Ask HN: As a single bootstrapper, how do you deal with the pressure? - <AUTHOR> A few years ago, I wanted to make a product, but I wasn't very technical. So I decided to change that--I got technical. My problem is that I'm embarrassed of what I make. Intellectually, I know that I shouldn't be bothered by this. I don't have a huge team of VC-backed employees burning money to make a perfect thing. It's just me. But I'm tired of being shit on by my friends and family. According to my family, programmers are just "coder monkeys," people you hire to make your grand idea and that's how it's done. Friends look at me like I'm a lesser person because I'm not out to work for the most prestigious company like they are. I want to make a tool for small businesses, I want to do it profitably, and I want to be proud of it.
How do you deal with people saying, "That's it? Anybody could have done that in a couple weeks!" Maybe that's true! Maybe I'm not a very good product maker! But I want to be, and you've gotta start somewhere, right? Combine all of the above with a case of worsening depression and it's hard for me to stay motivated and it's hard to keep defending myself. I also worry about what I'll do if this doesn't work. Does anyone have any advice? How do you do it? <comment><USER2> When I was practicing scales to become a guitarist in my youth, my mom always came in and said "can't you play something we we know". My guitar teacher on the other hand said great and gave me another to practice.

You are making the mistake of "playing scales" in front of an audience who expect a performance of a final composition rather than a teacher who can provide feedback on your work in progress.

Change the audience.

<comment><USER3> As someone learning to play guitar this is the hardest part for me. The scales are boring and I want to jump to the fun stuff or learning a song. But then learning that song is a similar process. I have coworkers who are skilled guitarists and it is frustrating to watch them because I know they've put in the hours of doing scales.

It is hard to stay motivated when the "wrong audience" is yourself.

<comment><USER2> Then don't.

There are many ways to learn to play music. If you just want to learn to play songs then do that. Don't worry about the scales.

Instead of learning scales start jamming with some background music. Start to transcribe some solo you like (don't use tabs) and learn to play that way.

If you aren't motivated by playing scales then you shouldn't do it.

Make sure that it's always about enjoying music first, then about learning theory or technique.

One of my favorite ways to learn scales was to do patterns in the scales over some chord progression. That ways I was playing little patterned melodies while learning to play the scales.

Also don't confuse learning scales with learning to pick. Most of the times when you hear someone learning scales just going up and down the strings they are really practicing picking technique which is many times harder than to learn the actual scales.

<comment><USER3> That's pretty much how I've been doing it TBH. My mother passed down her old Martin classical guitar and so I've been learning some basic folk fingerstyle patterns which is fun because it gets the finger work in while sounding nice (or will sound nice once I get my speed up).

The most frustrating part is I used to be a section leader when I played clarinet in HS and could borderline sight read at that point. I've forgotten pretty much all my musical knowledge since then (including how to read sheet music), so it has been horribly frustrating to have shadows of memories for how fluent I used to be in this stuff and to have to start from scratch again. That probably makes me much less patient than I normally would be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It is simple. Stop defending yourself.

Don't talk to people about what you do unless you really think that there is a need or you know for a fact that they are the right audience. Family and friends are usually not the right audience for this. Tell them something vague like "Trying to do a few things of my own" and keep it to that.

Overall, don't sweat it. 99% of people don't get this whole bootstrapper thing. They are happy to be miserable slaves in their fancy brand name 9-5 job with zero job security (there is no such thing as a job security). Ok I should not go there. Some people actually like their jobs so I should not judge :)

You just smile, move on and keep doing what YOU want to do. You are not the one to do the usual 9-5 job working for someone else.

Join bootstrapped forums [0]. You will meet plenty of people like you who will not only listen but give you the advice, support and even mentorship that you may want.

[0] [http://discuss.bootstrapped.fm](http://discuss.bootstrapped.fm)

<comment><USER5> I don't have direct advice, but this is what worked for me. Most of my family and friends all were very disappointed when I wanted to work on my idea. Some were unsupportive, some didn't understand why I didn't want a high paying job with security. But my mind was pretty set that I wanted to do it and I had enough buffer monetarily for a while so I was able to ignore their sentiments. Plus my explanations were not helping.

After about 1 year into it, I finally was able to explain my thinking to the close ones as :"I am risking that if I work on this for a while, there is a chance that I might become rich enough for us to not worry about money for a decade. If it doesn't work, we will go back to where we already are". That clicked for almost everyone in my close relations.

<comment><USER6> Did you have a timeline when explaining this to close relations? I feel that the people around me were more anxious about _when_ I would decide to back to making money at some big company. When someone says, how long is "for a while?" what do you say?

<comment><USER5> Absolutely. I set up a 3 month recurring re-evaluation. Every 3 months I do a reality check and tell my closed ones the result of whether I want to stay in my startup or leave. This gives them the confidence that I am thinking about my life rather than having no clue at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It sounds more like a problem with your family and THEIR expectations than with yourself.

If you're able to make a product, you'll be ahead of 99% of people.

Don't be afraid to put yourself and your product out there. If you wait until you're not embarrassed, you've waited too much :) .

If you're solving people's problems, they won't mind if your product is not polished. Really.

Also, you'll learn A LOT from building your product, and especially from working with customers and feedback.

If it fails, you have learned some VERY valuable skills. I use what I learned building my side project a lot more than what I "learned" at my former day job.

To be fair, my own project is languishing (because I have a day job). I'd say go for it :) .

Look for support groups, I used to go to a coworking space which was very cheap and it was great because it had an amazing support between coworkers. Universities also have such spaces, and sometimes governments too.

</comment><comment><USER8> That doesn't sound like pressure as much as it sounds like unsupportive friends and family. If they don't bring other things to the table (other than negativity), i would reevaluate some relationships. That said, honest feedback is important. You should have a small group of trusted advisors/mentors that you can trust to tell you how you are really doing, but in a constructive way.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree about the importance of honest feedback! Truthfully, it's something I'm not getting now and should work on.

<comment><USER8> Do a Show HN or share some of your work on Ask HN!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was you only a few years ago. I spent a year building a really complex SaaS in my bedroom. Then I tried to sell it the next year and a half with dismal results.

1) Validate first by talking with potential customers _before_ building.

2) If the MVP takes longer than 3 month to build, you are barking up the wrong tree.

      a) problem/product fit is too high for a lone developer.

      b) your lack of experience & skill may be a bottleneck.

3) If people are going around saying it can be done in a couple of weeks, ignore them, unless they have done a similar project before in which I'd listen very carefully _why_ it shouldn't take long.

4) If people are telling you've been at it for too long, it's time to reevaluate your self, skills & business.

5) Don't go at it alone. Partner up with a coder. Share the pain.

<comment><USER10> >If the MVP takes longer than 3 month to build, you are barking up the wrong tree.

It doesn't necessarily mean the product isn't fit or you lack skills. It may just mean that you need to split the product into smaller releases/sprints.

Say your idea can ultimately lead to a really big software. You should sit down and spend some time planning which features are _required_ and which ones can be released at a later time. Doing this will help take some of the pressure off if the product is not "perfect" or doesn't do everything you had planned for it.

<comment><USER9> I'm factoring in those agile/lean/scrum/4letterword frameworks.

What I mean is to be wary of minimum number of features that you need to sell. Obviously if you were building a database to rival MySQL or OrientDB, the bar is that much higher.

Likewise, I think that if the MVP takes longer than 3 month for OP, it's wise to say that more resources are going to be required for that niche which OP may not have.

An MVP will signal whether the pain your customers is experiencing is urgent enough. If they start complaining why X doesn't work when Y has it then you've essentially created a vitamin solution, nice to have but nothing close to solving real pain points.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I always found the "coder monkey" idea amusing. Programmers _are the ones who have the ideas._ Your intuition has to be fed data, and the best source of data about what programming can accomplish is _having programmed._ When I meet people who suggest that programmers are monkeys for hire, I always wonder, am I to understand that being a programmer is somehow a setback in having ideas about what kinds of things programming can accomplish?

Anyway, you're building something through your own initiative, and every day you wake up and think to yourself, "what do I build next?" Perhaps you continue thinking hard about this as you pour yourself a coffee or whatever. Then you go and build it, and if you picked the wrong thing, your customers will as a direct consequence get mad at you. I personally think that kind of responsibility is much more exciting than being managed.

There's a pretty good chance all this will fail, simply because most things fail. That doesn't mean it was a waste of time. It just means your time wasn't here yet, and in the meantime you face life with a bit more data than you had before. Maybe next time around.

As for the people who tell you your project could've been built in a couple weeks, ask them if they routinely say the same thing to students doing problem sets, or anyone who's just starting to learn something. I mean, it's just nonsensical.

Also, mean-spirited negativity is really bad. You basically just have to cut people who radiate it out of your life, or at least be disciplined about what you talk about with them.

I don't know, that's my $0.02.

<comment><USER12> > Programmers are the ones who have the ideas.

Other people can have ideas too, and they can hire programmers to code it for them. Not sure why you put emphasis on programmers having the ideas.

<comment><USER13> Because they're aware of what tech can and can't do. Not the grandparent, but it's right there in the post you're replying to.

<comment><USER12> I read the "ideas" as having the business ideas, not the implementation detail ideas.

<comment><USER13> The implementation possibilities limit or expand the product idea.

Also the implementation is the product, and the product is most of the business. They are not separate things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> None of my projects went anywhere, and eventually, I gave up. I used to have the rosy view that with enough work you'll get there. That's largely untrue. You also need to know the right people (connections) and be very lucky. I hate to be a downer, but you don't often hear this side of the opinion.

<comment><USER15> > You also need to know the right people (connections) and be very lucky

Not sure about 'being lucky' but 'knowing the right people' is very true.

After Marissa Mayers took over the reins of Yahoo, she went on a 'buying spree'. Several of her acquisition were questionable, including an app called 'Summly' \- a seemingly simple app that "summarized news" that she purchased for Yahoo, by paying 30 MILLION in ALL CASH deal.

Even the algorithm that it used to summarize wasn't his own. He outsourced that work (the core functionality) to [http://www.sri.com/](http://www.sri.com/)

It was later revealed in a Forbes or BI article that this '15 year old teen hacker genius''s family (either mom or dad) and Mayer's husband were buddies at Goldman Sachs or something of that nature.

Related reading:

Yahoo Paid $30 Million in Cash for 18 Months of Young Summly Entrepreneur's Time => [http://allthingsd.com/20130325/yahoo-paid-30-million-in- cash...](http://allthingsd.com/20130325/yahoo-paid-30-million-in-cash- for-18-months-of-young-summly-entrepreneurs-time/)

Here's What Happened To All 53 of Marissa Mayer's Yahoo Acquisitions => [http://gizmodo.com/heres-what-happened-to-all-of-marissa- may...](http://gizmodo.com/heres-what-happened-to-all-of-marissa-mayers-yahoo- acqu-1781980352)

<comment><USER16> Luck has a lot to do with it. Marissa knew the people who started Google and that was luck. She may be talented but there are many others just as talented, who weren't at the right place at the right time. The founders who succeed may attribute their success to their hard work and persistence, but many forget they were actually very lucky as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Intellectually, you're on the entrepreneurial path, with a purpose. How you emotionally defend yourself is also part of the entrepreneurial path - we work more hours for less money (on average) because we "control our own destiny" which implies of sense of ownership over one's life that you can't get elsewhere working towards someone else's bottom line. That's probably a myth, but it's an important one for maintaining our psychological health while under the stress of under-delivering. Don't be confused here - as an entrepreneur, you will ALWAYS feel like you're under-delivering, whether on time, or on traction, or on product, or on revenues, or on team, or on awareness... That's an unfortunate part of the path. But it's also an important part of the drive to improve the product, improve the team, etc. Entrepreneurs unfortunately also have a high rate of depression - I'm not adequately versed in those personality types to make any assessments as to why. But as an entrepreneur, I can tell you that, personally, I face that stress every day and yet carry on because I feel like my work is important. I'm not building follow-on products - I'm trying to build first-to-market products, also with a purpose. So either that purpose has to carry you through these tough defensive discussions and resulting stress, or that purpose isn't sufficient, and you'll drop the product and/or the title entrepreneur. If you're going to own your own path, you either do it wholly, or you don't. Trying to figure out a middle path will kill the average person. Don't be average.

</comment><comment><USER18> It sounds like you have two issues, your social group and your product.

I can't help you with your social group. It's up to you to associate with the dream killers or not.

The product market is very interesting and counter-intuitive. There are countless cases of where the best product is not the most successful. Spend some time studying sales and you'll find product quality is secondary to how you position it.

This may not make you feel good about it, but that's the cold truth behind success. The way I personally deal with the quality vs sales issue is to focus only on product quality and have my partners focus on what's needed on the sales side. Finding a partner with good salesmanship might be your way over the slump that you're in.

</comment><comment><USER19> 1\. Ignore the critics. Unless they have something useful to say, don't listen to them. We live in an age of critiquing. Only listen to critics who are also producers themselves. Consumers - either they consume your product or not. Just measure it and try to get better at the metric each time.

2\. Focus on creating things. Be a maker. Find joy in it. Regardless of how it comes out, if you enjoy the process, you'll repeat and get better at it.

3\. Get in the habit of sharing. Accept that 90% of your work will be average and that's okay.

Finally, what you're feeling is normal. It's all part of the journey. Both professionals and amateurs face this fear in their own way.

</comment><comment><USER20> Take a long walk and put things in perspective. You are on your own with this and that means you have to stop caring what other people think. Not because they won't give you good feedback, but because that kind of feedback cannot matter to you in the same way any more. You don't have that luxury.

As a product developer, you owe it to your product to do your best with it. That means that your allegiance is not to your family when it comes to your product. When they give you feedback, bad or good, you need to take a step back and weigh it evenly with everyone else's feedback, scientifically, objectively. If you can do this, you can make a good product, or at least get most of the way there, while avoiding distractions along the way.

The whole thing about making a product is... it's a long, hard road. The reason for this is not because of the ups and downs or how much you have left to learn. It's just actually a long road... for anyone. If you start paying attention to feedback early on, positive or negative, and let it sway you, you are doing yourself a huge disservice. It's early on, your product _should_ suck. You need to realize this, pack your sentimental feelings away, and get to work.

Do you know when you've made it? When you've finally hit the nail on the head and won the game? It's not when your parents or your friends or your sister is proud of you. It's not when you get your first positive customer review. It's not when you turn a profit. It's when you allow yourself to be proud of yourself, knowing that this journey you're on is tough as nails and you're doing it anyways. When you do that, you won't need anyone else to praise on you.

</comment><comment><USER21> Unfortunatey, we are highly unpredictable and emotional machines. You're going to have to deal with ups and downs, moments of euphoria as well as depression, no matter what.

The key is to stay disciplined, and if you believe strongly that what you're working on solves a real problem no one else is solving appropriately, then keep working on it, very hard.

While at it, keep looking for people to join you on your adventure and hopefully success will come along the way.

Also, a good read: [http://www.wisdomination.com/screw-motivation-what-you- need-...](http://www.wisdomination.com/screw-motivation-what-you-need-is- discipline/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Managing stress and anxiety is a big part of working solo. If you're not doing so already, may I suggest you carve time out for yourself that is inviolate (for example, on Sundays you close the computer).

Remember that your first job is to keep yourself from burning out, or else all the other stuff you do will not matter. And try to notice patterns in your anxiety, and anything that is effective at keeping it down. Tend to yourself!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, Maciej! (Current customer of Pinboard here). BTW, you're one of the people in tech I look up to most. Not because you're the richest or have the biggest company (SV dick measuring), but because I think you've figured out how to live best.

<comment><USER22> Thank you, and good luck to you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > According to my family, programmers are just "coder monkeys".

You don't have to prove yourself to anyone. I stopped trying a long long time ago. Anyone who thinks programmers are just "coder monkeys" aren't really worth even having a conversation with.

No one will understand what you are doing. You should read up on articles about what it is like to be a boostrapped company and the type of nonsense you will face. Perhaps others linked to a few helpful and motivational articles to get you started.

You need to have thick skin and confidence that you are on the right path. Enjoy the climb, even though it will be insanely difficult.

I started my boostrapped company barely making any money and now I make more than most people I know. Use that as motivation and realize that being on your own means you can exceed anyone's salary because you play by different rules.

</comment><comment><USER24> Personally I have a lot of anxiety when discussing something when the original idea was mine. Where as if I discuss something that I made but the original idea was somebody else's I don't get anxious. I guess that just how I work.

Deep down I know most people don't even make it as far as creating something bad. So even if my idea is bad I keep going knowing I'm well ahead of the curve in terms of trying to create something in this world.

I guess my only advice is; learn to live with embarrassment. It just takes some courage - which from the sound of it, you already have.

As to the "Anybody could have done that in a couple of weeks". They probably don't know what they're talking about. Because if they did, they wouldn't be saying that.

</comment><comment><USER25> I understand what you are going through, went through it myself when I was younger. The mistake I made regarding this was being defensive, don't lump all your family and friends into one pot and bark defensively at it. Never be defensive about this. Be proud of your product, ask them if they see any obvious errors with it, you might learn something because they are invested in helping you. They mostly care about you and don't know anything about putting a product to market. But anyway something might come out of it. And then for those in the bunch who are trying to make themselves look good on your account, just ask them if they plan to waste their entire life as their bosses bitch.

</comment><comment><USER26> >According to my family, programmers are just "coder monkeys," people you hire to make your grand idea and that's how it's done.

Yes, tell that to the coder monkeys who started Google, Facebook, etc.

I don't know the statistics (and I'm not sure where to find them), but I'm guessing that the majority of successful tech companies had a "coder monkey" as one or more of the founders. I used to work for a private company that was started by 3 COBOL coder monkeys (yes COBOL - not that I'm a fan) that went on to be a $100+ million dollar a year operation (lrs.com). All bootstrapped, NEVER took a loan that I'm aware of.

Don't listen to them.

</comment><comment><USER27> >How do you deal with people saying, "That's it? Anybody could have done that in a couple weeks!"

lol (or at least smile to yourself) and ignore it. You will always get this. Later on, if the product is a success it will change slightly to "can you just make it do this, I don't think it will take long, just a couple of hours I could do it myself if I knew how". When the truth is it is at least 4 days of solid work (as in 32+ hours)

As for friends and family, be vague, don't tell them. If they are not technical, just baffle them with big words, throw in lots of buzz words so they don't want to see :)

Good luck

</comment><comment><USER28> Watch some Gary Vaynerchuk videos, seems like you need some motivation. There is one where someone asked him about expectations from others. His advice is basically give them the middle finger and stop making them an excuses for YOUR hustle. Also once you start selling your product you will soon see the market make your current doubter seem soft. In the sense you are trying to convince people to look at you in a positive light versus conviencing people that you provide value and they should pay you for it.

I am also a bootstraper, however went to college to be technical. However I can tell a majority of the top tier programmers don't have an once of hustle in them. They just want to play it safe. You learning how to be technical proves just how much you hustle you have in you, just keep at it.

At the end of the day clients don't give a fuck about how much technical experience you have or anything else other than your product. If the product is good and provides value for them, their wallets open. There is also vast evidence that having the best technically sound product doesn't mean a victory, people can be better at sales and marketing with a subpar product.

Look for hustlers in your life. If they aren't there, surround yourself with the content hustles post online.

Good luck man, go out there and kill it then just watch people change their opinion of you without saying anything.

</comment><comment><USER29> I found that when listening to advice, feedback, and praise, __what __is said is just as important as __who __says it.

A lot of people say things, both positive and negative. You don't have to accept it all at face value. It's hard at first, but with time, it's possible to tune into this. Accept what people are saying with a smile and a nod, and only take it to heart if it is coming from someone who is qualified to make that sort of statement.

When someone says "That's it? Anybody could have done that in a couple weeks!" and they have never built a thing in their life, just ignore them. As harsh as it sounds, their words are worthless. They may still be good and loving people, but in this case it does not make sense to listen to them.

I'm going through this, but as an experienced developer learning the ropes of SaaS marketing a fledgeling product. It sucks! I know what I am doing __right now __is sub-par. But these are stepping stones. Some of the feedback I get is harsh, but is easy to dismiss as it is coming from people who do not understand the present situation or don 't have the experience to offer the kind of feedback they are trying to offer. On the other hand, a critique coming from an experienced source is worth its weight in gold, even if it stings at first.

Keep at it! It sucks now, and it's possible that what you have built right now is sub-par when compared to everything else out there. But this is just a start. You've come a long way to get here, and if you have a long road ahead. Just keep going and little by little you will get to a point you want to be at.

</comment><comment><USER30> I totally understand your pain. I'm currently working on my startup and I'm almost in the same position as you.

While I'm working at a company (because I have bills to pay and I'm just out of uni), my startup is bootstrapped by myself - and while it's tempting to get VC money, I feel like before I even consider doing that, I want to get something that can stand on itself if I don't get that funding.

My family & friends are pretty dismissive of my startup (you need more experience, you've failed before, you can't do this, you are wasting your time/money etc.).

So take it from me....

1\. ignore the nay sayers (unless they are your target market in which case take their opinions on the product and ignore the rest). you know what you want to do. you have a vision and you know what you want in life - most don't have that, and you have absolutely no one to answer but yourself.

2\. you are learning and you are improving - that is awesome (because that means you know where you are lacking and where you can improve).

3.Finally, let's say you do fail (hey, a lot of startups fail), you have learned valuable skills which would be awesome for you to apply to either your next venture or at "the next big corp here" \- eitherway, it's a win - win.

4\. Finally, you choose being bootstrapped because you a sustainable business, you want to own your own business and in a way an adventure. So enjoy every momement of it. While this might feel terrible now, once your business does succeed, you'll have a lot more riding on you :) - So full steam ahead!

finally if you wanna get in touch, I'm available sk AT skdev.xyz

</comment><comment><USER15> > programmers are just "coder monkeys"

Wow, how condescending ( the family, not OP). Is this notion isolated or widespread?

My family thinks I am a Tech Ninja, and almost all my Gym friends, many of who are in blue collar jobs, really look up to me.

<comment><USER27> well they are right, kind of. We are just the descendants of monkeys who code.

Ain't nothing wrong with that :)

<comment><USER31> Well if it goes too far you end up like Europe with a salary cap and a very narrow job range. I am greatful developers in the US are not all seem as code monkies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This has helped me greatly over the years in a world full of haters. May it help you too.

[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7-it-is-not-the-critic- who-c...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7-it-is-not-the-critic-who-counts- not-the-man)

</comment><comment><USER33> Let's break it down:

>> A few years ago, I wanted to make a product, but I wasn't very technical. So I decided to change that--I got technical.

You are a bad ass. I went from techinical recruiting to software engineering. In between I built a recruiting business powered by a Rails app that demanded more than I was prepared to give. That shit was damn hard, and only someone who has been through the business guy to coder guy transition appreciates how much of a bad ass you actually are.

>> According to my family, programmers are just "coder monkeys,"

They're being assholes and/or you are taking it too personally. I'm guessing you are simply stressed, and they don't know to be excited for you. Everything is taxing when you are exhausted, including putting up with people may simply be breaking your balls.

>> I want to make a tool for small businesses, I want to do it profitably, and I want to be proud of it.

Take care of yourself first. Your first paying customer may love you, rely on you, and wish you the best, but they ain't gonna pay the hospital bill for your self induced heart attack. They care about you, but not in the way you care about them, and you can't afford to be altruistic. Also, the majority of VC backed companies were funded because they had some combination of traction, relationships, expertise, and reputation you have yet to achieve. And if you want stress, take a few million now, hire people, and freak out when you realize you're going to run out of money before your product is worthy of the next round of investment.

>> "That's it? Anybody could have done that in a couple weeks!"

The Gettysburg address was written in a single train ride, and is only 272 words long. But it was written by a man who worked for years to build up the skill to create & deliver that speech to an audience that actually wanted to listen.

>> How do you do it?

Working my ass off, living off money I saved for taxes, and ignoring reality.

Ping me if you wanna vent. My email is in my profile. I'd be happy to listen, and I won't offer any unsolicited advice :)

P.S. I am a bad ass, too, which basically means nothing to anyone, except maybe you. Being the king of your own mountain isn't that impressive until it's tall enough that everyone has to look up to see the top, and even then, they won't understand what you went through to get there. It's good to be king, but it's also lonely at the top.

</comment><comment><USER34> "That's it? Anybody could have done that in a couple weeks!" is awesome to hear. You need to be sure you ask that person what is missing and what you should build next instead of defending yourself.

All feedback is good feedback- just don't take it personally. The feedback isn't about you or your ideas, the feedback is about what someone sees in front of them.

Your ideas will change as time goes forward. People's reactions to what you build will change. You'll make dumb product mistakes. You'll build the wrong things. The only way to learn when you do that is to get people to look at what you're building and let them tell you why it's not good.

You're on the right track and we all go through this. Just calm down a bit and don't take things personally.

</comment><comment><USER35> Does the term "bootstrapping" only apply to a product business? Or does it apply to a service-based business as well?

If it applies to service businesses as well, I know in my case one of the biggest stresses is dealing with the actual operations side of the business. Especially getting new customers.

In my case, one of the most effective things is to learn how to tune out the noise. And by noise, I mean all of its many forms - social media, comments from friends/family, anything that distracts you from the real _work_ of your business.

I'd encourage you to stay independent and go as long as you can without taking funding. Keep complete control for as long as you can.

Have laser like focus on making a good product, and serve your customers well.

It'd be cool to talk with you further, and hear about your work. Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER36> What's important is what your users and the market says about it. Take the negative in one ear and let it go on the other side. It's part of the journey - everyone who has a dream will invite doubters. Use it as fuel to propel you to success.

</comment><comment><USER37> You are the hero. None of your critics are taking action like you. None of them is stepping up like you. None of them are educating themselves like you.

I admire you and I admire that you are taking action.

Programming is HARD. _Really hard_. It takes years of constant hard work to get good at it. The more code you write, the better you will get.

Business is HARDER THAN PROGRAMMING, without the guaranteed outcome that you get from programming. In business you must simply try and try and keep trying and hope one day the cards fall your way.

And the important thing is that you are trying. Most people don't even try.

</comment><comment><USER38> Create an MVP or even just a landing page before dedicating too much time into any project. Launch the MVP or landing page on places like HN, Product Hunt, Reddit, etc. to gage traction before before moving forward.

</comment><comment><USER39> I appreciate the quote from Epictetus, a key philosopher of stoicism: "Freedom is the only worthy goal in life. It is won by disregarding things that lie beyond our control."

Since you cannot control the reactions of other people, it's not worth your time to worry about them. If you can succeed at the things you can control ("Am I making consistent progress on the product?"), then you've succeeded, regardless of the reactions of other people.

</comment><comment><USER40> No one owes you anything. [1]

Your friend and familiy do not have to understand your motivation. They do not have to understand your decision building a product instead of working for a "prestigious company". They do not have to be your friend.

On the orher hand, you do not have to give a fuck about their opinion. The said truth is that there are 7 billion people on earth and you can not make all of them happy with your way of life. But you can make happy yourself.

I read once an articel where someone was asked "And what do you do when the people say you have crazy ideas?". His answer was "I talk to other people!" Do not worry, there are other people out there who understand you. You only have to find them and listen to them instead of the naysayers.

[1] [http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm](http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GiftDaughter.htm)

</comment><comment><USER41> From my own experience, one of the biggest drains on productivity in a startup is having zero support and confidence from the people closest to you. They are probably wrong to doubt, but it's hard to ignore them and keep pressing forward. I'd suggest trying to do something I never figured out, and surround yourself with people who believe in what you are doing (without being yes- men/women).

</comment><comment><USER42> Maybe you're selling it wrong, or presenting yourself inappropriately. Namely, if I want to climb everest, and I walked up a local hill - it would seem silly to say "Look everybody at me I'm on my way to climbing everest!" \- even though that could be a true statement.

Maybe you need to be more modest about describing it, especially if you can't handle the feedback.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very good point. I've tried to be as modest as possible when talking to other people (e.g. "I'm working on a small software project" rather than "I'm building the biggest, best thing!"). I tend to roll my eyes when other people say stuff like that. Presentation is very important, though, and I'll certainly keep that in mind. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> 1) Don't associate with negative people.

2) Tell them Google and Facebook could be built in a few weeks too. (Mostly accurate!)

3) Consider that you're extremely unlikely to succeed "you against the world" in these circumstances and how you could get some partners on board.

</comment><comment><USER44> You're never going to make it as long as you keep giving a f*ck about what other people think...

<comment><USER45> Lots of good advice here, but this is #1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Are you embarrassed by what you make because people keep putting it down or because you objectively know it's subpar?

If it's the former, then you should try to filter for constructive feedback and let the rest go. BTW, the same is true if they claimed to love your product. Don't get too excited either way. It's just a few opinions and the market will ultimately decide.

If it's the latter, then you need to focus your time and energy on fixing the product vs. "defending" yourself. Also, try getting it in front of a wider audience that's representative of your target market ASAP.

At the end of the day, you should work to be as objective as possible. Disentagle your emotions--put them on a shelf--and focus on the product succeeding (not you succeeding, but the product). If you find yourself feeling some self-reflective emotion, then you know you need to course correct your thinking.

All of this self-reflection (especially at the behest of detractors) is poison that amounts to trying to succeed while dragging an anchor. It hurts in two ways: it diverts your precious time and energy from the product, and it makes you less productive, creative, objective, and enthusiastic when you actually are working on the product.

As for the rest of it (thinking "what if it doesn't work, etc"), that's classic anxiety and it's a close cousin of depression. Ask yourself "what if it does work?" and keep moving. Truth is, more often than not what we work on will not meet our expectations. I've "failed" and pivoted multiple times before finding success and even then, not to the scale I'd hoped. BTW, on the final pivot before success, I've had people absolutely demolish the pivot. Had I listened to them, I would never have succeeded.

In sum, when you are thinking about or working on your product, focus relentlessly on making it better and testing it in front of "real people". That should leave little room for the counterproductive thinking.

Last but not least, good luck! We all need a healthy dose of that.

</comment><comment><USER47> You can ignore them or live by their terms. That's absolutely your choice.

If you can't handle the pressure, do what they say. If you can (and I highly suggest you learn how to do it), keep doing whatever you're doing and ignore them. Smile and nod.

</comment><comment><USER48> True friends support you, no matter what, especially during a depressive episode. If they don't, they are not your friends. It might help to distance yourself, or to learn to ignore them.

</comment><comment> cha-cho The solution to all your problems is to get one customer. One person who says "I get what you are trying to do and I will pay you for it."

The longer you put off acquiring a customer the harder your journey becomes.

</comment><comment><USER49> If you have unsupportive friends and family, then you should not have told them about your business.

If they can't say anything nice about it, then it's better that they say nothing at all about it.

<comment><USER50> > then you should not have told them about your business.

Meh, as if OP is to blame for how unsupportive his friends and family are.

In my opinion, you _should_ tell them. You should also tell them how you hate it that they're being so unsupportive. If they don't change, I'll echo what others said and re-evaluate your relationship with them....

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm also flying solo. Email in profile, hit me up and I'll be very happy to help. At the very least, with constructive criticism and friendly advice.

</comment><comment><USER52> Pressure is given by yourself. As long as your are happy with what you learnt, then it's all fine.

I am in a similar boat, but I have a lot less pressure because I saved enough and even if it fails, I have gained so much that my salary will increase for sure. Although the thought of having to work for other people simply keeps me going no matter what.

Learning is super hard. Appreciate what you have accomplished.

</comment><comment><USER53> Ain't that some great motivation material or what? You've got kerosene fuel to get to success. Is the depression clinical or self perceived?

</comment><comment><USER54> 1\. The easiest thing is to give commentary from the sidelines. Ignore them.

2\. Making the product, simple or complex is the _easy_ part. The hard part is making a business out of it.

I'm in a similar situation to yours (creating a company, bootstrapped, solo founder). It's a hard ride and people who can truly support you mentally is important.

</comment><comment><USER55> You have to believe in your projects. The market and users will dictate whether or not your ideas and execution work.

</comment><comment><USER56> This - the Topsy Tail.

[http://www.accessorybrainstorms.com/articles/topsytail.php](http://www.accessorybrainstorms.com/articles/topsytail.php)

TLDR; She sold $100 million worth of product. My understanding is the prototype was built using a coat hanger with tape on it.

</comment><comment><USER57> I deal with it by taking lots of expensive holidays that they can't afford. They soon shut up. ;)

</comment><comment><USER58> Email me. Ill listen. Fellow entrepreneur here. No strings or BS. firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER59> What would your friends and family think if you showed them something that looks like craigslist?

Just because something isn't owned by Fbook or Google or doesn't look polished doesn't mean it isn't or couldn't make money. Or if you're not working for Fbook or Google or working on working there that you're doing it WRONG.

My friends usually gloss over me talking about developing SaaS apps till I mention ones making $30k/mo or $60k/mo . . . that gets their attention. I love when they follow up with "wait, wait that's per month?"

Making a product/SaaS that is successful isn't easy, but it's something most developers can accomplish, it's not s sure thing, but definitely worth the effort if it's something that interests you. It's worth a shot/putting in the effort.

So if you're interested in products/SaaS keep at it. Granted most of us have day jobs or are contractors along the way to pay the bills till we hit "SaaScess" but don't give up on it because of what unsupportive family and friends think.

You do need to find a better support network, maybe fellow entrepreneurs/web developers, connect with other like minded individuals online. (feel free to connect with me via email HNusername at gmail, I'm always up for bouncing ideas around, being supportive, reviewing apps/products offering constructive criticism).

Don't share what you're doing with people who aren't supportive. Just give them a simple answer like I'm consulting, etc.

Making any web application is hard so making any functional application is an accomplishment. Sure you could sub it out to a group of coder monkeys and they could build it in two weeks. But there is more to creating a good web application that people will pay you money for that just the code.

I think being able to create a web application is amazing and enjoy it. I would compare being a developer working on your own SaaS to being in a band. You're creating something, gaining an audience and the sky is the limit. With hard work and a little luck you can reach $83,333k/mo+. That's amazing and if you fall short of that, $10k/mo isn't bad either.

Your family just might be concerned you'll have financial problems, your friends might be jealous or just not understand what you're doing. Hopefully trying to give you good advice, but either way don't let them dissuade you from pursuing your dream.

That said SaaS is a long ramp to decent revenue so you need a day job/consulting/freelancing/supported by parents income till then so plan accordingly.

You'll probably like this: DHH Startup School Talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CDXJ6bMkMY)

Check out startupsfortherestofus.com

[http://www.microconf.com/past-videos/](http://www.microconf.com/past-videos/)

Good luck in 2017.

</comment><comment><USER60> Read "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future", and realize that even the best people overcame enormous struggles to bring products to market.

</comment><comment><USER61> prayer and porn of course. just kidding.

fear of corp cubicle hell is a miraculous motivator.

also operating from a low pressure 2nd world country helps

</comment><comment><USER62> I've felt similar, feel free to email me if you'd like to talk about what we're working on.

</comment><comment><USER63> Tell them to suck it.

</comment><comment><USER64> edit: haters gonna hate

</comment><comment><USER65> Go get a job you're not an entrepreneur. People will constantly tell you - what you do sucks. It's rule number one in the wannabe-entrepreneur world. If you can't handle that part I'd suggest to go get a job. Otherwise, move one to step #2 - focus.

<comment><USER66> I'm sure your remark was well-intentioned, like an overly-hard slap on the back, but subtleties like that are lost on the public internet and just look like personal attacks. So please don't comment like that here, or at least add enough information to disambiguate. Intent doesn't communicate itself, so the burden is on the commenter to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Leave.

</comment><comment><USER68> Those people are miserable and will never change.

The more success you find the more they will resent you for it. Plato's allegory of the cave[1] is spot on.

My method of dealing with such people has been to abstract their voices from my life.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave)</comment>


A Neuroscientist Who Discovered He Was a Psychopath (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/#L2sv2b8So0W2z40L.01 <comment><USER2> I think it's easy to draw a flawed conclusion from research like this. While it can be shown that a majority of psychopathic serial killers have the prefrontal cortex brain anomaly, it's also the case that almost all such criminals are male. Yet we have an abundance of plainly apparent counterexamples to dismiss the idea that being male implies criminality. Interestingly, there are similarities here, as one of the largest brain differences between genders is in the development of the amygdala. The brain anomaly here concerns the connectivity between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala.

> So the first thing I thought was that maybe my hypothesis was wrong, and > that these brain areas are not reflective of psychopathy or murderous > behavior.

> Eventually, based on further neurological and behavioral research into > psychopathy, he decided he was indeed a psychopath—just a relatively good > kind ...

It sounds to me as though he simply combined his finding with more research possessing the same systematic error, in order to support his conclusion, in spite of a counterexample. He then bends an established definition to suit his theory.

When sampling the extremes of a population (e.g. the most prolific murderers), combinations of compounding additive factors will naturally be common. To draw a causal link about any of them would be flawed, without a thorough and unbiased analysis of the rest of the population.

<comment><USER3> > While it can be shown that a majority of psychopathic serial killers have > the prefrontal cortex brain anomaly, it's also the case that almost all such > criminals are male. Yet we have an abundance of plainly apparent > counterexamples to dismiss the idea that being male implies criminality

That's a bloody weird argument, and AFAICS wrong: (psychopath -> male) /-> (male -> psychopath), where -> is logical implication and /-> is is 'does not imply'. You are confusing implication with equality.

> with more research possessing the same systematic error ... in spite of a > counterexample

What systematic error? What counterexample?

> without a thorough and unbiased analysis of the rest of the population

Sampling not good enough?

Serious question, do you have any background in either classical logic or statistics? And what is your area of research?

<comment><USER4> It seems there's a misunderstanding. According to me you are actually pointing to the same logical fallacy. The systematic error is indeed to think that correlation does imply causality. There's no more reason to think prefontal cortex anomaly causes psychopathy than being male does.

<comment><USER2> Indeed. Thanks for putting this more succinctly than I did.

I'd add that it's easier to observe the logical fallacy in the case of being male, because half of people are male, and being male is obvious. The occurrence of the PFC abnormality is much smaller, and we don't tend to see people's brains, so it's much harder to point to the counterexamples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder how many of those who run for public office would willingly present results of such a scan... I would bet money that that particular demographic would show an interesting trend.

<comment><USER2> I don't doubt that there may be a trend, but to me it sounds very unfair to allow people's immutable biological characteristics to enter into an adversarial debate about how they might act.

Also, the mechanics of how macro-scale neurology affects a person's psychology and sociology is still poorly understood, which makes the data especially easy to abuse. More than anything, I think the researcher's findings highlight this point; he was a counterexample to the theory that a diminished prefrontal cortex implies anti-social behaviour, showing the phenomenon to be more nuanced.

<comment><USER6> How is that unfair?

<comment><USER2> Because it is prejudicial, which is unfair because it fails to take into account the person's individuality. Such traits do not simply equate to behaviour, the relationship is complex, incomplete and the mechanics not understood. A person's membership of a class which they neither chose to be in, nor can choose to remove themselves from (in this case a genetic brain anomaly), can not infer a fact about their mind or behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> After reading that book a couple of years ago I've wondered if psychopaths are a lot more common than previously thought. Am I one myself? I mean, how can you know for sure? We have no way of comparing our inner workings with other people. Even brain scans are not 100% conclusive, see the link below.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-psychopath-brain- look...](https://www.businessinsider.com/what-a-psychopath-brain-looks- like-2015-7)

<comment><USER8> I believe that psychopathy encompasses many traits, which may be expressed individually to varying extremes

You may get someone who is particularly aggressive and mean-spirited but who is generally honest, the opposite, and so on

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Oh, my brain scan shows I am a psychopath. How very useful!"

While I do believe neuroscientists mostly know less than often implied, the research is very interesting.

He describes himself to be competitive, wrangling with his own ego. But wouldn't it be true then to say that he is no psychopath and a brain scan is insufficient for diagnosis?

And what is defined as healthy? Certainly not the absence of competitiveness or ego.

<comment><USER10> Did you read the article?

> But when he underwent a series of genetic tests, he got more bad news. "I > had all these high-risk alleles for aggression, violence and low empathy," > he says, such as a variant of the MAO-A gene that has been linked with > aggressive behavior. Eventually, based on further neurological and > behavioral research into psychopathy, he decided he was indeed a > psychopath—just a relatively good kind, what he and others call a "pro- > social psychopath," someone who has difficulty feeling true empathy for > others but still keeps his behavior roughly within socially-acceptable > bounds.

> It wasn't entirely a shock to Fallon, as he'd always been aware that he was > someone especially motivated by power and manipulating others, he says. > Additionally, his family line included seven alleged murderers, including > Lizzie Borden, infamously accused of killing her father and stepmother in > 1892."

...

> "I'm obnoxiously competitive. I won't let my grandchildren win games. I'm > kind of an asshole, and I do jerky things that piss people off," he says. > "But while I'm aggressive, but my aggression is sublimated. I'd rather beat > someone in an argument than beat them up."

<comment><USER9> I read the article, that is why I referenced being competitive for example. But the "quote" wasn't meant to be attributed to him, I just thought it funny. Just wanting to throw in the idea, that maybe he isn't a psychopath, not even in the pathological sense.

<comment><USER10> My apologies then.

One of the defining characteristics of a psychopath is the lack of empathy. That is not to say you cannot learn when to feel empathic, and he touches on that too. Maybe we just need to change our definition, or invent a new one. One can be a pathological psychopath, but not be "a psychopath", because they was loved and cared for properly. Essentially they learned that social connections was overwhelmingly beneficial for them.

<comment><USER11> Psychopaths can fake empathic behaviours. In fact they're so good at this they can appear unusually friendly and caring.

They do this by modelling social interactions and replaying them. It's more of a scripted response: "In _this_ situation, act as if you feel like _this._ "

I don't think they can learn to have genuine empathic feelings, because the part of the brain that would normally have them doesn't work very well.

It's not something good parenting can fix. It can maybe mitigate it to an extent, but it's not unusual for average-to-good parents to be completely baffled by a son/daughter with serious personality issues that are primarily genetic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> On a side note: Should he have been able to see whose results he was looking at? It's surely unethical in my book. Even when, or perhaps even more when, working with data from relatives the burden of ethical behavior lies with the researcher. De-anonymising shouldn't be the researchers option without safeguards imho.

<comment><USER13> Yes, researcher needs to be trained on ethics specifically. It is a part of psychological education, it is a part of APA's mission[1]. Psychology takes it seriously after Little Albert Experiment[2], Ash Conformity Experiment[3], Zimbardo's Standford Prison Experiment[4], Milgram Experiment[5] and a lot of others. Now it couldn't be done, a researcher needs to approve his experimental plan with APA Ethics Committee.

It means, that any competent researcher in a psychology would know ethical risks (due to education), and if he is testing his research plan on his family, he must be ready to find something unexpected, and he must inform participants on the risks.

[1] [https://www.apa.org/ethics/](https://www.apa.org/ethics/)

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

[3] [https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch- conformity.html](https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html)

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

[5] [https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html](https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Seems like a catch 22 situation. Should we believe a publication of a psychopath or should we assume it's a manipulation. Matrix within Matrix.

</comment><comment><USER15> prior discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6787092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6787092)

</comment><comment><USER16> I think that jims aggressive arguments behaviour comes not from its genetics or frontal lobe abnormality. Its come from his past childhood. Being loved so much in childhood make people become a competitive person and egocentric. They get used to be a center of attention and think that arguments, will and other persons needs is irrelevant. They are not violent in physical things but violent in how they treat people. There were studies that said that people with higher IQ have more self control ability under alcohol influence. I think its the same in this case. Jims ability to control itself come from good education that furthermore increase his self control.

<comment><USER17> "Being loved so much in childhood make people become a competitive person and egocentric"

No it doesn't, that's a ridiculous generalisation, children are specifically taught to restrain their competitiveness by their role models reactions to it, it's not the amount of love they get, it's the priorities of parents, there are many noncompetitive people who received a lot of love as children.</comment></comment>


Is China Beating America to AI Supremacy? - <AUTHOR> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-beating-america-ai-supremacy-106861 <comment><USER2> The entire idea of an "AI arms race" that we are losing to China is fear- mongering by those with a vested interest in defense spending, ie military industrial complex.

This is a human rights issue more than an arms race. The fact that SF is banning facial recognition tech while the Chinese state is going all in (as another commenter notes) is a win.

<comment><USER3> I think furthermore, not only is it fearmongering, it's actually wrong.

What the article calls AI is just machine learning. And America leads the way on this when it comes to cutting edge. Look at self driving cars.

It seems the article hinges on implicitly defining AI as adopting mass surveillance/freedom restricting tech.

In reality if America cares about winning the 'tech development war' (I think a better goal than the nebulous 'ai war') with China, it should be worried about improving it's education system. And working on reducing corruption (both in government spending and in private industry such as banking and health care) - In the end, it was education, freedom and efficiency that allowed the west to beat out totalitarian governments. Not the adoption of totalitarian systems of oppression.

Imagine the US trying to adopt the USSR's system to 'obtaining and classifying information' on dissidents since it was part of 'information technology'. I find the article to have a borderline fascist/anti-western-ideals of freedom undertone. Some people think in a way that seems to be completely lacking in the ability to learn from history.

<comment><USER4> _" In the end, it was education, freedom and efficiency that allowed the west to beat out totalitarian governments."_

What about the massive catastrophe that killed off tens of millions in the Soviet Union and devastated the country, while the US was left completely unscathed by comparison?

In many ways education in the Soviet Union was far ahead of the United States, particularly in mathematics.

Women were also far more equal to men in the Soviet Union, so in a way this is an example where there was more freedom in the Soviet Union than in the United States, since the roles for women in the US were far more restrictive and curtailed their potential to a far greater degree. The US was also one of the last countries in the world to outlaw slavery, and the lack of freedom that black people were suffered under segregation in the US had no equal in the Soviet Union at the time (though the USSR also had their own racism and discrimination against Jewish people).

The USSR suffered not just from a lack of freedom, but crucially from the concentration of power in to the hands of a highly paranoid and ruthless elite and secret police who killed tens of millions of their own citizens, along with a callousness towards the deaths of millions more in the redistribution of resources and the overhaul of society in a race towards modernization.

The USSR also had to face the efforts of a far wealthier and equally paranoid adversary that was determined to see it fail.

If there had been cooperation and mutual aid instead, if the USSR had suffered no worse than the US during WW2, and if it hadn't been saddled with bloodthirsty paranoid tyrants for leaders, the outcome might have been quite different.

<comment><USER3> If ... if ... if ... might

3 ifs and one might. Let's see: If my grandmother was male and if she was catholic, she might be the pope. I only had to use two ifs to get to that one.

I'm really not sure what your point is.

Are you seriously arguing that overall there was more freedom in the USSR than in America? I just want to be totally sure I get where you are coming from. Because my post was the general freedom as in the literal definition of it: "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint"

<comment><USER4> No. I'm saying it's not black and white, and the post I was replying to was overly simplistic and misleading.

It's interesting that your response was laser focused on freedom and utterly and completely ignored every other point I brought up.

<comment><USER3> I said the greater freedom in America helped it win the cold war. Of course it is more nuanced than that. But that can literally be applied to everything and anything ever said - if someone said being outside jail is good or not being addicted to heroin is good... well its more nuanced... maybe someone would benefit from being in jail or from being a heroin addict... sure, but at some point you aren't really increasing understanding. You are just pedantically noting things that are obvious in a way that detracts from meaningful conversation.

It seemed to me you were arguing against my freedom point by trying to say America wasn't much more free than USSR. Since such a position seems so utterly disconnected from reality and history, I asked you to clarify your position, maybe I misunderstood.

I also asked what your point was, since I honestly can't see what you are trying to get at in the context of the conversation: should the US have more anti-freedom ML technology applied to mass surveillance and social control? Do you think that will help? Read the FA and opine, I'd be happy to hear a smart analysis. You seem to be able to do that, you seem quite smart. But picking at the edges of arguments without actually participating is kinda... detracting from the goal of conversation and moving towards ego boosting.

Also, even if you are smart, if I understood correctly that you honestly believe the USSR to be more free than the US in any significant manner based on the definition of freedom, then I'm not going to participate in this line of thought.

I've had a conversation once with someone I had just met. He mentioned 'dinosaur bones were placed there by the devil to trick us'. I asked if he meant it. With a straight face he said yes. You could say I laser focused on that, because after it, I never went beyond 'hows the weather' with him. He has every right to see it that way, I and many others have every right to think of him as slightly less 'there' and therefore avoid getting tangled with what we see as incoherent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm unsure of if the American government is just extremely discreet in their development of cyber warfare technology or America just isn't investing in technology as much as other countries. But it seems like even Russia is beating us...

Just look at our voting count machines. You think something like that would be treated with extreme priority and would have a lot more security around it than it does.

<comment><USER6> > Just look at our voting count machines. You think something like that would > be treated with extreme priority and would have a lot more security around > it than it does.

If the priority was to build a good system. However, powerful government factions think that all government development must be farmed wholesale to private business, because of a twisted ideological belief in the market. Those private businesses are ruled by the ideology that shareholder value is the ultimate and only good, so they slap their products together as cheaply as possible.

The result of that toxic stew is that we can't have nice things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The AI boom is overstated.

There is not a single piece of technology, not a single 'problem solved' that necessarily requires Deep Learning this very day.

Some Voice and Translation apps are improved by it, but not by that much.

Yes, this will change over time, particularly as things like 'computer vision' are effectively more dependant on it - and -that tech will enable things like driverless cars ... but it's still overstated.

There is an ever growing army of AI researchers putting out stuff, and they will all improve our lives marginally, but I'm doubtful that AI in and of itself will be the thing that really creates change.

I suggest that the 'future robot that cleans your toilet and makes a ham sandwich' will be 10% AI and 90% advances in every other kind of technology. I'll bet that only isolated systems of such robots are primarily AI driven (i.e. vision, motor control for fluid movement etc.) and the rest is just plain old software.

</comment><comment><USER8> I do t know about the all-in-all situation, but as an anecdote I had to return a mid-range iRobot Roomba because it didn't work near as well as expected. The Xiaomi I bought for half the price worked excellently though.

The reason? I'm sure the mechanics are mostly the same, but the AI on the Xiaomi seems way better so it actually figures out a good route throughout the house in a way the Roomba never did, and after 30 minutes it is done, as opposed to still trying to find the way out of the kitchen like the Roomba was.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes.

I don't see the US winning this one given China's brute force, no rules approach. See their social credit thing.

SV as great as it is will have a hard time competing against that wild west approach given that it is still constrained by rules.

<comment><USER10> > China's brute force, no rules approach

Is there any evidence in all of human history that demonstrates that a "brute force, no rules, unlimited resource" approach ever does anything but eventually collapse upon itself?

<comment><USER9> >Is there any evidence in all of human history

I don't think there is a precedent for what's happening over there. It's too complete & all-ecompassing.

Deducing anything from history is dangerous when you're dealing with a entirely different & new beast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Do we want to win the race to big brother?

<comment><USER12> AI is a tool. It's algorithms. Those algorithms are going to be developed and improved, regardless.

Your concern is with how those algorithms are used/applied in our world. Just like CRISPR. It's a valid concern.

<comment><USER11> A guillotine is a tool. You can use it for chopping watermelon or heads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It depends on where in the AI lifecycle we are ... I believe we are still barely scratching the surface and mostly using it to solve old problems. This 'race' could just help improve the field enough that we can get to some real fun stuff!

</comment><comment><USER14> "AI supremacy" like it's a podium.

</comment><comment><USER15> _the Party has given China's top four facial recognition firms access to its database of over 1.4 billion citizen photos. One well-informed venture capitalist in this arena estimates that Chinese facial recognition firms have one million times more images than their U.S. counterparts._

That doesn't sound right. 1.4b photos is nothing compared to facebook and google.

Facebook + Instagram has 2.3b + 1b active users and each one uploads tons of photos. Facebook uses these for facial recognition.

Google owns Android (2.5b active users).. and if you've enabled face auth, Android is sending your photo to google to be analyzed. They could also use Google Photos and Youtube videos (although I don't know that they do).

Amazon owns Rekognition.. and if you're using it, they're taking the photos you process with it and using it for training. They're used by law enforcement and a variety of companies, and I'd be willing to bet they have more than 1.4b photos.

These are probably better data sets for training too.. since they show people in the real world vs China's ID photo database of people posing for a photo.

<comment><USER16> facial recognition is a particularly weird example too. the data is skewed from the onset when your image sources are pretty much all han chinese. This has already been a problem in the west with most photos being of white people, but china would have this issue to a far greater degree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > So while San Francisco recently banned facial recognition technologies, the > Party has given China's top four facial recognition firms access to its > database of over 1.4 billion citizen photos. One well-informed venture > capitalist in this arena estimates that Chinese facial recognition firms > have one million times more images than their U.S. counterparts.

<comment><USER18> If Chinese companies have access to billions of images and that's a million times more than their Western counterparts, Western companies are limited to small datasets in the thousands. That doesn't make sense. Microsoft used to hand out the millions of images in their Celeb dataset for free, and Facebook can use every image their users ever posted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> No.

</comment><comment><USER20> [https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v41/n19/john- lanchester/docu...](https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v41/n19/john- lanchester/document-number-nine)

"Document Number Nine" by John Lanchester

> There's no off-the-shelf description for China's political and economic > system.

> This system-with-no-name has been extraordinarily successful, with more than > 800 million people raised out of absolute poverty since the 1980s.

> There is a strong claim that this scale of growth, sustained for such an > unprecedented number of people over such a number of years, is the greatest > economic achievement in human history.

> Since Deng Xiaoping instituted the policy of 'reform and opening' in the > early 1980s, there has been a general view in the West that the gradual > encroachment of capitalism in China would lead to a turn towards democratic > government. This reflected a deeply held, largely unexamined belief that > capitalism and democracy are interlinked.

> The Chinese government favours the doctrine of 'cyber-sovereignty', in which > countries have control over their own versions of the internet. Kai > Strittmatter was for many years the Beijing correspondent for the > Süddeutsche Zeitung, and his excellent "We Have Been Harmonised" is an eye- > opening account of this issue. ('Harmonised' is a euphemism for 'censored'.)

> > The days when the party eyed the internet with fear and anxiety are long > gone. The regime has not only lost its fear; it has learned to love new > technologies. The CCP believes it can use big data and artificial > intelligence to create steering mechanisms that will catapult its economy > into the future and make its apparatus crisis-proof. At the same time, it > intends to create the most perfect surveillance state the world has ever > seen.

> In 2013, an amazing paper from the highest reaches of the CCP, catchily > known as 'Document Number Nine', or 'Communiqué on the Current State of the > Ideological Sphere', came to light. (The journalist who leaked it, Gao Yu, > was sentenced to seven years in prison and is currently under house arrest.) > Document Number Nine warned of 'the following false ideological trends, > positions and activities': 'promoting Western constitutional democracy'; > 'promoting "universal values"'; 'promoting civil society'; 'promoting > neoliberalism'; 'promoting the West's idea of journalism, challenging > China's principle that the media and publishing system should be subject to > party discipline'; 'promoting historical nihilism' (which means > contradicting the party's view of history); 'questioning Reform and Opening > and the socialist nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics'. The > paper, which is cogent and clear, takes direct aim at the core values of > Western democracy, and explicitly identifies them as the enemies of the > party.1 It sees the internet as a crucial forum for defeating these enemies. > The conclusion speaks of the need to 'conscientiously strengthen management > of the ideological battlefield', and especially to 'strengthen guidance of > public opinion on the internet' and 'purify the environment of public > opinion on the internet'.

> Document Number Nine is thought to have been either directly written by, or > under the auspices of, President Xi Jinping. It marked a new turn in the > history of China, and quite possibly the history of the world: the moment at > which a powerful nation-state looked at the entire internet's direction of > travel – towards openness, interconnection, globalisation, the free flow of > information – and decided to reverse it.</comment>


Do Not Treat Quality as a Separate Activity - <AUTHOR> http://techiferous.com/2016/01/do-not-treat-quality-as-a-separate-activity/ <comment><USER2> This is straight up LEAN type thinking. A core tenet of LEAN is the understanding that quality is an intrinsic part of whatever process is in play. A secondary one is short feedback loops coupled with localized authority / capability to identify and resolve problems quickly. (and I've taken liberties with this to frame it in somewhat relevant terms for software)

...those get reported upstream and ideally are used at the front end to improve though efforts like design for manufacturing. Translated to software might result in "spec for coding", meaning easily identified tests happen up front, library / common code use cases factored into the spec to limit new feature create to those features actually adding value, not redundancy, etc... Less new code, more code generated code, and reuse of code.

Additionally and regardless of the up front changes, I see this as writing tests concurrently with writing the end use code. Spec, test, code, in LEAN terms, are tightly coupled and managed together. At first, doing this is an investment. People require training, process issues, communication issues, flow issues all will combine to lower the overall productivity. But, it tends to resolve and then resonate. Once that point of resonance hits, everyone gets it, quality will go way up as will productivity.

It will remain possible to go faster in the short term, and that risk / reward will always be tempting too. What is worth what?

That, to me, is the most interesting question.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, exactly! Thank you for expounding. Yes, this post was indirectly inspired by LEAN, as I picked up this idea from a conversation I had with someone who used to manage manufacturing.

<comment><USER2> It's a great parallel. I've thought so for quite some time.

The really hard part is bootstrapping LEAN. For people not used to the way of thinking, it's hard, gets in the way, isn't as fast, etc... Push back inertia is often high and often requires a sustained investment to eliminate.

Back in the day, when I was doing a lot of manufacturing, the pressure was always get more done right now today. A good friend and mentor picked up on LEAN and I applied it in my daily work. Caught a lot of heat for it, and the dynamic was this:

Do you want them fast, or high quality today? Pick one, or leave me and the others doing LEAN alone, and you will get both over a reasonable, and dare I say, "lean" amount of time. That's how it can start. Ideally, management buys in, and drives it from the top, but it can start and spread with a group using LEAN to significantly reduce costs and improve performance without losing out on quality. Once it gets going, it gets noticed fairly quick. Excellence in those metrics is hard to miss.

Make the investment, take the hit in productivity, and come out the other side a much more competitive, efficient and high quality organization.

Tough sell, but very worth it. LEAN works, but everyone involved has to really do the work, really does have to buy in and really does need short cut discipline for meaningful gains to be had. Process is tough when a release deadline looms. Frankly, it might not be appropriate for all software cases.</comment></comment></comment>


The Harsh Realities of Energy  - <AUTHOR> http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_harsh_realities_of_energy/ <comment><USER2> A transition to nuclear is not fraught with hard technical problems and apprehensions... it is only fraught with apprehensions.

The problem of overcoming those apprehensions is much easier to solve than demanding that the unscalable solutions like wind or solar suddenly start scaling.

Part of what frustrates me about the whole energy discussion is that, frankly, we _know_ the solutions, it's just that they aren't acceptable for non- engineering reasons, mostly irrational fears.

(I'm not saying all fission fears are irrational by definition, but most are irrational. On the internet, this often takes the form of people giving themselves cover by convincing themselves they are citing technical issues, but when it is pointed out that those issues already have solutions, their minds don't change. And most frustrating at all, the reason those solutions aren't acceptable is simply because Nuclear is Bad. Don't tell me about how to process waste or how to better store it, I already _know_ Nuclear is Bad and I don't need to think any more about it...)

(And so help me... if any fusion ever becomes practical and people start complaining about it being nuclear, I think I will have to punch them.)

<comment><USER3> The problems with nuclear are not so much technical as economic. Moody's Investor Services, hardly an outfit run by hippie freaks, estimates that a new nuclear plant will cost over $5,000 per kilowatt to build--twice as much as solar and four times as much as natural gas. The government is offering massive subsidies to build nuclear plants and power companies _still_ don't want to take the plunge.

Source: [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.ht...](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.blake.html)

<comment><USER2> Even if it is more expensive, I am inclined to think the nuclear power plant is far more friendly to the planet than solar, and if you care about carbon footprints or very-long-term sustainability, it's better than natural gas, too. (I am not too big on the former, but the latter is important. Going big on fission buys us a lot of time to develop fusion, which in the end is the only truly sustainable energy source. When you run out of fusion, you've run out of the Universe.)

However, I've seen tons of analyses of the costs of nuclear, and I'm inclined to think that when push comes to shove, nobody _really_ knows how much they could cost if society wanted them enough to construct them in quantity. How much of the cost of a plant in the US is defending against absolutely inevitable litigation, in a process designed to be used by environmentalists against anything they don't like? How much of the cost is because we refuse to consider any actually modern design, in much the same way we get stuck on refusing to consider how to deal with waste because the problem is perceived to be so big that people's minds just irrationally shut down? How much of the expense is due to compliance with an outdated regulatory regime that hasn't been updated for the properties of pebble bed or other modern designs? Why are China and France able to put them up?

I don't think there's any actual engineering reason that nuclear plants should be more expensive (per watt) than natural gas or coal, even before fuel price spikes. (Which will come again... and again... and again...) A given design, certainly, but across the whole set of safe, modern nuclear designs? I doubt it. Our thinking on this topic is so deeply 1960s (OMG RADIATION!!1!) that we are all but incapable of considering the topic rationally in 2010.

<comment><USER3> _How much of the cost of a plant in the US is defending against absolutely inevitable litigation, in a process designed to be used by environmentalists against anything they don't like?_

The Price Anderson Act (and similar later laws) limit the maximum liability of nuclear plant operators. If nuclear power really is as safe as any other kind, then Congress should repeal those limits.

<comment><USER2> I am talking about endless legal challenges filed _before_ the plant even begins construction. I can't go over all possible nuclear laws, but if there are any laws protecting against that sort of liability they sure aren't working very well. (From what I can see, Price Anderson only affects "nuclear incidents" after a plant is running; if you can show me that's not true, I'm listening.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The solution to the problems of wealth is not poverty. Cutting back is only ever a short-term solution for resource problems; switching to a more abundant source (or a different resource altogether) is also typically short-term, but has the advantage that wealth can continue to grow at the astounding rates it did over the past 200 years, which means our much wealthier selves or descendants of tomorrow will be better able to solve problems.

Basically, if you can put off hard problems that are essentially technical in nature, do so.

</comment><comment><USER5> So we cut back, and every other developing country will readily take up the slack. Basically, this is yet another article telling us to all live in teepees. I'm still a firm believer that the solution lies in technology -- in developing more efficient tech, and better ways of generating power to run it.

<comment><USER6> Check out James Howard Kunstler's book "The Long Emergency". He does a good job of pointing out the serious inadequacies of alternative tech, futility of efficiency (given where we are on the Hubbert curve), and points out that's it's going to be even harder to develop new energy technologies as our current ones fail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thanks for the link. It's another data point in a line of thinking I'm currently researching. Unlike donw, I don't believe teepees are the answer though ;)</comment>


Idea reach and the cofounder myth - <AUTHOR> http://swombat.com/2012/1/19/idea-reach-cofounder-myth <comment><USER2> Great article. Aside from the fact that being approached by someone "looking for a co-founder" is a turn-off (on par with being approached by someone looking for a spouse), it's also not a good sign of a successful entrepreneur. The successful entrepreneur archetype will be executing at all stages. If they believe that the lynchpin is an external person that will make it magically come together then they probably don't have the chops to make it through all the challenges that startups inevitably face. This is distinctly different from hiring an engineer, or meeting someone who shares passion and applicable skills for your idea.

As far as swinging for the fences goes, I believe that is a middle stage decision. When you have some traction, you are potentially faced with difficult choices about whether to "sell out" or not. If you are just starting out and you decide you are "going to be the next Google" that is just pie-in- the-sky dreaming, not swinging for the fences. If you want to be an Apple, Google or Amazon you will need to build it up over the course of decades through a series of successful pivots to scale up. Facebook is the most recent example, where the entire momentum of the site was imparted from the exclusivity of a truly tiny market (Harvard students), and then pivoting pivoting to progressively wider markets. For any of these companies the risks are incredible at each pivot, so swinging for the fences is more akin to building 5 startups in a row successfully. The only way you're going to get there is by building one regular small startup first and then repeatedly taking it to the next level from there. I don't think it's any different for YC startups other than that they start out with better connections, but that does not a business model make.

<comment><USER3> I agree - I think that part about "swinging for the fences" waters down the article's message. "well of _course_ my idea for Facebook for cats is a great idea - I've got to swing for the fences!!"... Which could be the take-a-way for some people from this very down to earth article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting article - I agree with a lot of what you say.

>> YCombinator has made it a successful business model to take founders and virtually catapult them far away from their idea reach, and succeed anyway through a combination of exceptional founder selection and world-class mentoring

Actually, I think what Y Combinator is very good at is recruiting decent hackers. They're then encouraged to build prototypes very quickly within what you call their "idea reach" and talk to users to iterate & improve. In fact, almost all the YC companies that spring to mind are very much within the "idea reach" of the founders. Both the "success stories" (Airbnb, Dropbox, Heroku) and the more recent ones - (Codecademy, Parse, Mongo HQ, Verbling etc etc) all fit this mold.

Non-technical founders are very occasionally accepted, but almost always required to find a technical co-founder to extend their idea reach to including something software-focussed.

</comment><comment><USER5> > YCombinator has made it a successful business model to take founders and > virtually catapult them far away from their idea reach, and succeed anyway > through a combination of exceptional founder selection and world-class > mentoring.

There's a bit of a logical flaw there: either it's "catapulting them away from their reach", or, through "founder selection", picking people who have a far reach in the first place.

<comment><USER6> I don't think there's a logical flaw. I think (perhaps wrongly, as pointed out in another comment) that YC pushes people to do something way beyond their reach, but then makes up for the skills gap by providing them with incredible mentoring and connections.

So basically it extends their idea reach...

<comment><USER5> Saying that YC pushes people to do something 'beyond their reach' is fair, but saying that it extends their reach by selecting the right people is... not consistent.

Anyway, it's a good article, that's just a nitpick that jumped out at me.

<comment><USER7> Maybe "the right people" are those people who can take advantage of YC's capacity to extend their reach.

<comment><USER5> Probably, but that's not quite the same thing:

"YC is able to extend founders' reach by... selecting founders" says nothing about YC actually doing something to extend founders reach, merely that they're good at selecting long-reach founders.

I do believe that they extend the reach of founders that they have selected, in any event.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >>This is a brilliant idea, and after you explore it (using, for example, the lean methods which only evolved 10 years later, because you're a visionary), you decide that this is worth pursuing, it has a lot of market potential.

I do hope that was tongue in cheek... Those "lean methods" have been around forever; What's happened in the last 10 years is that they've been packaged and sold.

<comment><USER9> I think what you're saying is true from a certain perspective, but I also think that a lot of great progress comes from cross pollination of ideas. If field A solves a problem using method X, but field B has never applied method X then someone who makes that connection and applies X to B can start a mini- revolution in field B. New is pretty relative in that sense, especially if you reflect on Solomonic wisdom: "There is nothing new under the sun."

<comment><USER8> Maybe it's more helpful for product development teams in mid-size or larger firms... In the realm of bootstrappers & hustlers, most of the advice is SOP, just re-branded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There really is no difference between successful entrepreneurs and unsuccessful ones except for the decision to do it. I find that most successful people have the trait is that they take action regardless of the fact that they have a co-founder or not. They naively move forward and as obstacles come in their way, find ways to solve them.

Most of the time what makes or breaks a startup is the tenacity to stick with it and plow through obstacles. Of course, one has to be practical in some cases (e.g., the iPhone example mentioned in the article). But I think in most cases, there is always a solution. As Brian Chesky says, "If you can imagine it, you can create it".

<comment><USER11> _As Brian Chesky says, "If you can imagine it, you can create it"._

What a silly thing to say. A quick glance at pretty much any sci-fi novel proves that. Go on, go build me a light-sabre, capable of cutting through metre-thick bulkheads. Once you've finished with that, I'd like a time machine so I can go back in time and look at dinosaurs, and also a perpetual motion machine. I leave the order of the last two up to you.

<comment><USER12> I don't think that quote is meant to be taken literally. It's more a commentary on how you can accomplish most things you can put your mind to; the only limits you place are those you impose on yourself.

And I don't know, but it might be possible to create a light-sabre. Who knows. I am sure that we live with technology today that seemed just as impossible 100 years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Great article, I think that one of the biggest barriers to people becoming entrepreneurs is the failure to grasp the fact that there is a vast spectrum in the skills (technical or otherwise) needed to get a business off the ground.

However, while I agree with your point that "I'm looking for the right cofounder" is really only an excuse covering up either a reluctance to jump in or an idea out of reach, there comes a point in any business (Maybe once you come up against an unforeseen technical problem, difficulty securing partnerships, ), when it becomes necessary to bring great people on board in at a co-founder level who complement your skills and make up for your shortcomings. The key here is having access to the right people, so that you don't have to "look" for the right people.

I think that in this case what determines your ability to recruit the best people comes from your "Network reach" which varies from person to person, but is something that must be cultivated as diligently as technical knowledge or business knowledge, by maintaing the right relationships, associating yourself with the right communities and groups, connecting people with each other, and carefully training yourself to recognize and maximize opportunity when it arises.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is actually a fantastic article, I'm glad I stumbled upon it.

"If, however, you've got very limited savings, and failure will propel you back into a corporate environment and a job you hate, then it might be better to focus on achieving survival and comfort first. That's easier with an idea that's within your reach." pretty much describes my situation!

Daniel, do you have an article where you're recommending a path for a solo entrepreneur that might eventually lead him to attracting cofounders? Anything in the pipeline perhaps? I imagine it'd be along the lines of "work on what's within your reach, have both the idea and your own execution so far be attractive enough that someone will want to join forces with you".

Also, if your idea reach is for 1 person worth of work, why would you even need a cofounder?

</comment><comment><USER15> I liked this article. A lot of what I see encouraged by incubators and investors is "swing for the fences" type startups where they try to expand your sights to aim for as broad and as lucrative a market as possible. These are a horrible idea for most first time founders, especially those attempting to escape the shackles of a corporate job. Founders that set their sights lower and have a crystal clear plan of how to achieve profitability are much more likely to succeed.</comment>