is by definition in the top 3% of human species programming talent.

<comment><USER45> A fellow HN user, gil_vegliach[2], wrote up a very good summary[1] of the Toptal 3% filtering process - it seems fairly rigorous, consisting of multiple rounds with a week long project (doesn't mention if this is paid or not). Basically, it sounds like a "full" tech interview.

[1] [http://gilvegliach.it/?id=14](http://gilvegliach.it/?id=14)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gil_vegliach](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=gil_vegliach)

<comment><USER46> I'm on Toptal. I can confirm the blog post is quite accurate on the screening process. They likely receive applicants across the world and they must have a quick filter in process. Remember a lot of so-called "software engineers" can't even solve FizzBuzz. Allegedly, only 5% pass the initial algorithmic step, and the other half fails the other steps leaving only about 3% of the applicants.

You set the rates, though they'll direct your on what might be competitive. In practice, rates might not be that interesting for SV/NYC developers, but I find plenty of people from other parts of the developed world in the network - and is definitely good for South America.

And at least in my experience, staff is polite and professional. They'll help you build an attractive profile and deal with most of the usual client/freelancer nuisance, including rates and payments. As they handle most negotiation on your behalf, the relationship "smoothness" with clients is above average.

<comment><USER47> Not sure if that changed but I wanted to hire people there as I knew the screening process was rigorous; then I saw what they would charge me and the difference with what the coder gets. They made extortionist markup; I thought Upwork was bad in that respect but his was far worse. Then I read threads like this [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10107448](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10107448) . Maybe they changed since but I do not think so...

What rates do you get? Seems we are still talking $30/hr with them getting $100/hr. In a 'normal' company this makes sense: all kinds of benefits, office, computer, car, whatever, but for them, for freelancers, it is not all too great for the coders. But again, might have changed. Just think if you are in that top 3%, why do you need Toptal... Every company is looking for you.

<comment><USER48> >>> Every company is looking for you.

... only if you live in NYC or SF.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> One advice: you promised to make messages on affluentconfidante public at July 17th, but you didn't. I understand that there are still no messages there ;) But you need to do something about it. Maybe postpone the date. [I know the hunger and trying the get-rich-quick ideas; used to do it myself all the time].

Meanwhile -- can you do canvas/d3/realtime charting type of stuff?

<comment><USER7> Oops, fixed. Page is now public. I've done some d3 for my last job (custom internal reports) but it was painful. I've done real-time stuff through websockets recently ([http://editfight.com/](http://editfight.com/)). And a little canvas to teach my oldest son that he can make Mario in the browser. But that's it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Not sure what you mean by "network", but have you tried reaching out to businesses you truly believe you could help? Remember that work is a two-way deal. There are millions of small businesses with crappy technology. If you explain to them specifically how their business will improve from employing you to improve their technology, they'll listen.

</comment><comment><USER51> I used to search for freelance gigs amongst the remote/full-time job boards. I wrote about it here with some of the list: [https://medium.com/webuildevery- com/find-5-freelance-design-...](https://medium.com/webuildevery- com/find-5-freelance-design-development-leads-every-day-985f59aa0cac)

</comment><comment><USER52> How about contacting a consulting agency such as [http://www.tripleco.com/find-tech-jobs/](http://www.tripleco.com/find-tech- jobs/) or similar agencies?

</comment><comment><USER53> I write a lot and post the results to places with lots of visitors, and I watch the job board in a few different Slack channels and reach out to people seeking help.

</comment><comment><USER33> Maybe you want to try [teamed.io]([http://teamed.io](http://teamed.io)).

</comment><comment><USER54> What shady things does UpWork do?

<comment><USER55> Really doesn't fit in a quick comment. Just search around for Upwork horror stories. Not to mention that it's a giant race to the bottom anyways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Try Toptal. They say they hire the "Top 3%"..

</comment><comment><USER57> Codementor/HackHands seem to be good options.

</comment><comment><USER26> Where the heck in the world has NO networking?

<comment><USER40> I think they probably mean the social kind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> The internet?

<comment><USER7> Thanks will check it out.</comment></comment>