Mast Brothers obscure the fact that they originally used remelted chocolate - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/571151/the-mast-brothers-fooled-the-world-into-buying-crappy-hipster-chocolate-for-10-a-bar/ <comment><USER2> The original four part expose', _What lies behind the beards_ from the world of choclate:

1\. [http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies- behind...](http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies-behind-the- beards-part-1-tastetexture/)

2\. [http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies- behind...](http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies-behind-the- beards-part-2-equipment/)

3\. [http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies- behind...](http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies-behind-the- beards-part-3-ingredients/)

4\. [http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies- behind...](http://dallasfood.org/2015/12/mast-brothers-what-lies-behind-the- beards-confessions/)

</comment><comment><USER3> My company[0] has been considering a verification service to check on origin and sourcing claims using flavor signatures in "craft" products.

Currently, all of our tools are used by beverage producers (beer, coffee, spirits) internally for quality and process optimization - it would be great to apply our models and create a subscription reporting and claim verification.

[0] www.Gastrograph.com

Edit: clarity and repetition.

Also, Any ideas? What would you like to see in a service like this?

<comment><USER4> Would definitely love to have a web site where I can go and look up a no- nonsense report on the quality and truthfulness of "artisanal" brands.

<comment><USER5> I'm curious how another entity could establish quality of something better than you could yourself?

<comment><USER6> Independent verification.

For example, this could have helped in [1][2][3] where toxic food products were very mislabeled.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal)

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

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Taiwan_food_scandal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Taiwan_food_scandal)

<comment><USER5> I guess I was interested in distinguishing between quality and safety.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is an extremely common practice in the new booming "artisanal" whiskey business. Many of them come from a factory distillery in Indiana (MGP) and the profits from selling the factory stuff are used to build up a more "authentic" distillery operation.

<comment><USER8> Yes. Pretty much every instinct you have for selecting the highest-quality products go out the window in whiskeyworld; almost across the board, the very best offerings are from well-known giant companies, and "artisanal" vendors struggle to asymptotically approach that quality.

It's basically the polar opposite of the craft beer market.

<comment><USER9> This totally reminds me of another 'scandal' maybe 10 years ago. Basically same thing. Snippets I remember from an industry insider was.

1\. Making consistent batches of high quality chocolate is really hard. And there are only a small number of companies that do that.

2\. There absolutely nothing wrong with a company buying chocolate from one of the above and gussying it up by adding ingredients and remolding it. This is called a Chocolatier.

3\. There is something wrong with claiming you are making chocolate from scratch. Because seriously you aren't

<comment><USER10> That would be the Noka scandal, reported by the same Dallas Food blog that's behind the Mast allegations. Dallas Food does some seriously impressive investigative blogging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The 5-part investigation on Noka (linked to from the article) is a really fun read. You'll learn a bit about how the chocolate industry works, in sort of the style of a police procedural. Scott is a rad dude for his investigation and writeup.

[http://dallasfood.org/2006/12/noka-chocolate- part-1/](http://dallasfood.org/2006/12/noka-chocolate-part-1/)

<comment><USER12> (Noka isn't the Mast Brothers, in case anyone is confused, but an earlier boutique chocolate seller who was employing the same basic scam.)

That is an impressively thorough and readable set of posts by Scott. I don't care that much about chocolate, but it's still a fascinating takedown.

<comment><USER13> That is an impressive piece of writing - the link in the grandparent post about Noka chocolates leads to an article spread over 10 pages of 500 or more words each, so fairly long form, and I learned a lot about chocolate and the way good quality bulk chocolate is sold to people who make chocolates.

I'm not into chocolate that much myself, but I might get some single origin bars for the choco-holics around me. I suspect they might find the lower sugar / milk content off-putting...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was turned on to small batch chocolate by Dandelion in SF. Their bars are $8 and the Madagascar and Tanzania really taste incredible. Will somebody neutral but in the know confirm Dandelion is the real deal?

Side note: Have we at a meta level concluded that self-identified "small batch" and "artisanal" products sold at farmers markets in hipsterish packaging are very highly correlated with "young people that don't really know what they are doing (are relatively inexperienced), but are good at marketing and charging a high price"?

<comment><USER15> I would go to bet that most "hipster" brands whether it's beer, coffee, or w/e are pretty much 99% marketing this is how business works.

You can see this in wine tasting allot of the big name wines expensive wines do not score well in blind wine tastings however in non blind tastings when people are sold on the story they score remarkably well.

When you spend 200$ on a bottle of wine, 15$ on a bar of chocolate and 20$ on 8 oz. of coffee beans you'll be damn sure to like them even if they are nothing but average at best.

There is a reason why every "artisan" product comes with a nifty far fetched story tied to it as that's what you are buying at the end.

<comment><USER16> Audiophile equipment also follows the same trend. The reluctance to double- blind testing is a common sign that it isn't actually better, just more expensive.

<comment><USER17> Yes. Witness the "audiophiles" who claim that wooden _knobs_ somehow cause the sound to be better. One outfit was selling these magical knobs for five hundred bucks or so.

<comment><USER18> I always thought those websites were jokes, right?

Right...?

<comment><USER19> Sadly, no. Before the web, they were (probably still are) being advertised in magazines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It doesn't bother me if they used remelted chocolate, because it's possible to produce fantastic chocolate bars using ingredients from some of the European suppliers. If the bars are labeled in a fairly ambiguous way, (for example simply saying "Madagascar") one shouldn't assume too much about the ingredients.

That being said, the PR coming out of Mast Brothers is unbelievably arrogant and off-putting. As a chocolate lover, I was excited to read their cookbook when I saw it at the bookstore, but I closed it after reading a few pages. The self-promotion and self-centered attitude was absolutely disgusting, considering that their product is only average among their peers. Producing the best chocolate requires deep respect for the bean as well as for the tastes of the consumer, and my impression is that the quality of their product will continue to be limited by their attitude.

In the big picture, Mast Brothers is still better than 99% of the chocolate out there, so I'll still buy it and enjoy from time to time.

<comment><USER21> Shouldn't you compare their chocolate against "their peers?" From what I've read of people more educated and passionate about chocolate their stuff isn't very good when compared against other "bean to bar" producers. If you know this and know that they have a well-established history of lying (I don't beat around the bush) then why support these lying fakers if you can buy better chocolate from legit operations?

<comment><USER20> I've had very good bars from Mast Brothers, but I'm in full agreement that they're not the best.

I think it's important to point out that they are still much better than most, though. It's common to see people attack the worst of the premium brands while forgetting that they are still a lot better than most of the cheap alternatives, like when lovers of organic food complain about Whole Foods. In the big picture, Mast Brothers is still the good guys when compared to, say, Nestle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I get the feeling from the tone that I'm supposed to be taken aback that overpriced artisanal brands are mostly marketing, but I've known that for decades now.

Perhaps this is another thing that millennials feel they've invented.

<comment><USER23> As someone who is fairly obsessed with cooking and eating good food I've probably gone deeper into this area than the average consumer. There are plenty of authentic, "artisanal" (??? I don't even know what the fuck that means) small-batch food suppliers out there who provide a vastly superior product. I'm friends with some of these people in my area and they are obsessed with their craft and obsessed with putting out the best product. It borderlines on OCD and often leads to a deeply technical knowledge to go along with their sensory skills. I also know a couple frauds who've adopted the trappings of an expert and bluff their way to success. Same as any industry.

At the end of the day, most people aren't capable of tasting the difference anyways. It takes a while to develop the palate required to discern great from good. Most people eat their daily food quickly and don't really pay attention to the flavours of the ingredients. They just want something salty, sweet, crispy and fatty. That sounds condescending but its true and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Lots of people let the radio or pitchfork tell them what music to listen to and don't care enough to expend the time refining their tastes. Their enjoyment of music is no less valid or real than anyone else's.

<comment><USER19> What really bugs me about this (and yes, I realize I probably shouldn't care) is that the level of skill required to get to within 10% of the really good stuff is within reach of pretty much anyone. We're all so used to crappy store bought stuff that anything better gets labelled "artisanal" and sells for 5-10x the price.

Yes, I understand that there are many artists that are masters of their craft and deserve the respect and their prices. But there is also lots of _crap_ that people pay good money for that tastes awful by any reasonable standard. A place near me makes these giant cookies that look awesome, but at first bite you can tell they're made with shortening, not butter. Sorry, but not worth the $3 price.

But any idiot with $10 can go to the store, buy the ingredients and make a couple dozen infinitely better tasting cookies by following the recipe on a bag of Toll House chocolate chips.

I think at the heart of it, what really bothers me is that because so few people grow up cooking anymore, we've lost touch with how easy it is to make good tasting food.

Rant off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> We have a local chocolate company where I live (Boston area). Its mexican chocolate. They give tours. Chocolate is a odd thing to make. The machinery was strange. They roast/stone grind beans there.

The chocolate while tasty is remarkably gritty. The bars are decent, but where they do best is the chocolate covered nuts. They're doing well and their chocolate is everywhere. I thought it was pricey, but not so much anymore.

They have a video showing some production (including fitting a stone grinder to modern equipment which is a decent hack)

[https://player.vimeo.com/video/33380451](https://player.vimeo.com/video/33380451)

[http://www.tazachocolate.com/pages/about- taza](http://www.tazachocolate.com/pages/about-taza)

<comment><USER25> God, I hate that stuff. I don't understand why everyone is nuts about it. It tastes to me like spoiled milk mixed into dirt (and I know there's no milk in it).

The comments surrounding Mast Brothers are making me feel less like my tastes are wrong. Maybe bean-to-bar small-batch artisanal chocolate just isn't that good of an idea.

<comment><USER26> Mexican chocolate is a mystery to me as well. I've had it as hot chocolate, but even then it tastes like chocolatey sand. Mexican Cokes on the other hand..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't see why this is such a huge deal.

First, they no longer used remelted chocolate.

Second, Mast Brothers are obviously tapping into the startup/hipster culture and selling chocolate to people who want to seem crafty and artisanal but don't care enough to find out the origins.

Third, if you're paying $10 for chocolate and you aren't sure of it's origin (like when they didn't include ingredients) you deserve what you get.

Lots of companies don't tell you the whole story. While I personally think honesty and integrity are hugely important the startup culture doesn't seem to value it more than hockey stick growth charts.

</comment><comment><USER28> I never even heard of Mast Brothers until last week, and I am living a block away from their factory. Now I fully appreciate this parody from a few months ago:

[https://vimeo.com/131422396](https://vimeo.com/131422396)

</comment><comment><USER29> Bizarre preoccupation with their beards in that QZ piece.

<comment><USER30> Mast brothers are selling an image, and the beards are a big part of that.

They sound like genius trolls.

<comment><USER21> Trolls are people who point out the hypocrisy or emptiness of the positions of other people by adopting affected personas or positions. These dudes are just lying to get rich.

Yeah, I know this is the original definition of a troll but it's the only one as far as I am concerned.

<comment><USER30> While that's certainly a kind of troll, it's neither the original nor a complete definition of the term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> According to the DallasFood article, it looks like these guys have been saying so many lies and this can be classified as a false advertisement - which is punishable by law, no? What if all who's unhappy with Mast Bros simply go and sue them? or complain to the authorities at least

</comment><comment><USER32> They refute the claim here:

[http://mastbrothers.com/pages/press](http://mastbrothers.com/pages/press)

Missing, however, is the typical comments about defending themselves against what would be libelous claims.

<comment><USER33> They actually aren't refuting the claim. Even in the article I noticed that they are very careful in their phrasing. They never say, "We have never sold another companies chocolate" or anything like that. All they say is that from they beginning, they have been a bean-to-bar chocolate maker. That only requires that some of their bars have always been bean-to-bar, not that all the bars they've sold have been so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Can the FDA get involved in this? What happens when a food manufacturer lies about the ingredients of their products? Even if this was a few years ago, seems like something the government would get on their case about (and rightfully so).

</comment><comment><USER35> This story (and the older Noka tale) seem to have parallels to Theranos and their very media friendly tech that it turns out they weren't actually using.

</comment><comment><USER36> My takeaway on this was that no laws were broken and a few hipsters got their noses bent out of joint. I'm just not seeing any legal wrongdoing here.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is just a little story related to this topic that you might find interesting. The TLDR is that the olive oil business is equally pretentious and deceptive as other "artisanal" foods.

My wife an I attempted to start an olive oil company last year selling French extra virgin oil we make at our friend's olive farm in Provence.. If you think the artisanal chocolate industry is full of deception and lies.. allow me to introduce to you the wonderful world of olive oil. Our production cost for 1 liter was almost double the retail cost of so-called high-end "Italian" extra virgin olive oil you'd buy at Whole Foods -- which basically means it is nearly impossible to source actual, 100% extra virgin olive oil at the prices they're being sold for at the stores, there are some exceptions -- a few oils out there are actually the real deal. But a high percentage of grocery store oils aren't what they claim to be (even at Whole Foods-type stores.)

Through a quirk of Italian law, oil that is bottled in Italy can be labeled "100% Italian" \-- so there is a huge amount of inferior oils being passed off as both Italian and Extra Virgin and being priced accordingly, despite it being nearly impossible to wholesale Italian-grown, Italian made extra virgins at the price they're selling it for. That's even accounting for economies of scale.

My favorite label-scam is when I see "First Cold Pressed." Absolutely zero oil you buy at grocery stores is ever cold pressed. Pressing actually creates inferior oils. Olive oils are extracted in large centrifuges. They haven't been "pressed" in probably a generation, but "First Cold Centrifuging" doesn't sound as "artisanal." Producers know good and well they aren't pressing anything, yet they (correctly) figure that that particular wording is going to attract a customer who imagines images of an old dude dumping fresh olives still moist with dew into a large, wooden handled press to squeeze out oil just for them. Basically your stereotypical hipster-type that wants to opine about the importance of "hand" crafting. I know probably a dozen olive oil producers here in Provence and every single one of them hand-craft their oils using state of the art, stainless steel equipment in spotless production facilities. Some of this facilities are located in a converted barn, but that idyllic image of the "craftsman" using "traditional" methods is just a myth. Though, playing off of those ignorant imaginings means that companies, using the right wording, can charge champagne prices for malt liquor.

I suppose if we just took Tunisia or Turkish oils, bottled them as French oils, put a ultra-premium price on it -- and grew some beards and distributed out of Brooklyn, we might have been more successful.

My point is that the artisanal and premium food business is rife with deception. If anyone is interested in the olive oil industry this book is exceptionally good: [http://www.truthinoliveoil.com/extra- virginity](http://www.truthinoliveoil.com/extra-virginity)

<comment><USER37> I look for the D.O.P and/or organic farming mark, along with a production date, a best before date, and the region of Italy. I'm pretty sure it's ok, and it isn't cheap.

I've heard that the best way to understand the olive oil business is to consider the fact (needs citation) that Italy exports twice as much oil as it produces.

Did your business work out? What happened? We bought a very nice AOC olive oil from Aix-en-Provence once.

<comment><USER26> Our business was extremely tough because to get US distribution, it's a rather difficult process. So we were doing the distribution ourselves.. I was flying back and forth to the US and we started selling in a few shops and we went through the Whole Foods process, but the margins were extremely tight given that we were at capacity with just 5000 liters a year. So not enough money to justify the work. Our oil is/was AOC as well as organic. We also had several single-olive varietals that were unique to our region that were really popular.

But, in the end, it's just a hard grind of a business. Love the oils, don't love competing with companies selling oil by the tanker truck. It was also a tough sell to the consumer because convincing the average grocery store shopper to pay almost triple the cost for a product that meets a need they don't really know they have.. that's a tough one.

As a side note.. I do highly recommend California olive oils (ones that are labeled as such..) they have a rather strict certification process, so if it's in California and it's labeled as such, you're almost certainly getting the real deal. I'm definitely partial top Provençal, Corsican and Tuscan oils, but there are definitely some great ones out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Has a second source, one with credibility, confirmed this claim or is the world satisfied with a blog post on some obscure dallas web site?

</comment><comment><USER39> The article alleges that they used remelted chocolate in 2007. This is startup land. You hustle and cut corners to prove your MVP.

You know who is mad? The hipsters who couldn't tell the difference.

<comment><USER40> The problem here isn't that they remelted. The problem is that they actively lied about their ingredient lists and told people they were strictly making it from the bean.

<comment><USER41> Which is true. But that seems to be more important to buyers than the taste/experience of the product.

I'm not a fan of dishonest advertising. But that conclusion seems a bizarre place to end up in.</comment></comment></comment>


YouTube commenter threatens to kill employees, drives to HQ with a gun - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-youtube-threats-man-arrested-20190520-story.html <comment><USER2> They released him on bail even after he admitted to driving over to the HQ once with a firearm. YouTube better beef up security cause the nutter may think its his only chance now to act.

<comment><USER3> Apparently "terroristic threats" means something different in California. Letting him out on bail was crazier than the headlining part of the story.

<comment><USER4> That would be Utah. Orem, Utah police arrested him and Utah County Jail released him on bail.

<comment><USER3> You are right. They say people only remember the beginning and the end of a story. That's precisely what I did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How is it that you can be arrested with a firearm with evidence of an intention to attack, and walk out on bail?

<comment><USER6> The article is light on detail, but it doesn't seem like he was "arrested with a firearm". He was arrested later for making the threats, in his home state it seems, rather than police near Youtube HQ thwarting his attack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What was he upset about? Their bad DMCA/Flagging process?

<comment><USER8> He was quoted saying "get woke go broke" so it seems like he is a reactionary who is upset about perceived left wing values among YouTube leadership.</comment></comment>


YoWhatsApp Latest Version (Dual Whatsapp) v7.15 MOD APK - <AUTHOR> http://www.geteasysoft.com/yowhatsapp-latest-version-dual-whatsapp-v7-15-mod-apk/ <comment><USER2> Please make a dedicated webpage.

I don't want to deal with downloading software from pages like this. The 90s and 2000s are over.

Also include screenshots, reviews and whatever you can to add trust.

<comment><USER3> I agree, when you see that kind of page, you auto close.</comment></comment>


Some People Are Deserving of Incivility - <AUTHOR> http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/31/new-york-times-reporter-people-deserving-incivility/

<comment><USER2> The author (in reading this and his other articles) is chock full of unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies. And this story is way off topic for HN. Flagging.

<comment><AUTHOR> Discussions exhibiting various degrees of in/civility over "hot button" social issues crop up regularly in my online and local tech communities, including HN.

I think the points raised are well worth considering, whether one sides with the author or not, and are more than relevant to HN readership. Otherwise, I would not have made the submission.</comment></comment>


The Tale of Theranos and the Mysterious Fire Alarm - <AUTHOR> https://khn.org/news/reporters-notebook-the-tale-of-theranos-and-the-mysterious-fire-alarm/ <comment><USER2> Someone needs to make an anthology of first-person stories about trying out Theranos. I actually thought the OP article was by John Carreyrou because I saw it in his tweets (and it makes sense that they'd pull the fire alarm upon seeing him), but it's by a reporter (Jenny Gold) from Kaiser Health News, who apparently visited there (Nov 2014) before Carreyrou's WSJ investigation was published in October 2015.

The only other stories I can think of are:

Eric Lakin (DeciBio Consulting), 10/2015: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/what-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/27/what- happened-when-i-tried-the-new-blood-test-that-was-supposed-to-change-the- world/)

Jean-Louis Gassee (former Apple exec), 10/2015: [https://mondaynote.com/theranos-trouble-a-first-person- accou...](https://mondaynote.com/theranos-trouble-a-first-person- account-1690b827539f)

Melia Robinson (Business Insider), 10/2015: [http://www.businessinsider.com/i-tried- theranos-2015-10](http://www.businessinsider.com/i-tried-theranos-2015-10)

<comment><USER3> I would also love to see a survey of the journalism on this. We see now that Theranos's stuff never worked. But tech press is famously uncritical. It seems like there's an opportunity for all of us to learn something here about how we were so easily misled.

<comment><USER2> Theranos is an interesting case. Benedict Evans tweeted something interesting the other week [0], how Theranos, unlike virtually every other Silicon Valley startups, was very East Coast in style. Particularly with its board full of old, famous politicians and DC figures like Kissinger and General Mattis.

I didn't really hear much about it until the WSJ blowup, but my perception was that Theranos wasn't in whatever scene that other startups are in when they get coverage from TechCrunch, etc. I know Tim Draper was an early VC backer (his daughter was childhood friends with Elizabeth Holmes), but did other Silicon VC know much about Theranos?

I know Theranos did end up getting TechCrunch-west-coast-style coverage (I mean, before WSJ blew it up). But I'm pretty sure that its very first press splashes were with the Wall Street Journal in Sept. 2013 [1] and then the New Yorker in Dec. 2014 [2].

The WSJ article was very interesting. Not just because it's ironic, given that a WSJ investigative reporter would be taking Theranos down. But because of the setup. It was weekend interview feature assigned to a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial board member. And, unlike the New Yorker piece, was almost entirely a puff piece. Interestingly enough, though, the author describes the experience of having blood drawn via the fingerstick/nanotainer setup (i.e. the tech Theranos was aiming for).

Having your first public splash in the WSJ Weekend Magazine seems like a very East Coast thing. Amusingly, when Theranos was burning down, it was revealed that Rupert Murdoch had a $125 million stake in Theranos [3]. Which probably explains the WSJ puff piece, since Murdoch owns the WSJ.

This is all to say that Theranos's early years as a startup seems to have been much different culturally than the usual Bay Area startup. I wonder how Theranos would've fared or been different if it had operated like a highly- funded SV startup (Color, Clinkle, or any other high-funded startup that didn't die out) with the same hype and attention.

[0] [https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/972501945813381122](https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/972501945813381122)

[1] [http://archive.is/8dfJ7](http://archive.is/8dfJ7)

[2] [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood- simpler](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/12/15/blood-simpler)

[3] [https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/03/24/rupert-m...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2017/03/24/rupert- murdoch-theranos-elizabeth-holmes.html)

<comment><USER4> From what I understand theranos pitched a lot of the traditional life sci and even tech VCs, but these firms were very skeptical. Especially the biotech VCs do a ton of scientific / technical diligence before investing and theranos almost certainly wouldn't have made it through their diligence filter

I think a few notable VCs actually spoke out critically of theranos, can't recall which, but it is saying something if a VC goes on record publicly criticizing a high profile starrtup

<comment><USER5> That's generally a bad signal, whenever in-industry VCs stay out of a business and outside-industry VCs go in. Bad signal

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That is a heartening example of good journalism. But nevertheless, there is one thing that I did not like with the way Ms Gold handled the story. She had an idea in mind of what kind of story she was going to write, and when reality did not pan out according to her plan, she just decided not to write the story.

If she had written about her experience she would have had a very important story and could have saved investors hundreds of millions of dollars.

<comment><USER7> The problem is she didn't necessarily have a story _there_ , either, at least without an order of magnitude more research, at a minimum.

She went in for a light piece humanizing a new technology. Do you really expect her to shift gears into a massive fraud, with nothing more than weird PR pressure and a fire alarm?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have an honest question, what is the end game for Theranos employees. My understanding is the company is a complete fraud but yet if I go on linkedin they still have 200+ employees working there:

[https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrent...](https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/people/?facetCurrentCompany=%5B%2230702%22%5D)

are all of these people going to be fired in the coming months or do investors think this is still a good idea but Holmes isnt going to be apart of it ?

<comment><USER9> I think at this point, investors are trying to salvage what ever tech it has, and sell the company.

No clue why employees are sticking around, maybe they're currently looking for another job and it's a slow drop to zero.

<comment><USER10> A mortgage is a mortgage, and a pay check is a pay check.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If it's useful for anyone, I made a list of all the ways engineering media can be manipulated (including journalists):

[https://github.com/nemild/hacking- engineers](https://github.com/nemild/hacking-engineers)

I added this example to it since it's a particularly good example of how marketing/PR uses threats of access and cherry picked demo sessions to get their favored view out.

(Contributions welcome)

<comment><USER12> Question. When are companies open positions with title names like "Growth Hacker, are" is their expectation to find someone who would deploy this kind of tactics? I ask because it seems that there's a line of thought that wants to legitimize some of these behaviors (voting rings, for instance.)

<comment><USER11> You're absolutely right, that's often the intent.

I approached my project with the hope of creating antibodies that makes those techniques less valuable. Or at minimal, help a few people better understand the incentives/techniques behind what they're seeing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there an industry of "black hat PR" people that handle this sort of thing? Would be really interested if there were any autobiographical novels from that sort of person, though I suppose, like bank robbers, their success insists they remain unknown.

EDIT: Just remembered the movie Wag the Dog the Wikipedia article calls the black hat PR people portrayed therein "spin doctors". But that seems more like just PR to me, not setting off fire alarms to scare away reporters (though the spin doctors in the movie construct a fake war).

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

<comment><USER14> Read the news lately?

[https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2018/3/21/17141428/c...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2018/3/21/17141428/cambridge-analytica-trump-russia-mueller)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Here's something that Theranos was deliberately misleading about: how many tests can be done on one prick's worth of blood?

Before the downfall, the website claimed that hundreds of tests could be performed with a single drop of blood. But, is that hundreds of tests on one single drop at once? Or is it one test per drop? Squeezing dozens of blood drops out of multiple pricks would not be easy or painless.

Nowhere on the website, or in any press releases, or in any interviews that I could find, did Theranos clarify this. If they could do 100+ tests on a single drop of whole blood it would be a revolution, and there would be no reason to hide it. But, if it was one 4-hour test per drop, that's actually worse than current state of the art, and they would have every reason to hide it.

This is one of the things that would have been clear if journalists had spent more time talking to lab experts, rather than Theranos' PR and laypeople in their offices.

<comment><USER16> Theranos was claiming amazing technical breakthroughs, but never published anything that would verify the claims. This was pointed out by a couple of researchers, Eleftherios Diamandis and John Ioannidis, in early 2015. [https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9646356/theranos-peer- review-...](https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9646356/theranos-peer-review- evidence)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> One of the most concerning aspects of the Theranos investment has been the total lack of due diligence in this process.

Putting aside the technology for a moment (it could be considered difficult to evaluate for most investors), due diligence failed on multiple counts. For example, Holmes told potential investors they had over $100 million in revenue when, in reality, they had close to $100,000 in revenue. That's a bit like trying to tell someone a SMB SaaS business with ~100 customers has the same traction as, say, Algolia. Hard to understand how this passed through the filters.

<comment><USER18> There is a far simpler way to look at this, and that is to say that this is why we have peer review in science. If a scientist won't release data or methods, there is a 99% chance they are bullshitting their claims. Theranos's product happened to be adjacent to my research space, so I was already highly skeptical when I heard the initial product claims. When I heard they weren't releasing data however, I strongly suspected they were bullshit. Many years later, sure enough..

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It is good to see the reporter refused to go along with the PR people from Theranos. But I am surprised they did not still report on the experience and point out that no-one could be found having the pin prick test and that the PR people acting suspiciously. Surely that is a story in itself?

<comment><USER20> I don't know the exact circumstances but lack of any real info, apparently suspicious behavior, etc. may trigger spidey senses but (properly) don't usually trigger a story in a major pub. Unfortunately that can lead to situations where lots of people are pretty sure that something isn't quite right without triggering an article. But it's mostly the way news should operate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's the stack of a few individually explainable things — no one getting the finger-prick test, a complaint you've never received before, unusual requests to delete things, a fire alarm at just the right time — that makes them all suspicious.

</comment><comment><USER22> I wouldn't put it past Theranos. They have shown their playbook includes filth. Ask an investor if it would surprise them: "oh s%^t we didn't stop the journalist, pull the fire alarm"

</comment><comment><USER23> I started to write a thoughtful and balanced analysis of this article...but then I stopped myself.

The reason I stopped myself is that I thought about all the journalists like this lady who played the same game with Theranos and continue to play similar games with all of the rotten corporate and government entities in the county. Then I started getting genuinely pissed off!

What. the. f*ck did I just read?

She openly admits to the following:

1\. She came to the story with a predetermined framing of the story.

2\. She allowed herself to be bribed with the "treat" of talking to Elizabeth Holmes and then backed off under threat and misdirection while pretending to be immune to such behavior.

3\. She sat on the story because she couldn't spin it the way she had intended in advance and allowed herself to be threatened.

I am not exaggerating, she literally writes "I lost the story so I moved on..."

Lost the story directly translates to: "I knew what I wanted to report and what would get clicks, I didn't get that so I gave up."

4\. She proudly presents this article years after the fact pretending to retroactively have known something was wrong...and to have maintained her journalistic ethics while openly admitting to dropping the story once it didn't fit the framing she hoped to apply to it.

5\. She waited until well after the tide of public opinion had turned against Theranos to capitalize on the work of others who actually did the hard journalism to get clicks.

This lady should be fired, she is not a journalist. Why should we give her a pass when hundreds of other fake journalists did exactly the same with Theranos? When do we all say: "Enough is enough?"

This is everything wrong with American media in one article, the attempts to feign journalistic ethics after the fact while generating more clicks is sickening. People died from Theranos!

<comment><USER24> _> This is everything wrong with American media in one article_

100% agree. What she should have done was not cancel the feature, but write what actually happened--right after it happened, not now, when Theranos has already been outed as a fraud and she's just another one jumping on the bandwagon.

<comment><USER25> Maybe you have heard of the Overton Window?*

You essentially can't publish it if it a. Falls too far outside what the public will readily believe and b. Is not adequately backed up with verifiable hard facts.

Speculation that they intentionally pulled the fire alarm would have been considered mudslinging and yellow journalism at the time the research was done. It's print-worthy now because we now know that Theranos did so much dishonest crap that pulling the fire alarm is not unbelievable and is such small potatoes in the grand scheme of things that it isn't even mudslinging. It's a nit.

* [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)

<comment><USER26> As a side note, I've started seeing the term "Overton window" more often. It's a bit shocking because I knew Joe Overton (his untimely death was a gigantic loss). It's kinda cool to see it used in general discourse now.

<comment><USER27> In Russia this concept was widely used a couple of years ago. Somebody published a popular article distorting the idea to the point of becoming a conspiracy theory against our moral values. Along with so-called "Dulles Doctrine" it became part of western conspiracy lore

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Everyone there too rich for jailtime?

</comment><comment><USER29> Not deserving of jail time: VC funded, Charismatic founder with a fraudulent business.

<comment><USER30> How is financial fraud not deserving of jail time?

<comment><USER31> I believe it was sarcasm.

However, she most certainly is deserving of jail time; may Shkreli's precedent of $~19 million fraud and 7 years pave the way for Holmes. All ratios equal, the sentence should be ~270 years, naturally.

Unfortunately, because she is well connected to the VC folks, the $750 million and Ian Gibbons life will all go without retribution.</comment></comment></comment>


Lessons from Moneyball - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3098-lessons-from-moneyball <comment><USER2> The lesson of Moneyball is to 1) do what you love/what you are good at and 2) purchase undervalued assets.

This is the same strategy that Warren Buffet has been using for decades.

The perception is high risk because you are going against the status quo, but in reality you are in a low risk senario because you are doing what you love and you see an undervalued asset.

In the startup world it is the same thing. If you are doing what you truly love/what you are good at and you can identify undervalued assets then you will win in the long term.

For employees this is finding a company that you can calculate that it will succeed, then getting stock in that company by "taking the risk" and it all works because it is something you deeply care about.

For founders this is finding an area that is ripe for disruption with a problem that you face in your life. Starting a company is a way to realize that value that other's are not capturing.

Really successful companies, founders, employees and investors do what they love, love the ones around them, pay respect to everyone and can brutally identify undervalued assets.

<comment><USER3> _"The perception is high risk because you are going against the status quo, but in reality you are in a low risk senario because you are doing what you love and you see an undervalued asset."_

No, it _is_ high-risk. The risk is that the undervalued asset you see may not really be one.

But staying with the status quo is high-risk as well.

Risk is a red herring; people optimize for regret-minimization. There's less regret if you go with the crowd because there's other people to blame -- and regrets are less apparent because everyone suffers together. But if you go against the status quo and your life sucks, you have nobody else to blame, no fellow sufferers.

This isn't a rational thought process. But you have to see the enemy clearly before it can be defeated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For me, the lessons would be:

1\. Always question the conventional wisdom. That's what needs to be disrupted.

2\. Every great innovation that makes someone famous or rich always involves some guy who's been plugging away for years on his own without any notoriety or wealth (In this case it was Bill James, who invented "sabermetrics" while working as a night watchman).

</comment><comment><USER5> The problem with Moneyball as an analogy for web software development is that software development is not a game with a finite pie outcome model, i.e. there isn't a winner for every loser or vice versa.

For web software development there isn't even a clear way to determine winners - e.g. market share or brand awareness may trump revenue as a measure of success depending on the purpose for which web development is undertaken.

If Bean's goal had been to put butts in seats, it is unlikely that his methods would have worked.

<comment><USER6> The way to get butts in seats is to have compelling games. The way to get compelling games is to have a competitive team. The way to get a competitive team is to find high quality players. I doubt any of this was not in the minds of the team's owners and management.

<comment><USER5> Winning often correlates with butts in seats.

However, it is unlikely that a strategy optimizing dollars/win is the same as dollars/season. Merchandising and TV contracts play too big a role (not to mention ticket prices). Stars sell merchandise and seats even for losing teams.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Even Better: Dharmesh Shah's Startup Lessons From 17 Hard-Hitting Quotes In "Moneyball"

[http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/76799/Startup- Lessons-F...](http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/76799/Startup-Lessons- From-17-Hard-Hitting-Quotes-In-Moneyball.aspx)

<comment><USER8> Thanks for linking to my article. Glad to see my friends at 37signals are fans of Moneyball too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The only real lesson in Moneyball is do what you love and don't let others tell you not to.

What I find most interesting about the story is the different effect it has on people. Business types see it as "Take a great risk and it'll pay off (literally)." Science types see it as "Math works".

The reality is, you just have to do what you want to do and not care if other people tell you you're crazy. Was a situation like Moneyball an exception to the rule? Hell yes. But with out those 1 in 1000 exceptions to the rule we'd have very little to show for 50 thousand years on the planet.

<comment><USER10> (below may include spoiler)

I thought the real lesson was "massively outperform the limits of your shitty resources beyond anyone's expectations, by thinking outside the box and concentrating on algorithms and data modeling; and still not succeed. Then if someone is impressed and offers you more personal compensation than you can imagine, to do the same thing but for them, while actually being given enough resources to actually have a chance with it, then you go and fucking do it."

The startup analogy is easy: if you are solely responsible for running a free service with a million users on $300/month hosting budget, and you almost do it by inventing amazing algorithms, but the service still lags and sucks, but is almost there, then when Amazon makes you an offer to come and do the same thing for them you fucking take it.

<comment><USER11> That whole scene there at the end really killed me. It was not made clear to me why the protagonist made the choice he made. I wonder how he feels watching that scene in the film every time he attends a screening.

<comment><USER10> doesn't matter. should have jumped ship. (whatever his motivations for not doing so, the movie makes the lesson clear: it says in the final frames, that he's still trying to win the last game of the season with the A's... Why would they say that? What response would that possible elicit other than "should have gone over to Boston"?) I think the lesson of the movie is clear enough for me :)

<comment><USER12> Real life has a filthy habit of failing to produce neat, satisfying dramatic arcs.

<comment><USER10> real life also has a habit of letting people in similar choices make the right one after seeing someone make the wrong one. The lesson of the film is pretty clear, sorry. Not it's dramatic arc, just its lesson. At least to me. But hey, if you want to keep chasing that last season game on an impossible budget, go ahead bro.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If you haven't read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" it really summarizes the problems in a lot of decision making in a very clear way.

I'm still reading through, but, you have two major actors in your brain. A "fast" side, and a "slow" side. The fast side makes gut decisions, and the slow side, well, applies more complex judgements and can include a more unbiased view of the world. There's a ton to this process, but importantly, the fast side is very happy to jump to conclusions when presented with missing information.

The lesson of Moneyball, then, was that the "fast side" thinking clouded judgements of baseball prospects by filling out ridiculous statements like "he's got a hot girlfriend, must be able to have the confidence we need on the field".

I'm not sure how you can use the baseball metaphor in terms of software design, though.

But, you could easily say that we're presented with an incomplete amount of information when building software. (What's going to happen when it runs? Who knows! Just build a nice API and continue.) So we definitely all probably have a lot of "quick learning" techniques and processes we just adopt to. For example, Googling before you just stop and think. Or using the UI techniques of other applications, because "that's how the big profit-making companies do it".

</comment><comment><USER14> Where I find Moneyball (and a lot of A/B testing) falls down is in the complexity around the player (or mechanism).

Teams often contain players whose value is off-pitch or subtle: leaders, morale-boosters, supporters.

The system that Moneyball demonstrates would struggle to find the a manager that would uses a Moneyball-type system. Where are the stats for the team- picker?

While I'm definitely _not_ saying that there is magic in sports (nor any successful website that ignores A/B testing) I am saying that sometimes a talented spotter (or a talented designer) can produce a fit that a spreadsheet cannot.

(yet.)

</comment><comment><USER15> I realize this comment may not be popular, but I gotta ask this. How come every burp that comes out of 37signals lands on the front page of HN?

(Conformist... Yeah... <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4CggHUypjY>)

EDIT: I guess I'm just allergic to cults.

<comment><USER16> (I'm the author of the original post, and obviously I work at 37signals, so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt.)

Why do posts make it to the front page? Because enough people upvote them, so there must be something that appeals to at least some people. If you have comments on how I could have made this post more interesting or relevant to you, or improvements in my writing style, I'd certainly appreciate hearing them. You can reach me at email@example.com.

<comment><USER15> I'm sorry if I have offended you, that was not my intention. There is nothing terribly wrong with the post. It's fine. That is not the point. My point is that there seems to be a certain cult following to several persons/companies in the industry among HN readers, which doesn't entirely surprise me, but does disappoint me. I think this community should be more free-thinking and not drink anyone's KoolAid. In fact, I'd like to see posts coming from from certain figures given a much more critical treatment than a reverent one. HN is full of useful, insightful critique, but there could be more of it, and we can do away with the unnecessary reverence.

<comment><USER16> Absolutely no offense taken, and I actually share your desire to avoid KoolAid drinking. Every post should be evaluated on it's merits, and while I can only speak for myself, I hope that things that I write only end up on the front page when they have sufficient merit.

<comment><USER15> Also, there is a problem with the voting process here (and on other sites, obviously) in general. If everyone upvote what they like, this is almost certain to ensure that the most interesting stuff never makes it to the front page, because I may like something that is truly original and thought- provoking, and also something nice about, say, GitHub (I'm just focusing on GitHub as an example. They're A-OK). The result is that the mainstream stuff gets lots and lots of votes, but what really interests us doesn't. What you don't upvote is just as important as what you do. I've just posted (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559105>) an interesting lecture by Noga Alon about voting paradoxes.

In addition, I think (though I may be wrong) the HN algorithm makes second chances nearly impossible. If something doesn't make it to the front page within a couple of hours since its posting (or even 30 minutes), it never will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Billy Beane's shit doesn't work in the playoffs, the book/movie ignored the Big Three, and information advantages go away.

The startup corollaries: small-bore inefficiencies can't overcome luck and strong competition, don't attribute success to A when it's really the obvious B (i.e. what differentiates your product doesn't mean it's actually better - Gowalla and foursquare is my favorite example here), and people will steal your landing pages because they work better.

<comment><USER18> _Billy Beane's shit doesn't work in the playoffs_

What is this supposed to mean? The season gives you a 162-game sample. The playoffs are a coin-flip, by comparison. It's just too small of a sample to draw any conclusions, which is why both old- and new-school baseball guys have an endless array of cliches about how anybody who makes it in to the playoffs has a chance to win.

<comment><USER17> It's a reference to a famous essay by Nate Silver (you may know him from FiveThirtyEight at the NYTimes) and Dayn Perry: [http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=betweenthenu...](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=betweenthenumbers/billybeane/060405)

In short, the A's roster was actually constructed to succeed over 162 games but the compromises he had to make on defense and power pitching to get extra value are particularly fraught in the playoffs, where you're battling the better offensive teams in the league. Of course, the playoffs are a crapshoot (the Cardinals had no business being in, let alone winning in 2011), but the compromises Beane had a direct effect on their heartbreaking playoff losses in the early 2000s.

<comment><USER19> These are not inherently better offensive teams. That's the whole point. The 2002 A's were a good offensive team because they were better at evaluating offense than the rest of the league.

The reason the A's didn't win the World Series is the same reason the Cardinals won the World Series in 2011 and 2006, but not 2004. It's the reason the Giants won it in 2010. The playoffs are a crapshoot. It has nothing to do with whether or not sabermetric analysis is valid for regular season games, but not for playoff games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This reads disturbingly like a Thomas Friedman editorial.

</comment><comment><USER21> A/B testing and the like will only guide you to local maxima. Human thought and intuition, ie design, will retain its importance as the impetus for original ideas which can then be optimized through testing. And users will continue to evaluate software as they do today, "with their own eyes and emotions." Sorry, nerds.

<comment><USER22> Why test when you can wait for 37signals to publish their successful results? Then just copy that.

<comment><USER23> Because your audience might not be the same as 37signal's audience, and hence might react differently to different things</comment></comment></comment>


Fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

<comment><USER2> A whole lot of words for very little actual content. For one the article recognizes that there has been a response from the opposite party saying:

"the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss _have never plausibly explained_ – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known."

emphasis mine. To me this means that GHCN and Giss did put forward arguments as to why the data was modified, however instead of showing the reader these arguments (and why he believes them to be implausible) he simply dismisses them.

And frankly, the rest of the article is a devoid of information as the above. There is a whole lot of name-dropping, and name-calling ("James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist)"), but no where does he put up any actual references or data to back-up his claims.

I do not have the time to dive into literature and dissect his points one by one (again, he does not offer any references or concrete data so that would be difficult anyway), however his song sounds very familiar. Scientists adjust their data to ignore known cyclical effects: they're manipulating the facts! Scientists don't adjust their data: they're ignoring history to suit their agenda!

And slightly off-topic, what are so many Americans doing in the comment section of a UK newspaper? And why are people ranting about Obamacare on an article about climate change?

<comment><USER3> The UK papers are among the few English language papers that are willing to report on this issue. It's almost ignored by outlets like the NY Times unless it fits the narrative. You hardly ever see any contrarian stories published by the NY Times. As far as Obamacare, I didn't read the comments, however the government control of 1/5 of the US economy (health) is analogous to the attempted government control of the entire economy through anti-carbon initiatives. It's a debate of the role of government and 'climate change' legislation is but one part of it. However that being said, there are a bunch of nutcases that seem to spew spittle at their screen anytime the government is mentioned. But, given the alarming track record of government overreach (i.e. NSA surveillance of everything, civil asset forfeiture, etc,) their apparent tin foil hats do seem to have a basis in some reality.

<comment><USER4> The telegraph should not be considered a reputable newspaper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Global warming has approached religion. If you already believe the AGW premise, then no amount of evidence to the contrary will sway you. Interestingly, Obama, during the 2008 campaign admitted that he believed autism and vaccines were connected, which has never been proven and in fact, discredited. Is it possible the President and thus the executive branch policies resulting, are wrong or more insidiously, knowingly wrong about global warming? After all, controlling carbon output means that you control every industry and every nook and cranny of the entire economy. I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.' Did scientists just not notice the data from the past 100 years? Or, was that data not showing a warming trend until communism suddenly collapsed? Just seems rather coincidental that the goal of the Marxists has always been the control of the means of production; the same goal and aims of the anti-carbon crowd.

<comment><USER2> >I also find it odd that it wasn't until the 1990s that global warming became a 'thing.'

It was a thing in modern science since the 1940s. Which is about as early as you could gather statistically significant data [1]. It did not garner widespread public attention immediately, as is to be expected. Interesting that you should point out that the mainstream attention only appeared after the end of the cold war, perhaps politicians and journalists where otherwise occupied during that time?

> Just seems rather coincidental that the goal of the Marxists has always been > the control of the means of production; the same goal and aims of the anti- > carbon crowd.

The means of production? you mean the carbohydrate-based power used to drive everything we use that absolutely dominated western politics, both economic, foreign, and domestic for many a decade? Or do you mean the new, and relatively small, green power market? Which is, bare a few outcrops, still dominated by the old oil-industry based companies. Be it by investing in alternatives directly or by buying out competing start-ups.

[1] [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm)

<comment> at-fates-hands >>>> It was a thing in modern science since the 1940s.

The reason it took so long was that scientists couldn't agree whether the Earth was cooling or warming. In the 1960's and 70's they were sure it was cooling.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time- proxy....](http://web.archive.org/web/20060812025725/http://time- proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html)

 _" when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."_

Another interesting video from the Leonard Nimoy series "In Search Of" about the coming Ice Age:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK0RswGQZRw)

By the 1990's apparently all the evidence suddenly shifted and then it was then shown the Earth was warming.

It would seem the scientific community can't seem to get one consensus as to whether it is cooling or warming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Headline news: Climate change deniers have blogs!</comment>


Google Doesn't Understand People - <AUTHOR> http://thehipperelement.com/articles/google-doesnt-understand-people/

<comment><USER2> Try Google Now, it's awesome and it understands me!

Try Ingress, it's a whicked game Google developped!

Try Android, if you like something more (widgets, tasker, ...), it's superior!

Try products of the Nexus-line, low prices for quality hard- and software.

Try Apple, keep your UI the same for 5 years, use only icons as UI and sell your devices with 50% profits. Gain traction because of the narcisme of your users..

(PS. If you want to know why Apple is not adding Widgets, it's because it would be to difficult their users).</comment>


Larry Ellison: The NSA's Snooping Is 'Essential' For U.S. Security - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-ellison-nsa-spying-is-essential-2013-8

<comment><USER2> Is Oracle in line for some big government contracts? Or did Larry just lose his mind?</comment>


Ask YC: Which startup is really over-hyped? - <AUTHOR>

Which startup do you think is really over-valued and over-hyped? <comment><USER2> Facebook

<comment><USER3> I agree! Facebook is just a fad, it will go the way of Friendster, and Myspace

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> twitter

</comment><comment><USER5> friendfeed</comment>


Microsoft is now installing Windows 10 without the user's permission - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnet.com/news/microsoft-windows-10-upgrades-get-more-sneaky-pushy/ <comment><AUTHOR> After having not used my computer for a few days, I look over today to see it running a Windows 10 installation on its own. Microsoft pulls sneaky, dishonest moves like that, then wants the world to trust them with all of our personal data.

<comment><USER2> You mean, you first trust Microsoft with your data by using Windows, and then suddenly you don't trust them?

<comment><AUTHOR> I was referring to Windows 10 data collection, which captures keystrokes and location info and sends it off to Microsoft. I don't trust them with such extensive data collection, which is why I did not want to install windows 10 in the first place. And I trust them even less now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is why I hope ReactOS makes progress.</comment>


Ask HN: Who can solder tiny wires to tiny devices? - <AUTHOR>

I need to find a person or service or whatever that can solder a very fine two-conductor-plus-shield cable I have to the three pads of a batch of ten very tiny MEMS microphones and I don't know where to begin.  Can anyone here advise me?  Even to tell me an appropriate place to ask if Ask HN isn't.
The dimensions of the MEMs microphones are 2.75mm L x 1.85mm W x 1.00mm H.  It can be seen here: http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/SPV0840LR5H-B/423-1214-1-ND/4376286
I don't have a picture of the coax cable but it is flattened and isn't as wide as is the MEMS.
I'm an independent inventor in retirement and don't have deep pockets.
P.S. Why the hell do I get the ubiquitous "link unknown or expired" trying to submit this. <comment><USER2> That's not an outrageously difficult part to solder by modern standards. Anyone with a modicum of soldering experience should be able to tackle the job with the right technique and a little practice.

The preferred approach is simply to use a wide chisel tip soldering iron and plenty of flux to make all the joints in one pass, and if necessary clean up the area with desoldering wick. That's the traditional method for soldering fine-pitch SMD ICs and works remarkably well, as it relies on the wetting behaviour of the solder rather than any particular dexterity or skill. The solder won't wet to the body of the package, only to the pads, so any bridges between the pads will naturally be drawn away by capillary action. As long as the wires are neatly tinned it should all go quite smoothly. A search for "drag soldering" should yield lots more information, including a number of demonstrations on YouTube.

If necessary, a basic jig to hold the part and wires could be easily constructed using a small piece of dense hardwood and a scalpel. I'd probably just hold the cable and part in place with Blu Tack and align the wires with fine tweezers.

<comment><AUTHOR> I should have mentioned that I'm 70 and my hands have long been too unsteady to attempt this myself (if in fact they ever were.)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub6wj1aso2mog1y/IMG_0002_.JPG](https://www.dropbox.com/s/ub6wj1aso2mog1y/IMG_0002_.JPG)

</comment><comment><USER3> Google "maker groups", and see if there are opportunities to ask those communities of people that "make" new electronics and robotic stuff as a hobby and community of friendly collaborators.

(Report back if you're successful.)

(The expired error message is a time-out message on this particular forum. It annoys everyone.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea. That's long been a search that I felt would open a Pandora's box I might never again climb out of. :-)

I found the Instructables which has a lot of excellent craftsmen and asked in their forum. Fingers crossed.

FWIW I really would like to know why my question was voted down to help me understand the ethic (esthetic) here?

<comment><USER4> I can't see any place that a question of yours was downvoted. Perhaps it just seemed so? If you have a more specific question please send it to us at firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Check out the list of hack/maker spaces here to see if there's one close to you - most will have people who can help you: [http://hackspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hack_Spaces](http://hackspaces.org/wiki/List_of_Hack_Spaces)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. There are a couple within 50 miles of me that I've looked into but they require rather expensive memberships in order to get in and find out if anyone inside might be able to do it.

If I come up empty I will go on over and see if there are any old fashioned bulletin boards on which I could post a help note without paying for a membership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would suggest looking into clamping it and using hot air soldering. There are some videos on YouTube.

<comment><AUTHOR> I just ordered a hot air soldering station and some Gold Kapton polyamide high temp tape to hold everything in place for it and avoid my tremor problem (not particularly bad but too bad for this.) I've got a feeling I can make this work.

I had never thought of adding this device to my bag of tricks and now that I have I'm thinking of many uses that have been more than difficult in the past. Many thanks.</comment></comment>


Automating production at China factory reduces 80% of workforce - <AUTHOR> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20120627PD210.html

<comment><USER3> Products get cheaper due to automation, so people buy more stuff. Laid off workers eventually become robot technicians or designers. Some may never adapt but the same be said for any western country that has lost factories to the east.

</comment><comment><USER4> Can someone put this in context? Is this an inkling of things to come? I'm curious about how the trend toward automation, away from human labor, will affect unemployment and disaffection in China.

</comment><comment><USER5> My understanding was that it is strictly a numbers game: workers are used when they are cheaper than robots, and vice versa.

</comment><comment><USER6> circle of life

<comment><USER7> Not so much a circle. More like an arrow. Pointing downward. This isn't going to end pretty in the long term.

<comment><USER8> Why? When did it become a universal truth that human labor must be employed in producing the widgets we consume? Throughout history human labor has been replaced by automation. Some pain is always involved, but society eventually repurposes that human labor to more efficient uses of their skills.

<comment><USER7> By the same token, I don't think it is a universal truth that human labor will _always_ be able repurpose itself and/or do so in a way that doesn't involve tremendous human suffering.

<comment><USER8> It always involves some amount of suffering. Entire generations of people have found themselves in a life dedicated to an obsolete skill. Does that mean we should limit the use of, say, printing machines so that people may be gainfully employed manually copying books?

What you're suggesting seems to be to limit innovation for the sake of comfort. A society that buys such a line of thought is far more doomed than the one who may or may not innovate themselves obsolete.

<comment><USER7> Hey, I am not suggesting there's a solution-- let alone even suggesting that we preserve jobs by "limiting innovation" (if that could even be done). All I am trying say is that there had better be something hard thinking about what will happen to people whose jobs become obsolete in large numbers. If recent history is any indication, it seems that we're NOT headed towards increasing the size of the welfare state. Instead we're seeing larger and large rifts between the haves and the have-nots. That's a serious problem and not one that has an easy solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I hope all the people who were so critical of Foxconn are prepared for the consequences. From what we've seen Foxconn were so rattled by it that they are investing massively in robotic automation. To the detriment of hundreds of thousands of poorer workers and the millions that they impact.

This ignorance and arrogance on the part of mainly Western countries to judge places they've never visited really needs to stop. Yes we need to maintain basic human rights. But we also need to be mindful that one man's exploitation is another man's livelihood.

<comment><USER10> It sounds like you'd prefer that rote labor not be automated. Should the potential for a post-scarcity society be abandoned because it costs a few jobs in the short term?

<comment><USER11> In order to live and avoid starvation, people require a minimum amount of income. There are two things they can use to produce income: work and assets (i.e. house renting).

As automation continues to elevate the standard of employable "work", there will be a lot of people that don't have the required education to be employable, nor sufficient savings to get an education, nor enough assets to generate sustainable living from them.

I'm all for the benefits of automation, but we should have a solution for the above scenario before saying it will be all roses and sunny days. What do we do with these people? Are we willing to get them to an upper level of knowledge via free education supported by higher taxation? Are we going to guarantee minimum income levels or a minimum set of assets to every person to be able to sustain themselves while being educated?

Those are difficult questions, and in a changing world where it's not enough to want to work in order to find a job, answers are needed...

<comment><USER12> As countries get richer there is more and more affordable education. In other words, higher job productivity from those who can get jobs means higher contributions to help those who can't.

And even if one doesn't have a high-level education, being "poor" in a developed country affords a better lifestyle than being "middle class" in that very same country a few decades ago. In other words, the same minimum wage dollar buys many times more goods. The cost savings spread everywhere - <USER2> post-scarcity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> And now other countries start doing the same as the US did 100 years ago. Soon they'll be outsourcing jobs too, though IDK to whom. Soon there won't be any cheap labor as the rest of the world catches up!!

Or maybe super poor countries will start being better off .... hmmm

<comment><USER14> The next destination for labor is Africa.

I'm really interested to see what happens after that though, when there is comparatively little wage arbitrage opportunities remaining.

<comment><USER15> >I'm really interested to see what happens after that though, when there is comparatively little wage arbitrage opportunities remaining.

Post-labor economies driven by efficiency improvements from technological advancement.

Most of the western world lives dissipatively save for a cohort of knowledge workers fighting for prestige and social proof. (You already see this in the startup industry with those who have enough money to retire on.)

Those that don't adapt to the non-necessity for everybody to be working will experience tumult.

<comment><USER16> What do you mean by dissipatively?

My dictionary hasn't caught up with your vocabulary yet ;)

<comment><USER15> Imagine what most people would do if they no longer had to work to survive.

Sit around, watch TV, etc.

<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dissipative>

Specifically: "To indulge in the intemperate pursuit of pleasure."

Contains a more...nihilistic edge than hedonism though.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DoorDash raises $535M, now valued at $1.4B - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/01/doordash-series-d/ <comment><USER2> I haven't used DoorDash but my experience with food delivery services has been average. As a bachelor I loved them until I found out these companies use multiple ways to add up charges. Most of the time restaurant cost in-shop vs cost app varies a lot. Then they charge some kind of "packing charges". Including delivery fee some times the delivery price is 25% more than restaurant prices.

When I talked to some of the restaurants, they said these guys can take up to 30% of the food cost. It means DoorDash et al, can take up to 50% of an order.

So, I find it surprising that these guys still struggle to become profitable.

I also think that this whole phenomena might actually end up pushing restaurant prices up to the detriment of consumers.

<comment><USER3> Same here. On top of that, the delivery itself can be pretty sub par. I had one delivery person not understand the concept of entering in a code on a keypad to get into an apartment building. Not having difficulties entering the code, mind you, but not knowing what the keypad was even for.

<comment><USER4> Postmates delivery folks never ever read the delivery instructions, I have to send them all the callbox code via the app when they are close, and 25% of them still call and have no idea what to do. DoorDash folks at least read the instructions..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In China where delivery of all kinds is omnipresent (the other day we even ordered someone to go shop for us and had the makings for breakfast arrive within half an hour!) it feels to me that people are beginning to see the limitations of prepared food delivery.

While it's always great to get some food when you're hungry, the waiting involved in a typical order is 45min+ and the experience never matches eat-in or self-made due to factors like post-cook cool-down while in transit, corresponding ingredient visual and textural degradation, timing unpredictability (what if I need to bury myself in work or have a conference call? I don't want someone at the doorbell suddenly interrupting), etc. Limited hours of availability also suck, as do random phone calls about parking/access/are-you-around/etc.

Some of these problems are impossible to completely solve as orders tend to be heavily grouped at peak periods, and driver and vehicle fleet size cannot be realistically optimized for short term burst demand patterns without substantially increasing costs.

<comment><USER6> Except unlike here in NA, the cost of a delivered meal in China is often times less than their in-restaurant equivalent. The delivery platforms there are still offering large discounts, and it's not only for new users.

For example is common to see restaurants offering, 15 rmb off for orders over 50 rmb.

<comment><USER5> The cost is less because:

(1) the restaurant has limited sit down space and chef time during peak periods;

(2) eating times in China are highly regimented (office lunch hour dominates);

(3) delivery customers by default can tolerate higher volatility in meal completion schedule;

(4) the actual cost to the restaurant for a 50RMB meal outside of the the limited sit down space represented by high rental costs and the chef's salary (already paid by peak hour sit-down customers) is negligible, often under 10RMB including ingredients, cooking energy and packaging;

(5) delivery platforms are battling for market share.

In short, the primary issue running a conventional restaurant is limited temporal and spatial bandwidth to serve customers. Delivery takes advantage of resources already spent toward the primary issues, so can be substantially discounted without loss.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of the big players should launch a giant warehouse - serving as a giant kitchen. Capable of cooking all kinds of different varieties of cuisine and tons of automation. And a huge staff of well-trained chefs cooking, and delivering to a ~50 mile radius.

I'd imagine they'd open this in - say Fremont - and deliver to the entire bay area.

It would be great, because I could order Mexican food for me, Indian food for the wife, and the kids could have a couple hamburgers.

Seems like something Amazon would be good at.

<comment><USER8> >One of the big players should launch a giant warehouse - serving as a giant kitchen. Capable of cooking all kinds of different varieties of cuisine and tons of automation. And a huge staff of well-trained chefs cooking, and delivering to a ~50 mile radius.

They did, it was called SpoonRocket. I loved it, you could get a decent meal delivered in under 5 minutes. But they failed horribly because the economics just don't work out [0].

[https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/15/spoonrocket-shuts- down/](https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/15/spoonrocket-shuts-down/) [0]

<comment><USER9> >SpoonRocket had reached a positive contribution margin — it was selling meals for more than it cost to cook, package, and deliver them. But due to other costs and the frosty fundraising climate, it wasn't able to get the money it needed to continue operating.

I wouldn't describe that as "failing horribly". They just couldn't raise money. I was under the impression that they were turning a profit. Maybe this article isn't accurate, do you have other information? I'm actually quite interested in this story, seems like a cool idea but I imagine the financial side of this needs to be really well managed. So many possible places that costs could get away from you.

<comment><USER10> Others in this space: Sprig (failed) and Munchery (still around) come to mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> My guess is they're raising to follow the path of deliveroo: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/24/deliveroo- raises-385m/](https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/24/deliveroo-raises-385m/) which is opening kitchens to allow restaurants to increase production (and, who knows, maybe create a few brands of their own).

Ah, middlemen. There's always a peril in letting someone else own your customer.

</comment><comment><USER12> Doordash is a tire fire. 10x worse than Uber Eats for basic service. My experience is less than 50% success at delivering what I ordered. Missing items, wrong items, wrong totals, completely failed deliveries, and non- equitable compensation. Then, shit follow up when they fail. I'll savor in more than a little Shadenfreud when they fold.

<comment><USER13> I have ordered with Doordash 10-15 times. It failed me only once when the "dasher" delivered my food to a random neighbor (who actually ate all of it)

<comment><USER12> Guess it's a regional issue then. Upvoted. Dfw is honestly terrible. Less than 50/50\. I'd be embarrassed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wow that's a lot of dilution for a late stage round. I feel bad for the employees that suddenly have their equity cut by 60%. If I'm doing my math right, ($865 MM pre-money) then it means even with the higher valuation preferred price goes down

<comment><USER15> Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the preferred price stay flat, even with dilution? The company issues new shares and sells them at e.g. the current preferred price. Now there are more outstanding shares, and a higher post- money valuation, but a close to flat pre-money valuation. In this case the preferred price in real percentage of the company terms is higher since there are now more shares outstanding, but the price per share is flat.

I imagine the 409a (common stock price went down), but I don't think you can infer from this that the preferred price went down. The missing figure is how many shares were issued.

<comment><USER16> Is there like a good blog post out there that can explain the difference between preferred and common stock, dilution, and all the other nuanced things about equity?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I really want to like all of these services. I've used Grubhub, Uber Eats and DoorDash. My problem with them is that it costs way more than eating at the restaurant. It's usually 30% - 40% of the cost of the food for delivery, service fees and tip.

I've always wondered why it wasn't cheaper to do take out than eat at a restaurant. I'm not taking up a parking space, table, using facilities, or taking up as much of the employees time but I still incur that overhead.

<comment><USER18>
      I've always wondered why it wasn't cheaper to do take out
      than eat at a restaurant. I'm not taking up a parking
      space, table, using facilities, or taking up as much of the
      employees time but I still incur that overhead.

You're also not buying high-margin drinks or being swayed to buy the specials (which are often used to balance inventory).

<comment><USER19> The impact of drinks really can't be overstated. As a booze-loving city, Portland restaurant's economy is especially interesting. At least half of the meals I eat out are at bars and you can get a quality meal for $8-12. But this all hinges on drinks subsidizing the rest of the meal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "Xu said the company became "contribution margin positive" in the last year, which means that it's profitable on a per-order basis. In fact, DoorDash has become profitable in its earliest markets."

Its funny this is a milestone for a company at this stage. Congrats you aren't losing money on every order!

<comment><USER21> > Congrats you aren't losing money on every order!

I think this misunderstands how marketplaces are built. Traditional economics would agree with you and say that selling $1 at $0.90 is insanity. Traditional economics have been slow to catch up with marketplace economics although there have been some recent papers that start explaining a better framework.

If you know that a marketplace has strong network efforts and improved performance at scale. The right strategy is to understand the trade-off between time and $ required to get to scale in your marketplace.

The optimal strategy often means subsidizing a market at a price below your actual cost for early markets. The fact that Door Dash talks about their business in terms of early vs. late markets with different economics means that they are using this playbook.

There are of course many companies that think they are building a marketplace with a network effect when they are actually just losing money. I don't know DoorDash specifically.

<comment><USER22> I'm not sure I even understand what the network effects are here. I _guess_ there are some potential efficiencies with having a single delivery company that handles deliveries rather than individual restaurants but it seems like a stretch. People I know who live in cities tend to just have a stack of take- out pizza/Chinese food/etc. menus for places that deliver (or not). Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't really seem like an area that's crying out for "disruption."

<comment><USER23> Using DoorDash or UberEats as your delivery service instead of building your delivery staff in-house is like using AWS or DO instead of building your own in-house ops team. Since most delivery workflows are pretty much identical (go to restaurant, pick up food, deliver food), it seems like any restaurant other than a "typical delivery" place would benefit from using someone else's infrastructure.

<comment><USER22> Except that "building your delivery staff in-house" more or less consists of hiring some teenagers to work for tips. It's not exactly architecting a datacenter. Furthermore, delivery is going to inherently be a local business even if you're a nationwide company.

I actually do think that there's something to be said for having a standardized service that a restaurant already offering take out can just sign up for. Maybe delivery is something they just never got around to offering. It just seems like a service that's hard to do well at a price people are willing to pay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I won't use them after I tried one of their 'free delivery' codes and then the next time I went to place the same order it came out to the exact same price with delivery included, they seemed to have increased the price of the food to cover it the previous time.

<comment><USER25> The problem I have with doordash is that though they say the delivery fee is $x, there are a lot of hidden charges. You are actually paying a lot more than that, a markup on food items + a delivery fee + 8% service fee + taxes + 15% tip (optional but selected by default) + a small order fee (if your order is less than a predefined min order value)

For instance, there's a a particular dish served at a local restaurant that I like, and I recently noticed that it is $11.99 at the restaurant but in doordash it's priced $13.99, delivery fee of $4.99, service fees of $1.88 and optional but pre-selected tip of $3.81. And, of course taxes in addition to this. At this point in some cases, its perhaps more economical to take an uber/lyft to the restaurant and back.

<comment><USER26> DoorDash doesn't mark up menu prices any more, at least in my market. Supposedly restaurants didnt like the hidden markup, so they moved all of their fees into the delivery fee and the service fee.

Its not terribly fair to consider taxes and tip as "hidden charges", IMO. The taxes you pay even if you go to the restaurant yourself, and the tip is the majority of what the drivers get paid -- they dont work for free. I'd prefer a flat driver's fee, though, its not twice as much work for someone to deliver $50 of food vs $25, so I generally don't make large orders on DoorDash.

<comment><USER25> I agree taxes are not hidden charges, but it does sound a little deceitful to me that doordash bundles taxes with their service fee as one line item on their checkout page.

And, I don't share the same sympathy for the doordash drivers. I was already charged a delivery fee and a service fee separately, why is it still my responsibility to make sure the drivers get paid enough and not doordash's. Besides, the idea of tip for me is that I pay extra if I am happy with the service, and now I am expected to mindlessly pre-pay a tip before knowing if the service is going to be good or not. A reason why I prefer ubereatz, its a rating system but after the delivery.

<comment><USER27> The crazy thing is with all those fees, service charges, and markups they are still just barely contribution margin profitable.

Amazon Prime Now / Restaurants guarantees a delivery driver a certain wage (say $XX/hr, depends on market). However what that really means is while your tip is _technically_ going to the driver, until they exceed $XX/hr, you're just saving Amazon from having to pay them instead. I still tip, but my generosity went down when I realized that most of my tip is really just a handout to Amazon.

<comment><USER28> I think NY state forced them to hand over tips to drivers (at least they did for GrubHub/Seamless), but I don't know if that has changed in other markets.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I really hope they use some of this money to better screen dashers and improve customer support.

We used to order lunch on Doordash once a week till things got so bad that we decided never to use Doordash again. Orders would regularly have missing or incorrect items. Some dashers would leave the food in the lobby, text me, and leave. Delivery was hardly ever on time and there was no way to get in touch with a human on customer care except through some unlisted numbers. We've switched to Caviar([https://www.trycaviar.com](https://www.trycaviar.com)) since and have no complaints.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm surprised I've never heard of them before. Are they doing the same thing as Uber Eats, Postmates, Eat24, GrubHub, Amazon Restaurants, etc? That seems like a really tough market to succeed in. How is so much money being funneled into it?

<comment><USER31> DoorDash is literally a Postmates clone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Food delivery has officially become a very frothy market. Is GrubHub/Seamless actually vulnerable? They seemed to be the 800 lb gorilla of the market. And based on my observation, the competition seems to be private labelled delivery service.

<comment><USER33> They're all pretty much mediocre. GrubHub especially I avoid after having several orders simply disappear without warning. Waiting an hour only to check by calling up the place and finding out they never got the order is frustrating. Twice and I was done, I just call now for delivery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I don't understand the appeal of DoorDash, I had an ad pop up for free delivery for a first time user and I happened to not have my car that day so I thought I would give it a go. "free" delivery only got rid of 1 of 3 service charges which had me spending $6 on top of a $9 dollar meal (not including tip). And that was "free" delivery for the first time I ever used the service.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is purely anecdotal, but I've never had a good experience with this service. But I have some friends that are so lazy they don't care if it takes 2 hours for the food to arrive, so that works in their favor.

</comment><comment><USER36> DoorDash seems to cater to the 1%. Even when we had free lunches at work ($10^7 funding), we avoided using DoorDash. For two people, we would end up paying the equivalent cost of three people.

I enjoyed DoorDash's interface and checkout experience, but +50% is a high premium for delivery, especially if you're close to food. If I live in the middle of a city and I'm only getting food for a few people, I usually just walk. I wonder if DoorDash would be more useful for very large parties (N > 10).

</comment><comment><USER37> I swore not to use doordash anymore after a few bad experiences even if after placing a complain for each occurence I got $10 off the next order (resetting the fee and the tip.) Beside some of their fees are high. Mind you, I would still use them if the service was great. From incomplete orders to bad CS to cold food on arrival to even missing the basics of delivering location, I can't believe this is getting popular.

</comment><comment><USER38> This is a business that should be run by a company that can afford to lose money while subsidizing it by connecting the userbase to their other businesses, for example Amazon.

Basically they're sandwiched between both the vendors and the users who both want cheap price--users want cheap delivery, vendors don't want to pay a lot for delivery service.

Just look at the dilution based on this single raise, I'm guessing the founders are so diluted out at this point that there's not enough motivation to go on further unless there's a black swan type success to their business. I'm guessing the only reason they're raising this much is so they can work the same strategy of growing userbase with no viable plan and then selling to a larger company like Amazon or Google, or try to merge with companies like GrubHub.

Personally, I've only used doordash for their "free delivery" options, but stopped using them when I realized their "free" is not actually free, and they have hidden their cost into other parts of the price, which actually makes it much more expensive, not to mention it's unethical.

</comment><comment><USER39> I had bad experiences with doordash. I ordered a pizza. It showed up 40 minutes after the estimate. It was cold. It was all messed up. Driver apologized and said she dropped it and took off.

Being an Uber eats user I wasn't worried as I went into the app and said what happened. App did nothing immediately. In a few minutes got a template email saying "sorry, we'll give you your $5.99 delivery fee back" Didn't happen. Emailed support saying what happened, no response.

Uber Eats is on top of food orders. Any errors result in new deliveries to replace or refunds on food.

I assume that a company with bad customer service agorithms has other problems. I tried again and it was ok. But don't use them as alternatives are way better.

</comment><comment><USER40> I deeply despite those third-party food delivery services. The people delivering the food are often working for less than minimum wage and are mostly using their private equipment (smartphone, bicycle, car) for delivering.

One might argue that people then should not work for those services but on the contrary why don't the services pay a fair wage and provide vehicles and devices necessary for the job? If the price gets too high, then maybe there is no market.

All of this ignoring that SV venture capital is subsidizing the erosion of other comparable jobs at small businesses that try to pay their delivery drivers a fair wage.

<comment><USER41> I could probably develop a network of 5 driving-age teens in my neighborhood, call in an order at a restaurant, and then send out a "who wants to make 10$ cash picking this up for me?" group SMS. I'm sure the service would be better and I'm sure they would make more money than through DoorDash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Wow, seems like everyone is taking 40% dilution on this deal and SoftBank probably has huge liquidity preference. I believe DoorDash's last round was also done with a multiplier on the liquidity preference. Crazy.

</comment><comment><USER43> Unfortunately I no longer use DoorDash. The concept was amazing, but I've had one too many questionable people deliver my food that the last time it happened I didn't even eat it.

I'm a huge fan of the "1 million jobs" type of companies like this, but there's a level of trust that comes with allowing someone to handle the food you eat. I'm not even a judgemental individual, and I hate people that are, but I shouldn't feel uncomfortable about my food delivery. I now go get my own food. Oh well.

<comment><USER44> My mom never used to let us order pizza delivery because she didn't want a pizza delivery guy to know who we were and where we lived. Remember going out to the pizza shop in 5 degree F weather with my dad.

<comment><USER45> I'm well into my 40s with numerous kids and I still drive to the pizza place to pickup whenever I order. I never understood delivery unless there is some urgent need to stay home.

<comment><USER46> It's Sunday. You're extremely hungover. Chinese food sounds great. What's not to understand about ordering delivery? Ultimately it boils down to convenience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Doordash has frequent system-wide outages.

[https://twitter.com/DoorDash_Help](https://twitter.com/DoorDash_Help)

During their outages your items will never arrive, your order may still appear as active and customer support may handle your case in 48 hours. Plus, their outage messages are misleading.

On the other hand, Amazon almost never has outages, you can live chat with support at any moment, and if they're slightly late they will even give you money.

<comment><USER48> >On the other hand, Amazon

Amazon does restaurant delivery?

<comment><USER47> as a part of Amazon prime now

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> DoorDash in particular is exorbitantly expensive. Absolutely terrible markup and horrible experiences ordering through them. They're on my list of personal trade embargoed companies along with Dell and Domino's. Hmm. All three are "D" companies (and also their names start with the letter "D").

</comment><comment><USER50> Why would you sell a third of your company? Do you need 0.5b to run ops? Who would invest so much when the "value" is 1.5b? Unless they already think it's worth multiple times more? But then the opposite party doesn't think so? Can somebody explain please?

</comment><comment><USER51> Since moving just outside of Portland, none of these delivery companies cover my area with the exception of uber eats. It's insane considering how many large corps are all around (intel, nike, etc).

Edit: Apparently grubhub decided my address was in their area, nice!

<comment><USER22> The availability of most of these delivery services seems to be very dependent on density and demographics. You get out of the core metro areas of relatively large cities and the options for these types of services tends to decrease dramatically.

<comment><USER51> I think in my case its more of my address being brand new. Hell, the zipcode fails validation on a lot of sites even since they just recently split it apart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> If you are "Per order profitable", why do you need 535M USD? I dont get valley valuations/Metrics..

<comment><USER53> Because you need money to cover fixed costs.

<comment><USER52> But if you need 535M USD to effectively deliver pizzas... I think you are doing it wrong. Specially if you make money on every order.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Just put $1 billion into a bank account for your lemonade stand and claim you started the newest Unicorn! ...</comment>