Equity investing in superstar individuals (not their companies, them) - <AUTHOR> http://emergentfool.com/2009/10/30/investing-in-superstars/

<comment><USER2> Lessin's comments are the only smart ones.

At an abstract level there's some appeal to this notion.

At a practical level not so much, though, and that's even before you get into the nitty-gritty mechanics (like tax law here lol).

The adverse selection risk is huge, unless you go for very young people. What this means is that for people who're already "established" and/or have a track record:

\- if they have a worthwhile idea they won't have trouble getting better, cheaper funding than this

\- ergo if they're asking you for this kind of funding:

\-- they either blew through their previous earnings and don't have a concrete idea to pursue next (NOT GOOD!)

\-- or they aren't actually that "established" / lack a track record, and therefore are actually exactly the kind of people you don't want to invest in like this

...so pretty much investing in people proven-successful won't be happening.

We can roll back and consider younger people -- those too young to have any great success to there name yet -- and now there's some possibility here: catching brilliant people on the way up and giving them a further hand up.

Your problem here is that:

\- you're competing with student loans as a choice of funding; for a student to pick your investment over a student loan it has to be a better offer. For any student that anticipates serious success you'll have a hard time being a better offer in terms of net payout; student loans are painful b/c their payback is frontloaded into the postgraduation years, which are at the point of the lowest lifetime earnings potential...but in net amount 3% of lifetime earnings will be much greater than the total amount of student loan payments.

\- most of the really talented individuals won't even need your money, as there's an unbelievable wealth of grants and scholarships and fellowships for the truly exceptional in all walks of life (science, music, athletics, etc.) that they pretty much don't need funding until after they graduate. After graduation they _might_ take you up on the offer but as time passes they become ever-more-likely to be able to raise cheaper funding for whatever they desire

...so even going after the young'ins leaves you unlikely to be attracting the people you'd want to invest in.

Which means good luck: even if you had the money together if you extend the offer at a price that'll leave you likely to turn a profit it's unlikely to be compelling to anyone you'd want to invest in.

And if that doesn't dissuade you think about the tax law implications: given how easy it would be to do an end-run around inheritance + gift-tax law with this type of "investment" -- and that that this end-run route isn't being taken 24/7, etc. -- I can guarantee you the recipient of this "investment" is going to be taxed on it as income (or at even worse rates, perhaps)...which means the math for the recipient is even worse:

\- your investee now has to decide if, say, 125k or so (about what'll be left out of a 250k investment after taxes) is worth 3% a year

...which further contributes to the adverse selection issue as you're only really offering half as much as you think you are.

<comment><USER3> _\- you're competing with student loans as a choice of funding; for a student to pick your investment over a student loan it has to be a better offer. For any student that anticipates serious success you'll have a hard time being a better offer in terms of net payout; student loans are painful b/c their payback is frontloaded into the postgraduation years, which are at the point of the lowest lifetime earnings potential...but in net amount 3% of lifetime earnings will be much greater than the total amount of student loan payments.

\- most of the really talented individuals won't even need your money, as there's an unbelievable wealth of grants and scholarships and fellowships for the truly exceptional in all walks of life (science, music, athletics, etc.) that they pretty much don't need funding until after they graduate. After graduation they might take you up on the offer but as time passes they become ever-more-likely to be able to raise cheaper funding for whatever they desire_

You're making the assumption that the person would choose to use the money on schooling. Student loans come with that terrible string attached. This investment would not.

<comment><USER2> This is a valid point, and a helpful one also.

Keep in mind that I'm already ruling out people with substantial established track records of prior accomplishment, leaving you with:

\- people mid 30s or older without any kind of track record to speak of (UNLIKELY TO BE A GOOD INVESTMENT!)

\- kids in the 18-25 y/o bracket, eg old enough to sign a contract but not-yet with a track record

So if we have someone 18-25 with a tangible track record (eg: successful software / website / invention / artistic performance record / etc.) they're out of the picture; we're left with 18-25 y/o's with promise but nothing else.

In most fields it's not _impossible_ to pull off a huge success without the training acquired in at least an undergraduate program but it's very _unlikely_ in most scientific fields (and if you were the type who could do it you'd probably also already have enough of a tangible track record that you'd not really be part of the group we're considering atm anyways).

EG: you're almost certainly not going to do anything significant in biology or medicine or chemistry or engineering or materials science or semiconductors or optoelectronics (and even football and basketball) without the training usually acquired as an undergrad (let alone in grad school).

So yeah: the money not being tied to college would have its appeal but putting on the investor's hat for a second someone without a plan for acquiring that level of training looks like a bad bet unless there are further mitigating factors.

Which is why I think the assumption is still mostly warranted, even if it shouldn't be taken for granted (as it was in my previous response).

But, what is helpful is this points in the direction of selecting candidates who would benefit from this program: musicians and other artists.

In many musical + artistic genres a couple hundred upfront in exchange for a cut of lifetime earnings is much better than the deal they typically get now. There's not necessarily a ton of fledgling artists out there who'd actually be good investments but it's a niche where the offer may make a fair amount of sense from both sides.

Essentially you should be asking: what potentially-highly-remunerative "career paths" are (a) open to people in their early-mid 20s and (b) such that star talents exist and (c) such that star talents would find this type of investing a better option than their existing funding options.

<comment><USER3> _you're almost certainly not going to do anything significant in biology or medicine or chemistry or engineering or materials science or semiconductors or optoelectronics (and even football and basketball) without the training usually acquired as an undergrad (let alone in grad school)._

Perhaps this is a direct consequence of the lack of alternative funding? Our society is structured in such a way that you're expected to be doing one of two things at all times: work or school. If you choose to spend time exploring the world in your own way, you're seen as wasting your time and given no support by anyone. As a consequence, this is rarely a feasible choice.

Opportunities such as these are extraordinarily rare, but we have essentially no modern data on how people who have such opportunities fare.

That said, we do have historical data: virtually all academic progress (scientific, philosophical, etc.) has historically been made by the aristocracy -- by people who could spend their time "being idle", neither working nor schooling, and think about big problems.

<comment><USER2> Eh, I don't think the reason you don't see 18 y/o people doing significant work in materials science isn't directly the lack of alternate funding; it's that there's no alternate funding for 18 y/o to do materials science b/c without proper background training they're unlikely to make any material progress in the field.

This is the same reason there's no "alternate funding" for bright but undistinguished 45-y/o people with no prior background in materials science to go and do materials science (short of education loans for late-life career changers); it's a field that requires lots of education (in the sense of learning) and specialized skills and someone without those skills isn't likely to accomplish anything on the investment.

Generally yes: advances come when you pair motivation to investigate topics of interest with freedom from more-mundane considerations and access to the necessary resources to make advances (idleness, if you will); as the frontiers of most applied sciences have gotten out of the reach of what wealthy dilettantes can easily afford you don't see them making many advances (but you do see plenty of advances in industry and academia, still, both of which allow their researchers enough of those things to make advances and both of which -- unlike most wealthy individuals -- can afford the tools many times over again).

Please note that I was careful to say that the prospective 18 y/o outsider materials scientist (or what have you) needed the training usually acquired in a university context; I deliberately _did not_ say that they needed a _university education_.

It seems that for most bright-and-motivated types they could easily accelerate that training substantially if they had more freedom to choose courses a-la- carte; the loans-for-college approach currently doesn't allow for that kind of discretion, but a more financially-secure student would be better-placed to negotiate that.

All that being said: there's almost no way that someone without the _equivalent_ of that kind of training in an applied science will make material contributions to that field; at present economic constraints make it very hard to obtain even the _equivalent_ of that training short of actually going to school and getting a degree (at which entails putting up with all the bs and time-wasting stuff that that entails).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interestingly, some of you find this disturbing. Out of curiosity, if we work backwards from the percentage of annual income taken, what percentage of you does the government own?

<comment><USER5> Perhaps I can explain the disturbtion?

My taxes to the government are more of an exchange of services. My government gives me roads to drive on, schools to send my kids to, police, fire department, parks, regulation of various industries, labor laws, military protection from hostile governments (among other things including the potential betterment and presumed increased safety of society).

To wit, my taxes are my end of a tacit social contract that I have made with my government. Because it is a social contract, the purpose of it is not profit, but instead the betterment of mankind in general.

When you compare the benefit received by paying taxes to the benefit of a lump sum payment (which could be had just as easily in the form of a loan), you realize how little you are getting from this investment plan.

But I think that my specific revulsion comes from having read plenty of literature (Shakespearian and pre) and knowing that usury is a sin.

<comment><USER6> False analogies.

Taxes are forced on us, not chosen. They do support some betterment of mankind, but the inefficiency is bad for mankind. Taxes are an order of magnitude higher, and the individual benefits are usually far less.

Loans are paid back plus interest on a fixed schedule. These aren't. Most investees will profit from the transaction even without TVOM.

Don't like lump sums? Just convert it to guaranteed monthly income for life by buying an annuity. Rates are low right now due to the economy, but you'll still get ~$2k/mo for a $400k lump sum.. and you can get things like inflation adjustment too.

"You'll never be poor" is usually worth more than "a few percent of your income" plus the right to buy it back.

<comment><USER5> Whether or not I'm wrong, where are the analogies?

Taxes are indeed forced upon us, but you benefit directly from the system that taxes support. If you do not want to pay taxes, you always have the option to leave the safety of the system (move to another country or declare war on the country taxing you).

Although it is likely infeasible and anti-social to declare war (however, it has been done many times), I don't doubt you could find a country with lower taxes. The issue, however, would then be being able to make the same amount of money as you would in a country with higher taxes. That is to say, you get what you pay for.

Essentially you are discounting (wholesale!) the benefits that you, the individual, derive from having a working system of government. Yes, the immediate and obvious benefits are small, but the benefits that you essentially take for granted, certainly are not small.

I think the quote that life would be "nasty, brutish, and short".

I did the math prior to posting and I do realize that (depending on the sum of money), it could be a very good deal for the investee.

It just seems to have elements of a Faustian bargain.

<comment><USER6> _Whether or not I'm wrong, where are the analogies?_

Yeah, not a great choice of words on my part. Using descriptions of taxes, loans, and usury in the explanation of what disturbed you about this investment deal seems at least close to the definition of analogy though.

 _The issue, however, would then be being able to make the same amount of money as you would in a country with higher taxes. That is to say, you get what you pay for._

That seems unlikely. I'd get the exact same benefits in this country if I'd paid <10% of the taxes I already have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This would really make sense for students. A lot of kids go through universities and wind up scared about their college debt. On average their expected improvement in future returns is more than enough to make up for it. But individually people are running a scary risk. If you can solve that and spread risk across many people, it should average out in your favor.

If you have enough money to do this and seek to invest, I would highly recommend going after academically successful but poor kids. They are the ones who are most likely to drop out of university or go to a community college instead because student debt is too scary for them. That is because their belief about likely future income is based on people they know, which is far out of whack with what educated people can make. But their life choices are likely to leave them at what they expect.

At a practical level this means that you have room to structure the deal so you get better average returns than a loan, they are better off after accepting your deal than they would be if they don't go to university, and they are better off than they would have been if they earn what they think reasonable. Everyone wins.

</comment><comment><USER8> A variant on this that I've seen proposed is: find a (medical student | apprentice plumber | law student | etc) that you think is talented and honest. Pay his/her way through school and provide enough money to get them comfortably set up. They now owe you free service for the rest of their career in that field.

<comment><USER7> The problem is that the amount of that student's future work you can reasonably consume is far less than the cost of their education.

<comment><USER9> Well, this could be a good strategy for patent trolls.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This has been discussed here before. I can't believe someone actually did it.

<comment><USER11> It makes a lot more sense when you realize that Rafe Furst and Phil Gordon are poker players. Poker players are amongst the most creative "investors" I've ever seen. They love playing around with interesting odds to see how it turns out.

If Matt Maroon gets in to this thread, I'm sure he has some interesting war stories about poker guys getting big stacks of money into bizarre schemes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It really doesn't seem all that different from sports contracts with elite athletes.

The main difference between is the open-ended nature of this contract. 3% for the rest of your life? Honestly, I don't think "Marge" is a very good negotiator. But that's why athletes have agents.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think indentured servitude is the wrong way to look at this. The key difference is that the investors don't dictate that you need to achieve a certain level of returns, or that you pursue a certain line of work. Instead you're still free to do whatever you want.

Since these contracts don't impinge on personal freedom, they should be legal. And I dare say that any number of highly motivated and intelligent people would jump at an opportunity like this (myself included), especially with the buy-out clause.

<comment><USER14> I disagree re: indentured servitude. This reminds me of Renaissance sponsorship of artists and musicians, such as Leonardo DaVinci. Why not take something that was proven to work and update it for the modern world?

I'd also look at something like Intellectual Ventures, except on a longer term, where smart people are paid to attend the sessions to generate as many new, useful ideas as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> A good friend and I are in the process of agreeing to something vaguely similar. We each get x% of the others' proceeds if we're a founder at a company that has an exit. So it increases our chances of seeing a payout and decreases that payout by x% (but x is small.) Ideally we'd have a couple more good friends-who-are-equally-likely-to-be-founders join in, and we'd really have a good pool...

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm guessing that a personal bankruptcy may get you out of this debt.

<comment><USER17> Even if it did, the article says "The Personal Investment Contract (PIC) can be calibrated for just about any situation where the investor believes the person they are investing in is (a) a true superstar, and (b) completely trustworthy."

If someone was willing to pay me $300K cash so that I could work on my passions rather than having to work a day job I'd be more than happy to give them a return on their investment, rather than looking for ways to get out of my obligations to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow. Creepy, seems illegal, and quite possibly disruptively brilliant. Nervously keeping tabs on this concept.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think this is how most equity investing works anyway. You get the feeling that one or more of the founders are "superstars" and decide to back them, not the idea or product that they pitched you with.

The lifetime contract is an interesting spin. Kind of reminds me of a classical artist having a patron. It's a great deal from the perspective of the individual...3% is always a trivial amount of your income. I do worry about it from the investment perspective...it seems way too easy to let personal biases and an individual's charisma get in the way of making rational investment decisions. While most investments are made on the basis of "I really like this person", it probably isn't the best criteria.

</comment><comment><USER20> My reasons for accepting such an offer would be the nonlinear utility of money (my chances at making more money would significantly increase with the initial freedom to work on projects fulltime), and the equity equation (<http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html>).

After twittering about this, someone (possibly half-joking) offered to invest $60 USD in me under similiar conditions. Transaction costs and overhead however make these small investments really unattractive.

Is it completely crazy to propose a website that allowed me to combine lots of small PICs, and handling the overhead, to get my life as a project financed?

<comment><USER21> It's not crazy, but in the US, it would require that you register the securities (possibly each person?) with the SEC, or only take investment from accredited investors (<http://www.sec.gov/answers/accred.htm>). This could well increase the overhead enough to make the project infeasible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It seems like there would be serious problems in the enforcement of a contract like this. I don't see any reporting requirements imposed on the entrepreneur, and it's pretty unclear what a court would do in the event of a default on the entrepreneur's part.

</comment><comment><USER23> If I am reading that correctly, "Marge" must make an average of $250k each year for their investors to merely break even. That seems like a lot, but obviously they must really believe she'll strike it rich somewhere along the way. Seems like a good deal for her, and an incentive to take off for the Bahamas for a while. I wonder how old she is, and whether that's an important factor for investors to consider.

</comment><comment><USER24> This is really weird. It sounds like indentured servitude.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant>

<comment><USER25> The beneficiary isn't required to work. They're simply required to pay N% of their income and gains if they do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> i've always thought this would be an interesting idea. it's neat to see someone doing it. if u think about it, the YC program operates under a similar concept (people are more impt than the idea).

</comment><comment><USER20> i'd totally go for this

</comment><comment><USER5> Creepy, but I think we can make it more creepy:

If you do this investment and the person takes out a life insurance policy on themselves, and they die, do you get 3% of the life insurance policy?

Although, I dunno, isn't this what having children is for?

You pay upkeep on them until maturity and when you are old and senile they pay to put you in a home and have you fed applesauce or whatever.

<comment><USER7> Reality has gotten there first. In a number of states (Texas being famous among them) companies can take out life insurance policies on their workers. A company with such "dead peasant" policies now has an incentive to provide bad working conditions and poor health care support because that goes straight to the bottom line!

[http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/which-employers-bought- polic...](http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/which-employers-bought-policies-on- the-lives-of-employees/) has a list of companies that did this.

<comment><USER27> > because that goes straight to the bottom line!

Not if the insurance company has a say in this. They will raise premiums for bad working conditions.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the cheapest way to have a PDF printed and mailed to you? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
Simple question- is there a simple answer?
I understand there are local pickup alternatives like [FedEx Office](http://fedex.com/office) and [Staples Copy Center](www.staplescopycenter.com). Is there any application that can do this easily? An API would be incredible. <comment><USER2> I once wanted to do a startup like this but it already exists. Not familiar with it but check out: <http://www.l-mail.com/> and [http://voices.yahoo.com/mail-letter-online-services-print- ou...](http://voices.yahoo.com/mail-letter-online-services-print-out-e-mails- and-1896008.html)</comment>


Magento vulnerability analysis - <AUTHOR> http://blog.checkpoint.com/2015/04/20/analyzing-magento-vulnerability/ <comment><USER2> Would be nice if th people at checkpoint prioritized fixing their broken software instead of putting money on writing (PR) blogs posts.

We use their firewalls and vpn stuff. We literally have to reinstall their vpn software each time we want to connect as it breaks itself after each reboot.

<comment><USER3> These kind of problems are solved for a long time: use open source software and then you can patch problems yourself if upstream is dead. Any responsible admin will not tolerate closed source black boxes dominating important pieces of infrastructure.

<comment><USER4> Sometimes you arrive after those black boxes have been bought and paid for.

<comment><USER5> All the more reason to migrate to a supported solution, if they're already paid for.

(OpenVPN is unbeatable in simplicity and price. I've migrated several pre- AnyConnect Cisco VPN users to it, which was finally EOL'd 2014 after several years neglect.)

<comment><USER4> I've tried to get OpenVPN to work with a Palo Alto firewall and to date have not been able to, Palo Alto support is - to put it mildly - non-functional.

Would not recommend Palo Alto.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://magentary.com/kb/apply-supee-5344-and- supee-1533-with...](http://magentary.com/kb/apply-supee-5344-and- supee-1533-without-ssh/)

</comment><comment><USER7> I think that it is quite surprising how secure Magento has been in the wild, there was a version of community released with a vulnerability that had to be fixed the next day, otherwise all good so far.

</comment><comment><USER8> I seriously came here thinking this was going to be about the X-men.

<comment><USER9> My thought too! An analysis based on material science, the prevalence of non- magnetic materials, his ability to fly etc. alas not today.</comment></comment>


WHO study on Covid-19: We estimated that the median of estimated R0 is 5.7 - <AUTHOR> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article <comment><USER2> If R0 is truly 5.7 - roughly 82.46% of the population must become immune before "herd immunity" kicks in.

((R0 − 1)/R0) is known as the "herd immunity threshold" — that is, with an R0 value of 5.7 the computation would be ((5.7 - 1)/5.7) or 82.46%

Learn more here, — "Herd Immunity": A Rough Guide: [https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/7/911/299077#3862683](https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/52/7/911/299077#3862683)

As a comparison, here are the R0 values of other well-known infectious diseases: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number)

<comment><USER3> I read this recently:

I've noticed a fair number of people assuming the herd immunity threshold, 1 - 1/R0, is the total proportion of the population infected. It isn't; it's the proportion of the population immune (i.e. has had the disease; in this model that's assumed to confer immunity) at which the epidemic stops growing. The total proportion of the population infected is called the epidemic final size (I'll call it 'F'), and is given by

F = 1 - e-R0*F

This is higher. Lots higher. For R0 = 2, it's 80%. For R0 = 3.4 (the WHO estimate), it's 96%.

<comment><USER2> Appreciate the information, though citing notable sources might help others understand and add credibility too.

For example, "Herd immunity & epidemic final size" covers the topic:

[http://alizon.ouvaton.org/Report2_Immunization.html](http://alizon.ouvaton.org/Report2_Immunization.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Obviously that can't quite be universally right, look at Brazil, look at Malaysia, India. Look at Easter Europe. It is pretty clear it can't be 5.7 all across the board.

<comment><USER5> Ro is the spread without mitigating factors, so Ro is more or less assumed constant.

That said, there's no reason to think the particular places you're naming are either doing effective testing or mitigating factors. People tossing around the statistics of a given country without looking deeply at the testing process have been confusing the situation for a while here.

Moreover, a lot of these quotes wind-up wrong as they're stated. "Look at Eastern Europe". I can see fast exponential in Romania, maybe other parts of the area are still in "don't ask, don't tell" but doesn't prove anything.

<comment><USER4> we will see, but it is just hard to fathom that with all these social distancing measures in place you still have 400K in the US and seemingly very few in Brazil and all these other places where for large swaths of the population social distancing is not an option.

It might be that the R0 is far more variable than assumed.

<comment><USER6> > social distancing measures in place

R0 is the measurement of what will happen WITHOUT social distancing.

In effect, researchers calculate R0 to determine if social distancing / lockdowns / etc. etc. would be worthwhile.

\</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>

The virus's real reproductive rate is called "R" (which is obviously lower now, due to social distancing / masks / etc. etc.). R0 is the "if we did nothing" variable.

<comment><USER7> What's the correct way to say 'R0 with social distancing?'

That is to say, R0 in a hypothetical place that was always practicing social distancing?

Because as I understand it, R0 is used to calculate herd immunity, but a lot of people are curious about what the herd immunity numbers would look like if we continued to take measures such as 6ft/2m distancing and wearing masks (efficacy debated, I know) and face shields.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This does not seem to be a WHO study, as far as I can tell?

<comment><USER9> Yeah, not sure where op got the "WHO" part of the title from, the site says: "Author affiliations: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA"

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Based on Chinese data. I very much doubt the accuracy of Chinese data.</comment>


Scala 2.9.0 final - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/node/9483

<comment><USER2> Finally we don't have to change the code to run by interpreter or compiler! Fixed one of the most annoying thing for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Says our lead programmer: "The new parallel collections are amazing!"

<comment><USER4> This to me is amazing in it's brevity:

      //Uses 4 threads
      (1 to 4).par.foreach(x => /*some long computation*/ }

I'd love to see how other languages can do it more tersely with their standard libraries.

<comment><USER5> In python:

      from multiprocessing import Pool
      p = Pool(4) # 4 worker threads
      p.map(somefunc, someiter)

Not sure if this is apples-to-apples. Regardless, I'm always skeptical of the behavior of threaded code, even if it's embarrassingly parallel stuff that is divided among workers.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately the multiprocessing module is a lot less efficient in many cases. Scala doesn't have to copy the entire collection across process boundaries or launch the runtime multiple times. (In this particular rather trivial example it doesn't matter much because an Int range is used). I'm afraid Python is losing out in the parallel world due to the GIL as more CPU cores become the norm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really hate that their collection joining method is called `mkString` instead of `join` like it is in C#, JavaScript, Python, Ruby, and others.

<comment><USER8> I don't hate it as such, but it did make me do a double-take to figure it out.

THAT part of it I hate; we, as programmers, often rely far too heavily and broadly on mapping what we see to what it means. Call stuff what it is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> anyone know when the pace of evolution of scala will drop?

<comment><USER10> how could that possibly be known? Hopefully never, if you ask me.

<comment><USER9> for what it's worth, there's nothing magical (or random) about computer languages - they tend to become more stable over time because they (1) reach some level of internal consistency and (2) become more popular (pressure for backwards consistency).

so yes, it probably is possible to answer this question to some degree if you've been watching scala grow. i haven't, which is why i asked.</comment></comment></comment>


Rust has finally outgrown me - <AUTHOR> https://words.steveklabnik.com/rust-has-finally-outgrown-me <comment><USER3> Not sure if you'll see this, but Steve, you've done wonders for the Rust community over the years. Rust would never be the language that it is today without your amazing work, so I (and I'm sure many others) are extremely grateful for all that you've done. Congratulations on this bittersweet milestone, and thanks again!

<comment><AUTHOR> You're very welcome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thank you for your contributions to the Rust ecosystem over the years! I've tinkered with many novel programming languages over the years, and most of those come and go, but Rust is one of the ones I stick with. Rust is the first programming language I have encountered that shows that linear (affine) logic is more than just another PLT or mathematical logic curio that is a practical tool for good software engineering, and that systems programming can have the trappings of type safety and ergonomics just like its application counterparts. Best of luck on your next transition.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're welcome! And thanks :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> That's what next-level success looks like! It's one thing to imagine something and create it; it's another thing to imagine something bigger than yourself, share the vision, draw people together, and create it as a group; it's yet another thing, a longer, slower, more difficult, and ultimately bittersweet form of success, to support the growth of a community organized around a vision until the point that it can leave you behind. It takes some wisdom to let go at the appropriate pace and step away at the appropriate moment. Congratulations on getting to this point.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! I am not stepping away fully, just acknowledging my limitations and putting more focus into less things. I'll still be doing some docs and doing core team work for the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER5> I'm glad to hear it. I did not mean to diminish your involvement; my hope was to echo back some appreciation of the challenge involved in allowing a thing to grow by releasing it. I hope your work continues to thrive.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not at all :) thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How do you feel about the current employability of Rust, for high-skilled developers?

I helped grow a different fringe/innovative language platform and community. I'm recently doing Rust instead, partly because I'm very sympathetic to it, and it suits some kinds of server and applications programming I've done. And partly because Rust seems more employable, without being considered as commoditized a skill as some other languages I considered.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's never been better. I will say there's a _lot_ of blockchain, so that may be a pro or con, depending on how you feel about that. It's hard to quantify; I got a _lot_ of inbound, and did basically no external research, but I'm special. I know several Rust shops that didn't get in touch, and that's fine. It's not as easy as "go on monster and pick from a wealth of jobs" and many have location requirements, that can limit options. It did mine. I'm fine with that though.

A lot of technology decisions are easier to justify to management with "look an how $BIGCO uses this technology." And now that we're seeing the likes of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, several unicorns, and the like, using Rust, I think it's gonna keep growing. Those usages aren't as widely known yet, outside of the hacker news crowd.

We'll see!

<comment><USER6> Thank you for the info, and good luck with your search.

(I got far away from blockchain several years ago. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! It was a good filter for me too :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I must have been been outgrown by everything I've ever worked with, from the get-go: I've never been to a conference.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm using it as one particular proxy for "I used to be able to keep tabs on everything. I am no longer able to keep tabs on everything." I tried to get at this with the change to talking about github notifications, but maybe could have spelled it out directly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I see a lot of programmers on HN talking up Rust and Go. But those definitely aren't the languages I see when searching for jobs.

<comment><USER9> Job postings are a lagging indicator of a language momentum, because successful products - which belong to companies that employ many people - <USER2> built years ago and will probably keep using the same tech stack as long as possible.</comment></comment>


Edgeio Bids Start At $250,000 - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/11/edgeio-bids-start-at-250000/ <comment><USER2> _"The coding utilizes Amazon EC2 so running costs are low"_

Uh huh... using EC2 for storage sounds like a bad idea, especially since data on EC2 instances isn't persistent...

While I'm sure they meant _S3_ , you have to wonder about a company that uses them in their product yet still confuses the two.

<comment><USER3> > Uh huh... using EC2 for storage sounds like a bad idea, especially since > data on EC2 instances isn't persistent...

There are workarounds, involving multiple instances and hoping that not all of them die at the same time... ;-). This is probably EC2's biggest current weakness, since you can't just rely on just one node, meaning it doesn't scale down as well as they claim.

> While I'm sure they meant S3

They probably, correctly, mean EC2.

>, you have to wonder about a company that uses them in their product yet still confuses the two.

EC2 has per-instance (ephemeral) storage and S3 storage. They are designed to work together. S3's pricing includes free data transfer to/from EC2 instances (though the terms, last I checked, are vague about whether this includes per- request charges).

<comment><USER2> Oops, when I copied that I didn't notice that they had edited the article. It originally read:

 _"The coding utilizes Amazon EC2 for storage so running costs are low,"_</comment></comment></comment>


Climeworks carbon dioxide capture device - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/40421871/this-machine-just-started-sucking-co2-out-of-the-air-to-save-us-from-climate-change?utm_content=bufferb0418&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> Interesting approach, but the article is missing two magic numbers:

\- the cost of the device and of course

\- the energy needed to extract a certain amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. If more CO2 is released by producing the energy the device needs for CO2 capture, nothing is gained.

The feasibility hinges on those two numbers. Especially, is it more efficient to capture CO2 or spend the money instead on not producing it? If the needed electricity is produced by e.g. solar, is it more efficient to use the energy to capture CO2, or rather replace some coal power plants?

<comment><USER3> The second number is entirely moveable depending on the source of energy.

I would argue that (energy?) efficiency doesn't matter when dealing with energy extracted from the ground or from the sun or wind; what matters is the cost. The article doesn't mention the cost of extracting a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere, other than to say they have a ways to go on that front.

The "cost" of carbon emissions is estimated from $25-$125/ton (Social Cost of Carbon), and financial planning from fossil fuel companies like Exxon use a cost of $80/ton. (For some more familiar numbers, $80/ton equates to about $0.80/gallon of gas, or $0.035/kWh for combined-cycle natural gas electricity).

One could imagine carbon emitters paying for capture, or paying society for the costs that they impose on the rest of us. However, once you add that extra $35/MWh for natural gas electricity, renewables start to look pretty good. (For comparison, wind subsidies in Texas are around $24/MWh, so natural gas is getting a carbon subsidy than wind power gets. And unsubsidized wind and solar in the proper sites are extremely competitive cost wise.)

In any case, within the next few decades at least, it's going to be cheaper to use solar+wind+storage than it is going to be to burn coal and then extract the CO2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article dishes out too much hype.

Photosynthesis may be 0.5% - 2% efficient, but this new technology is "roughly 1000x as efficient as photosynthesis", which must make it 1000% efficient.

Further, the comparison with photosynthesis is similarly awful. This new thing collects and concentrates CO2, hoping there's an application for it that doesn't involve letting it go again. Photosynthesis essentially destroys CO2.

The real lede I'm looking for is how much energy it consumes and how much CO2 it processes, either today or someday. Guess there wasn't enough room in the article for that.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, the efficiency the article claims is "per square foot of space" which seems irrelevant. (Well, at least until you learn that they're going to need hundreds of thousands of these things to have a useful impact.)

But even worse is the complete and utter lack of any mention of the amount of energy needed to capture a ton of CO2.

<comment><USER6> Right. There's a point where it's cheaper to store renewable energy to use later rather than capture carbon dioxide using the surplus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 1/75,000,000 of our current emissions per device vs. not digging up coal and burning it for power. Which seems more reasonable to you?

This thing is not not really useful for climate change, instead it can provide CO2 gas we already concentrate for producing dry ice etc.

<comment><USER8> If we stopped all emissions instantly, temperatures would still continue to rise for decades due to the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere. We are going to need some kind of carbon capture technology especially considering that emissions are not likely to decline let alone stop any time soon.

Incidentally, it is my understanding that coal use is already declining rapidly. In many cases, it is being replaced by natural gas: certainly not ideal, but better.

<comment><USER9> We can achieve much of the carbon capture we need to by changing the way we do agriculture. Currently, our approach to agriculture - CAFO meat production, monocropping vast fields of corn, soy, and wheat - is a contributor to greenhouse gasses. It's eroding away the soil and the soil is one of the primary carbon stores. If we changed to relying more heavily on silvopasture and organic polycultures we could change it to act as a vast carbon capture mechanism.

Early studies suggest that diverse silvopasture can be just as productive as monocropped grain, but it means a major change in diets and the food production system world wide. It means less meat (but not no meat) and a diet focused more heavily on fruit and nuts rather than grains. This is a huge cultural shift and also a huge economic one, since much of the food industry is completely dependent on value added processed grains.

But if we start looking at how chesnuts, hazelnuts, walnuts, and acorns could be stored and processed into a greater variety of foods, then we can start the move towards agricultures that are just as productive and way healthier for the environment.

No-till, poly cropped grain production (corn, beans, and squash in the same field) can also act as a carbon sink, but it doesn't lend itself to mechanized harvest right now, so it would need to happen to a smaller degree.

<comment><USER10> > but it means a major change in diets and the food production system world > wide.

Which basically means it's not going to happen. There are lots of ways to fix climate change that involve large scale changes to human behavior and habits. They're not viable because nobody is going to do them. The reason devices like this are valuable is that they promise to allow us to keep doing the things we're doing _and_ stop or slow down climate change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is one aspect of this that is not being fully addressed - storage of the captured CO2. Yes, pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere is a good thing, but storing it somewhere on Earth still poses a threat to the climate. A single mishap could bulk release years of stored CO2 gas and essentially undo all those collection efforts in a single day. Not to mention the potential for terrorist to target such stores.

<comment><USER12> Not when you store it in stone, as the article alludes to. I know that emissions from a local geothermal plant are being captured and stored permanently in basalt layers in Hellisheiði, Iceland.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> 212 degrees is pretty specific. Is this just a gigantic water carbonation system?

<comment><USER14> 212 degrees Fahrenheit is the boiling point of water. They are just heating the box to the highest point that they can still have liquid water until normal conditions.

That being said... does that mean they heat the box to a lower temperature in higher elevations?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Carbon is bad, but I think the coming methane releases will be the end of us.

<comment><USER16> Agreed - methane emissions from the thawing of tundra permafrost is alarming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If they sell the CO2, what's the point?

<comment><USER3> They're hoping to sell the capture of CO2:

>Ultimately, the company wants to sell its ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it underground, and it thinks that the market may be ready to pay sooner than the startup initially expected.

>"Based on our experiences now on the market, we are very confident that we will be able to develop a market in the very near future, maybe next year or in two or three years, to sell these negative emissions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There is another device that takes sunlight energy and uses it to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. It's called a tree.

<comment><USER3> I wonder if they had thought of that?

>Planting trees or preserving existing forests is likely to also be a critical way to absorb CO2. "The best example of carbon dioxide removal technology that we know how to do now is grow more forest and to protect the carbon content of soils," says Field.

also:

>"One CO2 collector has the same footprint as a tree," says Wurzbacher. "It takes 50 tons of CO2 out of the air every year. A corresponding tree would take 50 kilograms of the air every year. It's a factor of a thousand. So in order to achieve the same, you would need 1,000 times less area than you would require for plants growing."

<comment><USER12> Now compare the EROEI between the two methods. One requires a lot of metal. The other one requires some planned land, a shovel and a seedling bank. I can have trees planted locally for 2$ each. I'd bet heavily that machine costs more than 2000$.

<comment><USER3> There's no energy return on devices like this, they are pure energy sinks.

I would agree that this machine is likely many multiples of $2000, but you're not counting the cost of the land in your part either (which varies wildly), but that doesn't mean that it's not worth investigating to see if it can be made cost effective.

<comment><USER12> I'm assuming that similar arrangements can be made to what local growing co- ops have made: If you are making land arable in the far future, you should not incur costs for land.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How does Amazon make money no this? - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00OC0USA6/ref=br_imp_ara-1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-hero-1&pf_rd_r=0CHJXAV41KV2G8N66VZM&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2078130582&pf_rd_i=desktop

<comment><USER2> A few things.

One, the early price for the fire phone was insanely high. It was not a good enough phone to command "flagship phone" prices, but everybody and his brother would like to make "flagship phone" profits so they gave it a shot.

AMZN seems to be the one company that Wall Street doesn't pressure into making a quick buck. They don't feel a lot of pressure to make their overall operations profitable because investors are still buying the idea they can spend money to grow.

Also AMZN can make the claim that the Fire Phone is going to pay off through "synergies"; if these people become prime members, buy a lot of Kindle books, get a Dash Button, consume AWS, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think they are trying to make money on this anymore. I believe they have hundreds, or maybe thousands, of these phones in their warehouses that they have been unable to sell. At this point, I'm guessing they are just trying to recover as much of their investment as they can.

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, they have the android appstore: [http://www.amazon.com/mobile- apps/b?node=2350149011](http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b?node=2350149011)</comment>


PHP regular expressions examples - <AUTHOR> http://www.roscripts.com/PHP_regular_expressions_examples-136.html <comment><USER2> That's an excellent list of regexes, but I'm a bit torn about whether to recommend using it. One the one hand, regexes are a good and sometimes interesting mental exercise. On the other hand, small little discrepancies can cause you headaches. But no pain, no gain...

I guess unlike, say, sorting algorithms, which are fairly straightforward, text matching requirements are fickle enough that fixed lists are less helpful. I'm pretty surprised at that software written just for regexes.</comment>


I would never work for Jason Calacanis - There, I said it - <AUTHOR> http://marcgayle.com/i-would-never-work-for-jason-calacanis <comment><USER3> Also, sky is blue. Check [http://www.bnet.com/blog/entry-level/jason- calacanis-gen-y-j...](http://www.bnet.com/blog/entry-level/jason-calacanis- gen-y-job-hoppers-are-destroying-america/2283)

Says Calacanis: "... the majority of Gen Y seem to operating under the bizarre rallying cry of: More money! Less responsibility! Shorter hours! No stress! More freedom! It's all about me!"

Yeah, shame on the employees for wanting better job conditions and admitting they actually care about own interest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Jason wonders why people 'job hop' at Mahalo. Are you kidding me right now?

<comment><USER4> Actually, we haven't had any (volentary) turnover in about a year. Ever since we did our "culture document" and started hiring based on it, we've had an almost _flawless_ hiring process. I'm going to write a newsletter on building a culture document, so you might want to signup for my newsletter at www.jasonnation.com.

<comment><USER5> How many non-voluntary in the past 2 years?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So being one of the few people in this thread that has worked with Jason, I wanted to chime in for a second.

Jason is totally demanding and pushes everyone around him to their limits. Yes. True.

But, underneath all the bulldog, seriously the guy has a heart of gold. Sometimes he doesn't show it, and even he'd admit some level of narcissism, but from personal experience, I can fully say that working with Jason changed my career for the better in every way.

I originally worked with Jason at Weblogs, Inc., and as we were acquired by AOL, worked with him on the relaunch of Netscape. I went through a personal tragedy during the launch of the site, and Jason / the team were instrumental in me coming out of that with my wits about me.

To be clear: Jason is hard to work with. He does joust publicly, which I would attribute to his form of marketing.

I have absolutely no inside knowledge of his actual tactics, but my guess is he takes on someone who he knows people don't like, then points out their flaws over time, figuring eventually he'll come out on top since his side of the story looks so rosy by comparison. Oh, and he does this by being fairly hyperbolic. (Mainstream media, junkets in journalism, Gawker, Pay-to-play angels, SEOs, off the top of my head.)

That all aside, I think working with Jason set me up to have a wide-eyed view of startups. I treasured the experience, and while I think everyone should evaluate their personal limits carefully before embarking on a career with someone who will literally push all of them, I don't think anyone who's worked with him has regret the time they spent with Jason. That doesn't mean all of them want to work with him again... but I heartily encourage anyone who wants to be pushed to work with him. It will be a hugely rewarding experience professionally. It was for me, anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Randall...well said. I don't doubt that Jason has a 'heart of gold'. I tend to find that people that are extremely passionate about things, do/say incendiary things that tend to attract attention (both good and bad).

I respect him for having the balls to say what he really thinks. Not many people do. However, I don't believe that he really believes everything he says. I think he has reached the point where he realizes the pay off (lots of attention), that it becomes naturally for everything he says to come out like that.

I am sure that many people would be pushed, but you can push people (and get the most out of them) without being a tyrant.

For instance, I played the violin for many years (save the 'he is a pussy for playing the violin' comments...kthnxbi) and had several teachers. I had a mix...some that were clearly doing it for just a paycheck (not pushing me enough), others that pushed me tyranically (a la Calacanis style) that I rebelled against and didn't perform like I knew I could, and my last one that was absolutely amazing at pushing me to leaps and bounds in a much shorter time than I had ever thought I could reach. So much so, that even though I spent an aggregate of 6 or 7 years with the first 2 or 3 and only progressed let's say '2 or 3' levels, with the last, in the space of 2 years, I progressed 6 or 7 levels and actually became a teacher myself - learning those same techniques of learning how people learn and how to get the best out of each individual and pushing them to achieve their best using a mechanism that will work with them.

So I say that to say, that every manager/leader wants the best out of their people. Some take a blanket approach (like Jason seems to have done) that, in my opinion, don't work in the long-run and in aggregate...and more importantly would never work for me. Hence the reason for my blog post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I worked for him for the first 2.5 years of Mahalo. I got hired right after dropping out of college. During my time there I was promoted twice, got to spend 3 months paid to live over seas and went to a party at the playboy mansion.

Say what you will about him or his style but my experience was was a net positive and if you turn the clock back and I'd do it again.

<comment><USER4> Watching you go from drop out to samurai/killer/jedi has been thrilling. Some day you'll start your own company, present at the Open Angel Forum and launch at the LAUNCH conference (www.launch.is), and I'll be lucky enough to invest!!! Keep rocking Mike!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Surely there has been lots of debate about his statements in the past. Rather than spending time on his polarizing way of gaining attention, the best solution is to let him do business his way and channel our energies into more productive directions. The last time I checked, no one is forced to work for Jason.

On a minor side note: Am I the only one to notice that he seems to move quite a lot with his body during the interview?

<comment><USER9> Yeah, as an employee at Mahalo, I can confirm that no one is being forced to work here.

<comment><AUTHOR> Lol Jammons. Don't mean to call you out on that...but it's ironic that the positive comment you could muster was that 'no one is being forced to work here'.

<comment><USER9> That was sarcasm. Thanks for the downvotes though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Funnily enough, I never downvoted you once.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

I don't roll like that ;)

<comment><USER9> Much appreciated. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I really need to write a filter to keep him off my screen, since just about everything Jason writes or says ends up getting me a bit riled. Just yesterday he sent out an e-mail saying that if you can't drop $10,000 on a premium domain name for your unfunded startup, you're not worth investing in... and proves how easy it is by listing the $133,000 he's spent on domains himself.

<comment><USER4> Actually, I would re-read the post.

I say clearly that you can start with a good domain that might cost only $10 to $2,000 and THEN use your VC/angel money to upgrade the domain later (like delicious did, for example).

$133k on domain names is insignificant. Don't be impressed by it... CNET owns $20M in domains, AOL owns $50m in domain names and there are many individuals who own millions.

My point in listing the domains I've gotten and how much I've spent for them is that it is a) not that expensive compared to the value they provide and b) that I've got some experience in this space and you might want to listen and read what I'm saying.

Please go back and a) re-read the piece and b) don't be so obsessed with big number.

jcal

[http://launch.is/blog/2010/12/3/how-to-name-your-startup- and...](http://launch.is/blog/2010/12/3/how-to-name-your-startup-and-land-the- perfect-domain.html)

<comment><USER11> You are missing the most mysterious domainer of all time. Google "Yun Ye"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I stopped watching TWiST for a while and almost unsubscribed from his newsletter because the Arrington drama was very Jersey Shore - minus the fake boobs.

Despite his personality flaws, which we all have, the guy gives incredible advice that is actionable. And he does it consistently.

Most popular speakers that we admire give far less valuable advice. The usefulness of "Be passionate, do less" pales in comparison to "Be consistent, plan out segments, publish on the same day at the same time".

<comment><AUTHOR> Anthony...I have to agree with you that he gives a lot of great actionable advice. Sometimes, he also spouts something of value (e.g. warning startups not to build their company on top of Facebook).

But he goes off on so many topics and said such crap some times, that it fully discounts all the great stuff he has said.

This is one of those things.

Besides, he doesn't just have 'personality' flaws. He seems to be such a genuine dick. Not the good type that produces insane quality stuff (a la Steve Jobs). The type that have gotten lucky, and think they are God's gift to everybody else, and are yet to keep producing. The fiasco surrounding him berating a now ex-exmployee and his falling out with Arrington and TechCrunch do nothing but confirm the prick that I think he is.

Time will tell how he fares.

If I were looking for Angel money, I would never take money from him either.

Can you imagine someone like that having leverage over you in any shape or form? Either a boss or an investor? Hell no!

<comment><USER12> I agree that I wouldn't want him to have leverage over my business - <USER2> argument there.

But I wouldn't excuse Jobs, or anyone else, of having that kind of personality because it does trickle down into the business. Apple makes incredible products, but their customer support is miserable. I think it's so bad because the culture has become "We know better". That comes from the top.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> You also just wrote a story about Jason Calacanis... The only thing you forgot to do was link to Mahalo.

You might not want to work for him, but you should at least respect his shtick is genius and very effective at getting coverage and links, which works nicely since his company is an SEO play.

<comment><USER4> Thank you God!!!please include the following links when link-baiting me OR I WILL NOT tweet you back or link to you from my high page-rank blog: www.mahalo.com www.calacanis.com www.launch.is www.openangelforum.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I flagged this post because it provides no information. If you were an ex- employee of Jason, then your viewpoint could be interesting.

As it is, this is an attack based on a video interview. You have never even met the person and have zero first-hand knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER15> But he's very successful. Who's viewpoint are we supposed to champion here - the employee or the employer? Should we not be happy when an employer is successful and can get a lot from his employees with minimal expense? Does the process of building a startup not put us squarely in the side of the employer?

<comment><USER4> Actually, in startups everyone is aligned in their interest due to stock options. Anyone who looks at it as employer/employee just doesn't get the startup dynamic. As an investor in 20 startups I'm constantly pushing to give more stock options to employees, and as the founder of three companies with over 100 f/t employees and 250 part-time folks, I'm constantly pushing to increase stock compensation over cash comp. Why

<comment><USER15> Why what? Don't leave with that cliffhanger!?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I wrote my reply on your blog, but I'll re-post it here:

Well, I think you missed Jason's point frankly. He said people who work for him end up going on to achieve great things, and that is true. Sean Percival, for instance, worked at Mahalo two years ago, and now he's the VP of Online Marketing at MySpace. A huge jump in two years (Percival was not a well-known figure when he started at Mahalo). It seems that many people can use Jason as a springboard. He is a great connection to have, and if you own stock, you can probably make a lot of money. (Mahalo will be sold to Demand Media in 2011, so yes, the product is "great," as in, it will have a solid exit, which is the point).

Different people respond better to different leadership styles. Some people could not stand playing for Bobby Knight. Others liked his "I'm going to challenge you until you break" style. It's really a matter of personal preference.

</comment><comment><USER17> Think about this... Jason needs visibility. People who spend so much energy hating him, provide him the visibility he needs. Some people will hate him just like some people hate Steve Jobs. Now when an Apple fanboy fights a naysayer, Apple benefits even if both sides are equally adamant. If a Jason hater argues with Jason's padawans ;-) with equal enthusiasm, probably Jason gains. Anyway jason's gains are non measurable but somehow it looks like a gain to my possibly naive eyes.

But all this has a good side for the entrepreneur... If Arrington and Jason keep fighting each other the entrepreneur benefits coz no single superpower rules tech media. They will both need to treat the entrepreneur with more respect than if they could "collude with each other" ;-).

Jason is notorious enough in the HN circles that if you choose to work for him after hearing all you have heard, you are either an idiot or a genius. Do the math of creating ur startup v/s joining him as an employee and if the math doesn't work out, don't bother to apply :-).

I remember reading a pg essay that each successive employee brings in less and less value... something like 1:1/4:1/9:...1/n^2

that is not hours of work but value. As the nth employee if you do not get what u deserve, for creating 1/n^2 of the value, just move on, else stay back.

I hope someone creates a startup that computes a desirability of working with various startups, angel investors and the like. Something like seatgeek with parameters like how handsomely the employees are rewarded, how tolerable the workplace is and so on. I guess there is a smooth curve from being the first employee to being the millionth. Each person can choose his own sweet spot.

</comment><comment><USER18> Neither would I, but does that mean he has a hiring problem? His advice is not necessarily bad advice for a business. Granted, he'll never create a great product, but neither will most businesses. If he can drive people to turn a profit that way, then he'll be doing better than most entrepreneurs. Wanting people who are willing to work 80 hours a week is probably one of the less ethically questionable things in his business plan.

<comment><USER19> False dichotomy: either it's working eighty hours a week or working nine to five.

It's true that employees in a startup should be flexible: being willing to work late some days, work from home in an emergency, travel with a laptop (in return, startups are also more flexible: no one cares that you're not in your desk at 0930 or if you're working from home or a cafe).

However, eighty hour weeks usually happen for very specific reasons and are followed by less intense periods: it's not a generally applicable way of doing more with less. If you want to do more with less, hire better people (who frequently have other options available to them and won't work on a team that demands eight hour weeks as a matter of routine).

<comment><USER18> Absolutely true. And if Calacanis meant people who are passionate enough about what they are working on to pull some late nighters when necessary, vs someone who punches the clock every day at 5pm and says "that's not in my job description", then he would find a lot more people in agreement.

<comment><USER19> > Absolutely true. And if Calacanis meant people who are passionate enough > about what they are working on to pull some late nighters when necessary, vs > someone who punches the clock every day at 5pm and says "that's not in my > job description", then he would find a lot more people in agreement.

Absolutely true: as a software engineer, I'm extremely lucky to work on something I'm passionate about. I am not sure if other professions get the same luxury. I'm more than willing to stay until up wee hours in the morning, debugging non-blocking socket code (like I did this Wednesday) whether in a startup or not, because I actually enjoy this ( _both_ the intrinsically satisfying work like designing and implementing a new algorithm and less "glorious" work like this: a sign of a healthy organization is one that rewards both).

The impression Jason gives off is he wants clock punchers who punch the clock out at midnight and give the appearance of being busy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've been at Mahalo for about 1 1/2 years now, and I can certainly appreciate what all of you are saying about how I'd have to be an idiot to work here. Luckily I had no idea who Jason was when I started, so I didn't know all of the lore surrounding his insanity. Most of it is exactly that. People get together and sensationalize his attitude and statements (he encourages this a bit with his public persona, I'll grant you that).

For the most part, working with him has been a pleasant experience. He can flip out from time to time, often there's a good reason, sometimes not. He's not much more crazy than any other boss I've ever had, and his contributions to Mahalo far outweigh any of this.

On the plus side, we get sweet perks, our internal culture is awesome (because we don't get slackers on the team), and we're doing some very cool stuff on the technical side of things. (Expect to see more of that in the future, and if you're ever in LA, stop by the ScaleLA or LA Django meetups we host.)

That said, I'm a little dismayed that hacker news spends so much time gossiping about Jason. Get over it guys. If you don't want to work for him, don't. If you do, send over a resume.

</comment><comment><USER20> My son Darren works for Jason at Mahalo. He is too busy working to comment here...so I will for him :-)

Darren works 6 or 7 days a week because he loves what he is doing, and is learning a ton from Jason. Yes, he is tough and has high expectations. But, Jason is the best mentor and teacher around.

Jason isn't for everyone, but if you want to rise to the top really fast...a ride with Jason will get you there.

<comment><AUTHOR> Don, I am assuming this is Don Dodge, I won't debate that he can teach you a lot, and be a great mentor and possibly an awesome angel.

It's the attitude that he has - which we could excuse if his accomplishments were as big as he makes them seem like they are.

I am not diminishing the fact that he built a company from scratch and sold it to AOL for $30M. That's not a small feat, so don't get me wrong.

But, that happens almost every day in many industries. There are countless stories like that, and we don't see all of those CEOs acting like they are God's gift to technology. Jason acts like that, and quite frankly, when you compare him to his peers (the YouTube guys, Andreesen, Joshua Schacter, Max Levchin, etc.) - he comes up short.

As has been said so many times, the only people that I think has the right to act like that are Jobs, Gates, Bezos, etc. And they don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is more a comment on the video interview than the marcgayle.com post. I don't think Mr Calacanis' statements are incendiary. He explains eloquently what kind of people and attitude he is looking for, and doesn't seem to have a problem with people that don't match his requirements. I really don't see the problem with that.

<comment><AUTHOR> I never said they were incendiary. I was simply pointing out that I would never want to have anything to do with him.

I wouldn't work for him. I wouldn't want him investing in my company. I would never partner with him.

There is no business relationship, that I can think of, that I would do with him.

But that's just my preference :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> There seems to be a theme here. "Jason is a jerk because he's overly confident and brags and expects people to work hard." So? That's the exact type of person who should be running a startup. When you're facing long odds against you, only someone who's completely confident in themselves and their idea will get over the hurdle. Frankly there's almost nothing worse than working for a meek, type-b manager who doesn't have a clear vision. Believe me, I've done it. As a side note: I'd work for Jason in a heartbeat, work as many hours as necessary and do whatever I could to help his company succeed. And I'd relocate to LA tomorrow if there was a spot for me. Because working there is worth more than the money you'd make. After you invest your time with him he'll invest with you. He said as much in the video. Will your boss do that?

<comment><USER4> Come by Mahalo for a tour any time! jason AT mahalo.com to set it up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmWiYx3qL2U&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmWiYx3qL2U&feature=player_embedded#t=8m34s) Is when the relevant part starts.

Some of the words he uses like 'lame' and 'weak' kind of is dickish, but I don't think it's that crazy.

</comment><comment><USER24> The irony of this post is that Jason would most definitely not want you in his company.

In a startup, which his companies are, there really is no room for people want normal jobs and want to work normal hours. Startup life is a very fast paced constant swim upstream. You're trying to cram years worth of work into months to create enormous value as quickly as possible. ALL startups want "rockstar" employees as they help this process exponentially. What he's stating is not really anything different than any other start up founder would say he/she wants, its just he says it in a very inflammatory way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Firstly, how do you know he would never want me? I consider myself the perfect startup employee.

I actually have worked for one startup before and am doing my own right now.

I know about long nights, tight deadlines, and no money.

I know about creativity due to constraints and responding quickly.

I also know about abusive bosses and unproductive labor practices.

I would be hard pressed to find ANY software developer that agrees that they perform best under a boss like Jason.

<comment><USER4> Well, I don't know you Marc, so until you come in for an coffee I can't make a decision on your hire-ability.

Pros: you know how to get attention for yourself by using the classic Calacanis-HN link-baiting technique; you're not afraid to mix it up in the comments.

Cons: you seem like a whinny, entitled kid--I'm guessing you complain about a bunch of tiny things and you'll probably be a rice picker and not a samurai due to this; your writing is weak, and doesn't show much logical.

Of course, these are superficial judgements.... come to Mahalo for launch next time you're in Santa Monica, meet the team, see what we're doing and then write another blog post....

or maybe that would take actual _effort_ as opposed to just firing off a blog post slamming someone you don't know

<comment><AUTHOR> Jason, you are right. The title, and perhaps the content is classic Calacanis- HN link-baiting. But, quite frankly, you make it too easy.

Naturally, I am not surprised that you think that someone that disagrees with you (and actually voices an opinion), is a 'whinny, entitled kid'. Further descending into personal attacks about the likelihood of whether or not I complain about a bunch of tiny things, is also not surprising and I will not take them personally.

The unfortunate reality is that when you are a public figure, like yourself, and you spew consistently 'controversial' comments, you are likely to get these types of responses.

The next time I am in Santa Monica, although I don't know when that will be, I would love to come to Mahalo and have a look-see. I don't think that will change my opinions based on what you portray, but I will keep an open mind.

Perhaps the next time you are in Jamaica, I can show you around.

Not because I don't like your stances on many things (specifically your opinions on the ways to conduct business), doesn't mean we can't be polite without getting personal. Disagree while being agreeable.

As a general rule, I tend to wish everyone all the success in the world. But, to be quite honest, it seems to have gone to your head - although, I don't know you personally, so that could be a superficial judgement :)

<comment><USER4> It's fairly clear you're a hater. That's OK, there is a lot to hate. :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Just for the record, I am not the one that voted you down for this comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking Jason personally, I just think his work values are wack. Correction, I think his values (or those that I can see by his public persona) are wack."

Sounds like he actually is knocking him.

</comment><comment><USER26> I don't know Jason Calacanis, his personality or anything. His "I'm never tired, keep up with me" is.... odd to say the least.

Nevertheless, I do agree with his "I want to surround myself with people who can work at my pace, work 80 hours a week not caring about life balance." Maybe not at a large company, but at an early stage startup I WANT people around me who are working hard and determined to make their product successful because they care about it.

What's so bad about what Calacanis said? 70-80 hour weeks are not unheard of in the startup world...

<comment><USER4> Please don't introduce a fair and logical argument in this thread or you will be voted down by the SEOs who have 20 astroturf accounts designed to slam me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Jason, I think you need to get over yourself.

When you say the types of things you say, and behave the way you do, the internet will react in a very predictable fashion.

It's nothing personal. It's a reality that I think you need to accept, and it's clear that you haven't because you still say things like 'keep hating on me...I love it'.

You don't. You are just saying that.

Saying things like that, makes you look like the kid on the playground that bullies everybody and when one day he gets kicked in the balls pretends like it doesn't hurt and goes above and beyond to show that it didn't hurt, but goes behind the locker and cries.

Not cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Chiming in one more voice from someone who has worked for Jason: Yes, it's a grind, but he is completely up front about what you're getting yourself into (and if its not something you're interested in, I'd suggest avoiding it). However, if it is something you vibe on, it's overall an amazing experience that gives you many X the experience as you would in most other jobs. There was some hard stuff to deal with, but don't regret my decision to go work for him at all and would absolutely do it again given the chance.

<comment><AUTHOR> Alex...the problem I have with his shtick, is not that he gives you upfront what you will get. Or that he is abrasive.

It is this notion that, if you like the way he leads, then you are the best. If you don't, then you are 'normal'. i.e. bad, and you don't what to succeed.

That's a false dichotomy and it's highly annoying to hear him re-iterate many, many times.

If he just said, working for me is hell. But, you will get these benefits (all of which might be very valuable in their own right - I am not degrading the quality of his network, and his ability to convince other angels to invest in your next venture).

It's just this 'I am better than everyone' aura that he espouses - in public anyway.

And as I said in my post, I don't think he has earned the right to be like that.

Steve Jobs has. Bill Gates has. Bezos has. Larry & Sergey have. But I am yet to see any of them acting like that. I am sure that all of those guys demand the most out of their employees and push them to give more than they give.

It's just the abrasive - "I am the best entrepreneur in the Valley" attitude that I am talking about here.

It's about time we call a spade a spade.

<comment><USER28> Wow Marc, now I see why you are so upset about Jason. As I mentioned before I do not agree with his tyrannical leadership methodology, but it seems to have worked for him in the past and others have testified to its effectiveness(sometime).

But truth be told we are all adults here and have the choice to work with or without Mr. Calacanis. That said, your whole point boils down to "he shouldn't say he, or his way, is the best cause it is making me sick to hear it over and over again". That, my friend is just juvenile. How old are you again?

Again, if you don't like to hear Jason spout then stop watching his network or his shows, simple as that. This kind of Jayting is just juvenile and unproductive. Why does he need to be compared to Bezos et al....what have you done? The best revenge against people like Jason is to do what you do and crush it your way. If you are not doing that then find another place to displace your jealous rage.

All the best.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why would one post something like this publicly? Don't burn your bridges and all that.

I swear, sometimes it seems like HN lives in this weird alternate universe where the rules of normal jobs don't apply....

It's fine if people want more money for less hours and less responsibility - but they'll be competing with those who are willing to work more hours and take on more responsibility for more money. If you were the employer, who would you hire?

<comment><AUTHOR> I had been debating on whether or not I should post this, for this very reason.

However, I think it speaks more volumes about me and who I want to work with, if I do.

I might not be as rich as Jason Calacanis just yet, but I do have beliefs.

Why should Jason be able to say anything he wants, and not be publicly criticized for them?

If he doesn't want to do business with me, then that's fine by me.

If someone doesn't want to do business with me because I said I would never work for him, or do business with him, then that tells me more about that person - than it does me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Having read the post and comments, the entire argument seems to be "Some don't want to work for a narcissistic, work-obsessed outspoken boss" and "narcissistic, work-obsessed outspoken people make it".

You know the single thing that every single successful entrepreneur, in any field, has in common? They're work-obsessed. They bust their balls. I'd rather work for someone like JC than a work-shy narcissist.

<comment><USER31> Shhh, don't say that aloud here. You'll get down-voted. I thought Hacker News was about getting things done and kicking ass, not living the easy comfy life. Sheez.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> If you have never started a business and suffered the consequences of having hired the wrong employees you lack the perspective necessary in order to voice an opinion on this matter. From my perspective, having started several businesses, succeeded and failed, I see no flaw whatsoever in what Jason is saying.

The consequences of hiring the wrong people can be dire, particularly when you need them to perform. I had a director of sales who was instrumental in killing one of my businesses.

When times got tough he did not have the "killer instinct" Jason talks about. Sales were down. Times were tough. I relied on him to go turn over rocks and find sales. Long story short, he just didn't have it in him. I had hired the wrong person. Funny thing is that there was another candidate that was rougher around the edges but definitely had the drive. I chose the more "refined" candidate (in my eyes) and made a huge mistake.

Jason is right.

If you don't understand it's because you lack the context. My favorite Mark Twain saying applies here:

"A man holding a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way".

Hold THAT cat by the tail first. Then you'll have an opinion worth considering.

</comment><comment><USER33> I can't help but post the perfect "villain" picture of Calacanis to accompany this story:

[edit working link]: [http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7wjPbXig0o_I76bh4g...](http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7wjPbXig0o_I76bh4ga0ZJ6Gg3C2SfL299s2ZiEJLKG7Kjp1s)

<comment><USER34> That link doesn't seem to be working so either this one:

[http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw83HRP_QZgcqkBkSLU...](http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw83HRP_QZgcqkBkSLUs_sgdX6lYOyEAL47twFtmC963xhvcvo)

or this one:

[http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7wjPbXig0o_I76bh4g...](http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT7wjPbXig0o_I76bh4ga0ZJ6Gg3C2SfL299s2ZiEJLKG7Kjp1s)

<comment><USER35> It's actually blocking based on the referrer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Q: "How would you describe your management style, because you have a pretty unique management style?"

Jason Calacanis: "Yeah, I would say I like people to be able to keep up with me. Uuuhm. And I don't get tired - I have only experienced being tired a couple of times in my life, it's typically from running the marathon and so I need people who are indefatigable, people who have pretty high stamina. I need people who are intense. I need people who can perform at a high level on a pretty regular basis. And I need people who are able to engage in debate. And so I need pretty strong people. I decided I am not going to work for people who are weak and who are maybe looking for balance in their lives. I do view doing a startup company like an Olympic sport. You have to qualify for it. If you don't qualify for it, then you can't be on the team. And if all of a sudden you get slower, and can't keep up, then you have to leave the team, and be replaced by somebody who can. And if you have a team of people who are all Olympic caliber, and who all are running very fast, it doesn't feel like everybody is running fast, it's just how we run, we are fast runners, or hard runners. And you just have to hire the right people. So I think I'm intolerant of average people. I am infuriated by people who make excuses. And so depending on who comes to work for me, and if you interview 100 people who have worked for me, if the person was ambitious and hard-working, they would tell you that it's the best experience of their lives, and that they learned more working for me, got more opportunity, tripled their salary. I have had people literally come in, work for me, 30 or 40 thousand dollars out of school, and then two or three years later would be making 100 thousand dollars. That's my value proposition. If you come work for me, you are going to work very hard, not harder than I do, maybe equal, but no harder than I expect of myself. But you will learn everything, and I will teach you everything I know. Calacanis MBA in 3 or 4 years. And if you do, then I will get you a job anywhere you want to work. If you have done 3 or 4 years for me, I will invest in your company if you come up with a good idea. I will come on your board, if you come up with a good idea. I will introduce you to anybody I know, give you recommendation and support you in any way I can. Take the other half of people, who maybe I've fought with, or fired. or they quit, they tended to be people who were lame, not hard-working, looking for balance, not intense, not winners, not looking to succeed, and they would say "Well, I'm just a normal person". I would say: "Correct, you are a normal person. I am an abnormal person. You normal person came to work for an abnormal person. I have abnormal expectations, that are high. You have normal expectations." It's nothing wrong with that, but that person should have gone to work at the post office, or Starbucks, or IBM, or whatever place where average people can exist without having some insane maniac like me say: "Why didn't you figure this out? Why didn't you work harder? Why did you make all these mistakes?" At a big company, no one would ever confront them. They would just hide under their desk, and maybe 9 months later somebody would say: "What do you do here? Oh cool." And for people who just want to duck down and disappear, there are plenty of jobs out there. I don't want those. I want samurai. People who come in and fight, and cut arms off and crash through stuff. If there is a barrier and a problem, I want people who can just hack their way through it, and not stop until they are dead or they have killed whatever is in front of them. And that is a different philosophy than maybe most people have about business."

<comment><USER37> I know it's fashionable to hate Calacanis, but must confess to not finding too much wrong with the paragraph. I have worked with quite a few people who wondered "is my name in lights yet?", while wanting work/life balance at the same time. My personal thought on it was: "we are trying to make a dent in the world, and it takes something extra, and you have to really want it, cause it's hard (and tiring), and if you would rather have work/life balance now, then maybe another job would be better".

<comment><USER38> It's not the gist of what he says that's unreasonable, it's the details and the phrasing which reveal a lot about the dude's personality.

It's the self-obsession inherent in the way he keeps referring to his own (self-perceived) good qualities as the ideals to which others should try to live up to.

It's the pointless bragging. "Oh, I've only been tired a few times in my life, usually after a marathon". Cool story, bro!

It's the way he gives the impression that the only thing he seems to value in his employees is how much they're willing to kill themselves for the sake of the company.

Above all, it's this apparent feeling of entitlement that he _deserves_ to have the best people in the world working for him. This might be justified if he'd sold his last two companies for ten billion dollars a piece and made all his employees rich. But according to wikipedia he's sold one company for the $30 million range; presumably enough to make the founders rich but only to give a modest payoff to the employees. If the best he can say is that some of his employees make $100K after getting $30K for the first few years (compared to a big company where they'd instead make $100K after getting $75K for the first few years...) then I'm really not sure where this sense of entitlement is coming from.

<comment><USER4> I kill myself in order to see our projects succeed, and so it is only fair in my mind that the folks who join my team do the same.

It's not 80 hours a week every week, but certainly there are those weeks. The truth is it's probably not as hard as I make it seem in this video, but this video is my HR marketing.

The weak people who see a video like this go "oh that guys a jerk I would never work for him," and that's EXACTLY what I want.

Now, the folks who are looking to double or triple their salaries, grow their technical skills 5-10x in a year and learn how to run their own companies, those people see a video like that and say "sign me up! I want to be a Jedi! I want to be a Samurai!"

I then give those folks a lightsaber and teach them how to run a company from raising money, to hiring and to developing a strategy.

If you look at the folks who have joined my teams you will find a long line of folks who have becoming millionaires working for me, and then gone on to raise millions in venture capital for their companies--and in some cases make millions (again)!

The folks who don't know me, and are so weak that they waste their time throwing rocks at me, take the time to attack on a thread like this.... but they've never spent a day with me! They don't know me, but they waste time commenting on what they don't know.

I find that funny and sad, and I appreciate the attention because all it does is send more potential Jedi my way.

Keep hating haters... I love it.

<comment><USER39> Jason, I respect you and your work ethic, am a massive fan of TWiST and have been a Jason Nation subscriber for a long time.

BUT, personally I don't believe this HR ethic will work long-time with the emergence of better angel funding. You're looking for the mentalities of founders to become employees, and when someone can partner with someone in university or down at the local coffee shop and apply for Y Combinator, work the same hours and put the same effort in on their own company, instead of grinding in an already established company, I'm betting the best minds will do the latter.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that, there might be a wealth of super-talented, super-dedicated workers who aren't confident to run their own company yet, but I would imagine that anyone willing to work crazy hours, solving complex online problems, with the low cost of launching a product nowadays, they're going to try that (at least first).

<comment><USER4> Certainly there are more opportunities for brilliant and talented folks with every passing day. You can apply to an incubator like YC, TechStars or The Founders Institute (all great in their own ways). You can hit up www.OpenAngelForum.com or Angel List (angel.co).You can hit up the new crop of angel investors directly (assuming they keep investing!).

Or you can sharpen your skills working for a killer entrepreneur like myself for 30 to 48 months (my minimum recommend length). All of these are amazing possibilities. Coming to work for me and lasting three years or more means I will: a) Give you a Calacanis MBA in statups! b) Angel invest in your company, join your board and introduce you to other angels--provided it's a quality product. c) mentor you for all time d) get coffee with you any time e) introduce you to anyone i know--for all time. f) give you a recommendation on the phone--for all time g) blog/tweet/etc your latest victory to my legions of follers/the www.JasonNation.com!!! These things, I'm told, provide great value. it's up to the individual to decide their path... I provide but three: Open Angel Forum, angel investing, the launch conference (www.launch.is) and mentoring/hiring. rock on Jcal

<comment><USER28> Jason, I'm a JNation subscriber, big TWiST fan and have to say that the abuse here is a bit much without knowing your contribution to the community.

That said, the quote above sounds like a Czar in early industrial Russia. I agree that you have high standards for your employees and applaud you for being upfront about expectations: your employees are adults and can make informed choices. But, that you would expect truly talented people to fall in line for that kind of industrial revolution era treatment defy's logic.

Yes, you can deliver 50x in mentorship/support post-hazing, but it is still a hazing. As someone mentioned earlier, why would a talented person want to work for you again? Truthfully, they could get similar support working at Google or Fb or any of the other successful startups in the valley.

I know that you "go for the gusto" approach has served you well in the past and has earned you the success and renown you have today. But, perhaps it is time to rethink that strategy, especially in these times and especially if you intend to stay relevant.

Keep on keepin on.

<comment><AUTHOR> Surfrat...you couldn't have expressed my original intent in a more succinct way.

That's exactly what I was trying to get at.

Well done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> You clearly aren't knocking him. lol.

<comment><AUTHOR> The truth is, I didn't intend to.

But the more I thought about him, and wrote the post and started commenting here...the more difficult it is for me to find something positive to say.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I wouldn't want anyone who doesn't want to work for Jason Calacanis, working for me, either.

We're small and we need to crush it, or die trying. Weak people can go work for a big corporation and be comfy.</comment>


NoDaddy: Band Together Against SOPA-Supporting GoDaddy - <AUTHOR> http://rawr.mschade.me/nodaddy/

<comment><AUTHOR> I've updated it so now you can list how many domains you'll transfer away. As of this comment, GoDaddy will lose 205 domains and 58 customers.</comment>


FBI arrests Chinese-linked GE employee for steganographic theft of secrets - <AUTHOR> https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/GE-engineer-tied-to-China-charged-with-theft-of-company-secrets <comment><AUTHOR> Interestingly, the person used steganography to exfiltrate the secrets in landscape pictures.</comment>


Embedded in Academia: Use of Assertions - <AUTHOR> http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1091

<comment><USER2> My problem with assertions is, the conditions have to be trivial. You can't assert 'this list doesn't contain any duplicates' because that's a lot of code. And if I did write that code, I don't want it deployed because, you know, performance.

So (pertinent) assertions are useful only in development, and not even then unless I can guess what bugs are going to happen. Which if I could, I would not have them.</comment>