Area Journalist Partying Too Hard - <AUTHOR> http://uncrunched.com/2012/07/22/area-journalist-partying-too-hard/

<comment><USER2> _There is an obscene amount of money here. But it's the only place in the world where most rich people don't really flaunt it. I know a billionaire that drove an old Honda until recently, for example. Another that lived in a small apartment so he didn't have to bother with the hassle of a home._

Well sure, that does happen, but I think this is painting a picture that's a bit unrealistically towards the opposite direction now. There are _some_ people who live a sort of rich-ascetic lifestyle, and there are some old Hondas, but it's not really the norm. There are so many high-end cars that what might cause people in other parts of the country to do a double-take barely raises eyebrows in SV (oh, another Porsche). And there really are a lot of quite fancy houses in the Valley; driving through Palo Alto and vicinity (Atherton, Woodside, ...) doesn't give you the impression of a humble, down- to-earth neighborhood. And, at bars, it is super-common to hear people discussing money and deals and "acquihires" and IPOs and valuations (even people who aren't doing any of that themselves, but are just caught up in the whole scene/idea/fantasy).

I find it weird that Arrington of all people would claim that the conversations are all about ideas, not money, when so much of TechCrunch's reporting was always about valuations and financing and exits. Is he arguing that his journalism is completely unrepresentative of the Valley?

Though you can find corners that exude more of a non-biz-oriented hacker ethos, like Noisebridge. My brief impressions of SuperHappyDevHouse (have gone 3 times) were sort of in that direction also, with the feeling that a lot of money was probably in the vicinity (random stuff would seemingly get paid for magically, e.g. some VC sponsoring beer), but people didn't talk about it much. They even have a comic about that vs. "other Silicon Valley parties": <http://www.flickr.com/photos/progrium/2126533900/>

<comment><USER3> I live in L.A., I'm used to driving through the showy neighborhoods like Beverly Hills, Malibu, Hollywood Hills, etc. Kind of blase about giant houses and estates at this point.

But when I went through Woodside the first time, I definitely had a mental Whoa! moment. Some of those places felt crazy off the scale.

Maybe it was just the surprise of it, since I hadn't really seen that kind of estate anywhere in SV before then. Or maybe the woodsy aspect of it (even the billionaires don't get that kind of forest in LA). But it seemed like big showy displays of wealth to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article was completely unfair. Here's the last third of the Times article:

"But there is another side to the Valley. One where people are building truly innovative companies. Where founders aren't driven by seeing their name on tech blogs or tweeting a picture of themselves with their new investors, M.C. Hammer or Ashton Kutcher.

There are truly excited inventors, designers and programmers here, some of the brightest people in the United States, who are trying to build something that will fix a problem in the world. This is why I love working in Silicon Valley.

Where else in the world would people try to make a better and more efficient taxi service, thermostat or tool for revolt? Where else would they reinvent education, the Boy Scouts and even government? And there are those who are helping the economy, creating services that enable people to find new forms of income.

Once you are able to navigate through the sludge of pandering and ostentation, you can see there is truly magical work taking place.

Luckily for people who live outside the bubble of Silicon Valley, there is a wonderful group of creators here who believe that everything is broken and that technology, creativity and guts can actually fix it."

<comment><USER5> I don't know about you, but that part of the article felt a bit less authentic to me. One of the things I've noticed though are that people who are driven, are quietly rich, people who just happened to be at the company at the right time can be completely bonkers.

But the one thing I know for sure is that if you 'get rich', be it from the lottery or a company IPO or a relative you never knew dying and leaving it to you, how you will react is not predictable. Money changes your attitudes and if you are not careful your values, and that can lead to profound changes in people in unexpected directions.

<comment><USER6> Parent said: ""This article was completely unfair. Here's the last third of the Times article: "But there is another side to the Valley""

You said:

"but that part of the article felt a bit less authentic to me"

You are both right. That's know as the "to be sure" part.

NYT does that as do other "responsible" media. The idea is to be circumspect and present an opposing side to be complete. So someone can't say the article is biased and people (like Arrington) can't easily take pot shots.

Do a search for "nyt "to be sure"" for just the last 24 hours and you will see some examples.

Here is an example from <http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/>

"The summary statistic that comes from this data is the gross domestic product. It has its faults, to be sure, but it is the best single figure we have to tell us how well we are doing, economically."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _And unlike New York, LA or Washington DC, the conversations here are rarely > about money. They're usually about ideas._

I work on Wall Street and visit my family in the Silicon Valley regularly. If this is true then traders and investment bankers rarely talk about money, they talk about trades and deals.

I've identified with both Silicon Valley and Wall Street at various points and can state with a fair amount of confidence that the cultures are highly similar, right down to the more-virtuous-than-thou strain that runs deep through both.

<comment><USER8> I'm in DC and conversations here are about ideas and power. Mainly because there is so little personal money here, in comparison to modern industry hubs like NY, LA, or Silicon Valley. If you're under 40 and have a liquid $1 million in DC, you're pretty close to the top of the heap here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I feel the Geto Boys are oddly relevant here:

      And niggas always gotta high cap
      Showin' all his boys how he shot em
      But real gangsta-ass niggas don't flex nuts
      'cause real gangsta-ass niggas know they got em
      And everythings cool in the mind of a gangsta
      'cause gangsta-ass niggas think deep
      Up three-sixty-five a year 24/7
      'cause real gangsta ass niggas don't sleep

EDIT: Song for those unfamiliar (NSFW): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL9ihXiFAko>

<comment><USER10> That's probably from drinking too many cups of tea after 11pm. Ummm, word?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > My advice is this. Stop going to parties. Then use all that free time to > start spending time with the serious people, doing serious things. They > aren't at those ridiculous parties. So, why are you?

I'm not invited to these parties, but a legitimate answer to this question is "because they're fun". I'm not sure why he is so bothered that people want to hold lavish parties; if I was invited, I'm sure I'd go. There's no reason to spend your entire life working.

<comment><USER12> I agree. Parties are fun. It provides a nice break. The models and tigers can distract, but they also provide a way to talk to strangers easily.

<comment><USER13> Have to take your word for that. Never been lost for words and then suddenly a tiger comes into view and I think of something witty to say, but there is always a first time.

<comment><USER12> Its very easy. I would normally say "wow, look there is a tiger". You can say this as loud as possible. btw, if you notice kids they would do the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "And unlike New York, LA or Washington DC, the conversations here are rarely about money. They're usually about ideas."

It appears as though the author is trying counter stupid/unfair generalizations with more of the same.

</comment><comment><USER15> Methinks Arrington doth protest too much.

<comment><USER16> Especially since the one "innovation" I'm aware of from him is his habit of throwing very exclusive parties and using access as a mechanism to profit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> >But it's the only place in the world where most rich people don't really flaunt it.

Wow. Someone needs to travel a little bit.

</comment><comment><USER18> Some rich people are humble, others have egos. This does not vary depending on location.

</comment><comment><USER19> >"tweeting a picture of themselves with their new investors, M.C. Hammer or Ashton Kutcher."

Has no one else picked up that the only reason Arrington responded was because Bilton very obviously was taking a stab at MA in his Techrunch days. Who else was proudly posting pics and tweets about MC Hammer at the TC after parties, or blasting TC headlines about Kutcher being at an event.

</comment><comment><USER20> Not sure I understand the criticism of the NYtimes article. It's not entirely surprising that parties like that are happening in some instances, but Nick fairly goes on to point out that all of the Valley is not like that, that there are many people trying to accomplish truly great things.

</comment><comment><USER21> _"I know a billionaire that drove an old Honda until recently, for example."_

Who knows if this is even true but I can believe there are a few millionaires who drive older cars. What I don't understand is why they would do this since newer cars are much safer with advanced safety systems.

It doesn't have to be a flashy new car either, a new Ford or Handa would have so many safety advantages over an older car.

<comment><USER22> Here you see Ingvar Kamprad driving an old Volvo, Ballmer driving a Fusion, and Ellison with a McLaren, Zuck with an Acura, Eric Schmidt in a Prius.

[http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/drivestyles-of-the-rich- an...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/drivestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous- worlds-wealthiest-people-and-the-cars-they-drive/)

<comment><USER23> You do understand how PR works right? Facts are interpreted in ways to make the person look better. I very much doubt that any of these people have just 1 car.

<comment><USER22> Fair point. I should have mentioned that some (most) of those listed have more than one car --but from what I coud find (in other lists), the cars listed seemed to be representative of their other cars. Ellison has other rare cars, Ballmer another pedestrian car and so on. DiCaprio seems to buy anything with some ZEV cachet, but he's been consistent since the EV-1's, I think.

I mean, basically some people feel they need to be flash, others find their cars to be more utilitarian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In the photo, there's an arm growing right out of the guys head. Wondering if this is this a Silicon Valley thing, or if he should see a doctor.

</comment><comment><USER25> The NYT writer must have visited one of those brogrammers startup. Either that or he just plain made it up. It really sounds like a description that came straight out of The Hangover.

<comment><USER26> To be fair, the producer of the Hang Over movies does hang out at some tech parties.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Building a no gimmick smart contract platform as a service - <AUTHOR> https://ellcrys.co <comment><USER4> I can't tell if this is serious or not (admittedly without reading the white- paper). A reference to 'tokenized quantum signatures' (what the hell is that?), and a new cryptocurrency without the crypto part and without the decentralized part. Basically its just contracts as a service with some token setup thrown in?

There are so many buzzwords in this, I can't make sense of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> > I can't tell if this is serious or not (admittedly without reading the > white-paper)

This is a serious thing. Please take a look at the whitepaper. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated.

> A reference to 'tokenized quantum signatures' (what the hell is that?)

We are basing our "cryptocurrency" on some of the ideas from the paper "Quantum Token Signature" ([https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09047](https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09047)) which is suitable for the kind of service we hope to offer. Tokenized quantum signatures allow for tokens to be used to sign messages just once. It requires an authority to keep track of the state of the token.

> New cryptocurrency without the crypto part and without the decentralized > part

The idea is to build a platform for multi-signature applications without decentralization. If you take a look at the whitepaper, you may agree that the native currency is some kind of a cryptocurrency :-) .

> Basically its just contracts as a service with some token setup thrown in

Yes, its contract as a service platform and the token isn't just there for no reason. It is meant to fuel an economy of contract applications offering useful services.

> There are so many buzzwords in this, I can't make sense of it.

I am sorry about this. I am also not a fan of buzzwords. Please feel free to ask specific questions and thanks for taking the time to go through it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Ellcrys" is a word that is likely subject to trademark and owned by Del Rey.

Its unauthorized use, is, at best, 'iffy.'

This aside, I've already written on HN about how I am deeply skeptical of self-executing contracts. Contracts can fit roughly into two types of categories:

1\. Those with easily measured standards - which have largely already been automated without having to invent new technologies (e.g., turning on autopay on your cellphone).

2\. Those with hard to measure standards - such as a "material advertise condition" \- which do not lend themselves to automation without human intervention. In contracts of any sort of substantial complexity there will be myriad conditions that are intentionally vague - written this way because the circumstances are hard to predict, as catch-alls, and also to allow for some leeway to maneuver in the future. Or, to be more cynical, to allow your lawyers to argue over the definition in the future. This vagueness is a feature, not a bug, and even if we could implement AI technology to make these decisions with high degrees of precision, business people still not want to implement them because it is ceding control to an unknown third party. In other words, if you are selling a business, you are simply not going to have it be done through a self executing contract. It is not going to happen - <USER2> is just too nuts.

Then again, I do enjoy being proven wrong. So only time will tell. I am sure that more and more contracts will become the self-executing type, but I am also fairly sure that self-executing contracts will only ever amount to a small percentage of the contracts that are used 'in business.'

Source: corporate lawyer / former developer.

<comment><AUTHOR> > "Ellcrys" is a word that is likely subject to trademark and owned by Del > Rey.

umm, I will be looking into this. Thanks for the heads up.

I understand that there is a lot of debate about what a smart contract is, its legal scope and functions. However, we are not only building to host legal contracts but contract applications that are user-facing or API-based, owned and maintainer by teams or communities. These are the kind of contracts I believe will be most useful and practical today

Thanks for taking the time to check us out :)

<comment><USER5> Very happy to see you responding!

Let me be totally clear about something: you have built something interesting and you should run with it. You will hear a ton of criticism, including on this forum, telling you to pack it up and take it home. That is bullshit. It is easy to criticize and hard to build. I'm often wrong - and I've been in your shoes. It can be hugely discouraging to read a bunch of criticism on hackernews. Don't take it too personally.

Keep on pursuing. At some point, if you do have to call it quits, make sure it is a reasoned decision based on (1) having already made your best efforts and (2) market feedback. Don't base it on the stuff you read from internet strangers.

Best of luck!

(Luck is when preparedness meets opportunity.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for your kind words and advice. It means a lot to me. I will definitely remember these words as I build on and receive feedback :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "A gimmick is a novel device or idea designed primarily to attract attention or increase appeal, often with little intrinsic value."

> Contract applications in need of blockchain immutability can store and > retrieve data on the Etheruem blockchain

> A new kind of cryptocurrency based on tokenized quantum signatures to use as > payment for service offered on the platform.

> Build contract apps that can scale easily. Launch multiple instances and > share tasks between them.

And I still can't think of a single use case. Also there's a spelling mistake in the first sentence of the white paper.

<comment><AUTHOR> I knew the "no gimmick" phrase will be subjective :-D

> And I still can't think of a single use case

If you and a several persons are in need of a platform to build any kind of cloud-based application but also do not wish to cede control of share resources (source code, keys, passwords, revenue etc) to your partners, then this will be the platform you will pick. Any existing application like a community built Uber/Airbnb alternative and more can be built on this.

I will fix the spelling errors. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am not understanding this fully.

So I take a picture of a $100 U.S dollar, send it to your contract app, and I will get quant tokens? Which quant tokens are a cryptocurrency that I can sell on a exchange?

If this is true, you pretty much built a system were I can duplicate money because all I had to do is take a picture and send it? I didn't physically give you the money, I took a picture and you gave me money, while I kept the original money.

Is this how it really works?

I give you a picture of my money and you give me money? How is there value in Quant?

<comment><AUTHOR> > So I take a picture of a $100 U.S dollar, send it to your contract app, and > I will get quant tokens? Which quant tokens are a cryptocurrency that I can > sell on a exchange?

Yes. You take a photo of your any supported banknote and you get the equivalent in quants. We will be working with exchanges to have them listed.

> If this is true, you pretty much built a system were I can duplicate money > because all I had to do is take a picture and send it? I didn't physically > give you the money, I took a picture and you gave me money, while I kept the > original money.

A banknote submitted and processed will no longer be usable on Ellcrys. It is simply a model for fair distribution of the digital currency such that everyone can claim what they are worth (cash) in quants. After the "blood fire" event and the total supply is claimed, no new banknotes will be accepted or processed. The initial value is derived from this conversion process; a banknote processed is considered "burned".

Most digital currencies gain their value from the utility of the platform they are native to. The Quant will be used to pay for resources allocated to contracts and could serve as a payment method for services offered by contracts.

I hope I answered your questions well. Happy to explain further if you need me to.

<comment><USER8> So I just withdraw my funds take photos of them, "upload" them. Go back to my bank, exchange the bills and repeat?

What am I missing here. What is being accomplished by photoing bills?

<comment><AUTHOR> > So I just withdraw my funds take photos of them, "upload" them. Go back to > my bank, exchange the bills and repeat?

Yes. Anyone else who gets hold of those bills you used and exchanged with your bank will find them "burned" when they try to use them on Ellcrys.

> What am I missing here. What is being accomplished by photoing bills?

Aside from fair distribution of the Quant, It is meant to create a sense of value. If your net worth is $1000 and your understand that sending this in will invalidate those banknotes, you might value the Quants you get differently. Going to your bank to exchange invalidated banknotes takes some effort as most people don't have their banks close by. You might take this effort into account when valuating the resulting Quant.

Basically, you'll need to give something of measurable value to receive a share of the root Quant.

<comment><USER9> > Yes. Anyone else who gets hold of those bills you used and exchanged with > your bank will find them "burned" when they try to use them on Ellcrys.

There's going to be a problem of detecting counterfeit bills if you decide to take this route. As an alternative suggestion, how about using the same method of distribution some other cryptocurrencies have used in the past by taking a snapshot of a cryptocurrency at a certain future date and then having interested community members prove ownership of an address containing some cryptocurrency and using that to distribute the tokens? It wouldn't matter if someone buys cryptocurrency just for that purpose and then sells it afterwards.

The downside, is that you will be restricting distribution to only those who can gain access to cryptocurrency - which is also the same problem as taking a photo of dollar bills; the likelihood that those who will be using the platform will know/have access to cryptocurrency is high nevertheless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Besides the facts that it is not a "cryptocurrency", it is an interesting idea. If we already trust so many centralized servers for so many things, why not trust this one for executing smart contracts and acting as a trusted ledger?

It is not true that all the smart contract stuff can only work in the decentralized cryptocurrencies world, we've skipped the cloud era for that, but that doesn't mean we should have skipped.

<comment><AUTHOR> Exactly. As much as we believe decentralization will remove the middleman, we need to understand that not every application can be built on decentralized systems. Our goal is to provide a platform where communities/teams can build simple to complex projects without learning new languages, new best practices and maintain the ability to scale horizontally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > _Will Quants be "mined" or "premined"?_

> _No. Every quants will be created by the general public through an event > known as "Blood Fire". During this event, everyone in the world takes a > photo of their national banknotes. Each banknote is passed through a > contract app that is able to identify its country and denomination and have > the value (in USD) issued as quant tokens. This event will be powered by an > Ellcrys smart contract with source code openly accessible and verifiable. > All new quants will be derived from a root quant with a fixed supply. More > details will be released soon._

ummm... huh ? This is a Shannara reference

<comment><USER12> Surprisingly, there is code backing this crazy idea

[https://github.com/ellcrys/openmint](https://github.com/ellcrys/openmint)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Surprisingly, there is code backing this crazy idea

Yes! and it works really well too :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not sure a quantum mechanical metaphor is the best way to describe your service. You audience is probably pretty small compared to other metaphors.

sounds like an escrow service for crypto coins?

<comment><AUTHOR> > I'm not sure a quantum mechanical metaphor is the best way to describe your > service

The service is not actually being described in the context of quantum mechanics. The native currency borrows some ideas from this paper ([https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09047](https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09047)).

The primary offering is a platform to run scalable smart contracts or multi- signature applications with modern languages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I do not mean to discourage you but what you are building is not smart contracts but just a worse version of aws.

Smart contracts are these social protocols that are secured by cryptography and the calculation is done by the node themselves decentrally, everything remaining visible to the whole world. Unlike the current "smart contracts" in ethereum which implement the protocol centrally in a piece of code - <USER3> 'protocol' is not decentralised, only the hosting of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I respectfully disagree. You do not need a decentralized, social protocol to build a smart contract or self-executing application platform. A smart contract is simply an agreement between parties, written in codes and enforced by a third-party. In the case of Ethereum, it is enforced by cryptography, nodes independently executing codes and validating the results. This is great but hard to scale or build certain kind of applications. Ethereum introduced decentralized smart contracts, but it does not mean smart contracts need to be executed and secured decentrally.

If a platform can provide multi-signature environment, security and the ability to enforce and execute codes, it is a smart contract platform.

Thank you for checking us out :-)

<comment><USER14> > A smart contract is simply an agreement between parties, written in codes > and enforced by a third-party.

No, it is an agreement between parties enforced by cryptography, and no third party required.

> In the case of Ethereum, it is enforced by cryptography. No it is enforced > by payment to the network, just like aws, but in a worst way, because code > is executed wastefully, while still remaining at a central location.

What you are not understanding is that a smart contract is a protocol amongst people. You don't code it anywhere in the blockchain directly. It a a protocol that explains how, if each party runs code independently, assuming everyone as a criminal, still achieves its goal. For eg, multisig is a smart contract, which is a protocol where participants decide what code they'll run (signing) and the wallet layer that makes them meet is a separate layer altogether, not in the blockchain. Sometimes this layer may not even be required, for example in money-laundering or any of the 'hundis'.

<comment><AUTHOR> > What you are not understanding is that a smart contract is a protocol > amongst people. You don't code it anywhere in the blockchain directly. It a > a protocol that explains how, if each party runs code independently, > assuming everyone as a criminal, still achieves its goal.

Okay, I see your point. This kind of smart contract you describe definitely needs strong cryptography and a blockchain would not be needed. I guess the issue is still about what a smart contract truly is and how it should work. I personally prefer the term self-executing contract as the "smart" seems too sensitive. Regardless of the language or definitions, I am interested in a platform were multisig applications can be executed safely and efficiently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> On a ~1400px width screen the formatting is all jenky. It's hard for me to concentrate on any of the information :(

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm so sorry about this. I will take a look and fix it.</comment></comment>


Newsflash:  Founders Don't Really Care About AngelGate - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wepay.com/2010/09/newsflash-founders-don%E2%80%99t-really-care-about-angelgate/

<comment><USER2> Of course, founders should care about AngelGate.

The premise of the whole drama was that there may be a collusion between individuals who are involved in early stage financing of startups.

A startup founder is by definition in a weak position commercially when facing prospective investors. An engineer puts a significant chink on his life in his venture, he does not have a portfolio of alternatives. This fact is very well known to the party on the opposite side of the table, to the investor that is.

For a rational investor, a startup investment is a high financial risk. It is not a well-researched public stock, it is an option. But it's OK, since it is a game he is in. He knows that most of his portfolio will be worthless, but a few (maybe one) stars in the portfolio will potentially make him wealthy(ier).

So, when two parties are facing each other at the negotiating table, the investor looks at the founder as a sort of a 'disposable' asset. After the deal is struck and the venture goes under, the investor is financially damaged, but he is alive and will have another termsheet discussion sometimes this week. The founder is left picking up the pieces of his life.

That's why the balance of power at the negotiating table is very important. The founder has a single recourse -- there should be competition between suppliers of money. Now, the AngelGate has shown us that such competition may be a myth. There may appear a cartel between technically-savvy suppliers of money. The market is small anyway, and when the bulk of the suppliers can fit at a restaurant table...

The article is quite dangerous in its goal. So what, instead of addressing the issue -- how to prevent collusion of early-stage investors -- the hackers can go back to work and focus on putting more hours in their startups? Really?

Let me suggest a few points that should come out of this scandal before all is forgotten and quiet.

\- reputation of the individuals involved in AngelGate should suffer. This will give a chance to potential new entrants on the scene (new investors). Game theory tells us that 'tit for tat' strategy is the most viable in the long term. The cost of future collusion will be higher, and the founders will benefit from that.

\- there should be a discussion about how to prevent cartels in the startup field. Maybe a self-regulating body should appear eventually in this market.

\- any experts in the field of private equity (lawyers etc.) should seize the opportunity to provide impartial advice to the founder community (via blogs etc.). Angels have lost credibility, the void should be filled. We speak about standard sample term-sheets, financing terms etc.

\- a credit should be given to Michael Arrington who has performed a function normally done by a regulator in the marketplace. Founders should probably supply him with more information from now on.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm not losing sleep over it (too busy hacking), but it's easy for We Pay to say they don't care: they've already raised 3 rounds <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/wepay> . The essay was edited by PG, himself. Clearly the angels have treated them well.

I think the more pertinent conversation should be around what the hell do some of these angels offer to entrepreneurs, anyways? Money is a commodity these days. Plus, real hackers require very little, if any, to get off the ground in the EC2-era. The very top guys (like PG, Sacca, Ron Conway, Chris Dixon, etc.) are obviously in it for the right reasons AND offer a lot more than money. But the majority of angels, even some of the top ones, I fear take more than they give.

<comment><USER4> "What the hell do some of these angels offer to entrepreneurs, anyways? Money is a commodity these days." As a founder, I'll take a stab at that. I haven't been to YC or raised money, but from my perspective, here's why I would:

1\. They offer advice. For a first-time entrepreneur, this is probably enough reason to work with angels right there.

2\. They offer networking. Good angels are supposed to know everybody, including just the right people you should be talking to to take your company to the next stage.

3\. Money is _important_. I happen to have savings, but if I were trying to start without already having money in the bank, I'd _have_ to go get an angel round. And people straight out of University don't have money.

<comment><USER3> Fair points. Having raised money from angels before, here are some of my thoughts:

1\. Advice: This is clearly extremely valuable, even for experienced entrepreneurs. That's probably why a company like Chartbeat (serious revenue, and part of Betaworks) raised a $3 million round from strategic angels, when they probably didn't need the money <http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/31/chartbeat-3-million/> . That said, if you're taking on angels for non-monetary reasons, then you still have to think about their value-add in monetary terms (at least, generally). Is this person's advice worth 10% of my company? Also, you could get their advice by asking them to sit on a board of advisors (or directors) for a token sum of equity (<1%) and still get them involved and incentivized without forking over a large chunk of ownership.

2\. Networking: This is certainly a huge contribution of the top angels (and frankly, it's probably, more than any other single factor, what separates the Conways/PG's/Dixons of the world from every one else). Again, though, you can potentially gain access to the same networks through less "expensive" means: i.e. connecting with these people in some other way, whether as a friend, or a mentor, or an advisor, etc., but not necessarily as a full-fledged investor. If their network really IS that valuable, though, surrendering a large chunk of equity might absolutely be worth it, provided that they are excited about your start-up. (EDIT: I'm not recommending you "hack networking" in an unethical way. If somebody is providing you value through their network you should certainly reward them for it. At the same time, you shouldn't just surrender a quarter of your company because some says they have a lot of contacts).

3) Money: Agreed. Money makes the world go round. Most hacker/founders, though, only need to cover their living expenses to get projects off the ground. $70k/year for two boot-strapping founders is very different than a million-dollar angel round. Also, people billed as "top-tier" angels are obviously commanding a premium for their investment (a higher % of the company for less money). Just make sure you're getting your money's worth.

I think in certain cases angels are definitely worth it, but I think it's essential to weigh the costs of equity with what they're actually giving you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At last. A post about AngelGate I can leave unflagged.

Lets draw a line under the soap opera gossip and move on.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, this is the first submission on the subject that I've voted up, although I've read most of them with a passing interest.

It's been pretty clear to me from the beginning that there's a lot of misunderstanding going around, so the whole flap is funny at best. Some influential people got together for drinks and to talk about the industry they all work in, and decided to meet again; some of their conversation, naturally, turned to focus on some of the threats and challenges in their industry, of which YC might be one of; some of the conversation might have made a few attendees feel "uncomfortable"; Arrington got wind of it, showed up uninvited (and, really, I can't blame anyone there for not inviting him in the first place), and smelled a rat; Arrington likely also interpreted confidential statements from anonymous sources in as sensationalistic way as possible, because that's what happens when people talk about something without really talking about it; words like "collusion" were probably the children of phrases like "how can we handle these problems in our industry" and "what can we do to better develop our business"; and in the meantime, Ron Conway overreacted (but with his heart in the right place) and someone else wrote a long piece about how the overreaction made their heart sad.

I hoped I wasn't the only one that thought it was all pretty ridiculous. Thank you, Rich, for writing the first piece on it that hasn't been a waste of time to read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Woah. Sanity. Kinda shocking. You are definitely not going to be hired by TechCrunch any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER8> I like this post; it echos my own thoughts. Well, vocalizes them in a very smart and public manner. Anyway, while making dinner last night, I realized that I care more about why hot dog and hot dog bun packages are differently sized than I do about most of the drama behind AngelGate.

Not to say I don't care about the core problem at hand (the possibility of collusion). But, I don't care about the noise surrounding it. Plus, I don't know enough about the law to say whether it was actually collusion or not (assuming most of the pieces needed were public).

But, I do know that I bought 10 hot dogs and 8 buns at the supermarket on Saturday. And that code I need to write won't write itself.

</comment><comment><USER9> I particularly liked the last paragraph.

"Ron's advice to Angel investors is analogous to Paul's advice to founders: focus on what really matters. Focus on anything else is at best distracting and at worst disingenuous and destructive. Entrepreneurs get distracted sometimes, and, I guess, so do angel investors."

</comment><comment><USER10> So writing this and posting it means you do care.....just sayin.

<comment><USER11> And comparing bickering "angels" to parents ..

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Argue all you want about valuations, deal structures, terms, business plans, power, and money, but no one earns _anything_ unless we hackers write _something_. Thanks for the show, guys. Now back to work.

[EDIT: Changed "until" to "unless" to sidestep the silly debate over the sequence that things happen. We hackers still have to make something. The process of doing that can sometimes become monotonous, so we often appreciate a good soap opera. But, sooner or later, we have to get back to work. I know I have.]

<comment><USER13> Actually, no one earns anything until the customer writes a check or pulls out their credit card.

<comment><USER14> You can always have an acquirer write the first and last check for your start- up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Good points Rich; I just wonder if it is appropriate to post an opinion about this debate from company blog.

</comment><comment><USER16> The fact that each article makes the front page shows that someone here does care AngelGate. Perhaps not founders, but "hackers."

</comment><comment><USER17> This is really simple, and Sacca got at this in his email to Conway: if an entrepreneur feels like they're being jerked around, they're not going to let you invest in their company and your reputation will quickly go down the toilet.

It really is that simple.

</comment><comment><USER18> if there's something awry, it affects potential founders a great deal.

it's not analogous to politicians talking about the economy.

<comment><USER19> I think it's a sign for founders to look a bit further afield, given the relatively small chunk of the entire angel funding scene these guys control there is no chance a smart founder is going to get lowballed on valuation everywhere they go.

Not saying that these investors are actually participating in this kind of thing but even if they were I don't see how a smart founder who weighs up all the options would get caught out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think founders are too busy discussing amongst themselves how to get the most money from investors to worry about VCs discussing amongst themselves how to get the most equity from founders.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Newsflash

gag

</comment><comment><USER22> Why wouldn't they? It's something that might make startups go with YC or someplace that is not affiliated with Angel-gate. Seems like it would indeed affect how people behave or think.

<comment><USER23> Do you really think this drama is going to push founders into the hands of YC RATHER than Ron Conway, Chris Sacca, SV Angel, Dave McClure, Mike Maples etc? Especially when most YC companies end up raising from these guys after YC anyways? Honest Question...</comment></comment>


JavaScript templating 6000% faster than jQuery Templates - <AUTHOR> http://www.kendoui.com/blogs/teamblog/posts/11-08-26/kendo_ui_templates_faster_than_a_speeding_resig.aspx

<comment><USER2> The syntax is very WebFormsie, far too much for my tastes. It all depends on what you should be able to do within a template. I'm personally partial to the style used in Spark[1]. If something more like a HAML template is possible that would also be very cool

[1]<http://sparkviewengine.com/>

</comment><comment><USER3> > var t = kendo.template("
<#= firstName #>
");

Lesson: always test your examples.</comment>


The Latest Intellectuals - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/The-Latest-Intellectuals/234339 <comment><USER2> Some of this overlaps with what Ian Stewart has written about the profession of mathematicians. Ian Stewart has written a bunch awesome books about math, and he writes in a classic 20th Century style of science/math popularizer, believing that there is a "general" public out there that might find math interesting. More about him here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stewart_(mathematician)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stewart_\(mathematician\))

From the essay itself, this part struck me:

"What I called the transitional generation, those born around 1920, entered the universities, often late in their careers and without Ph.D.s. The Irving Howes and Daniel Bells became professors but retained their allegiance to a world of readable essays and small periodicals. The next generation — my generation — came of age in the universities and never left them. The world became specialized journals, monographs, and grant applications. This generation wrote for colleagues. If they were intellectuals, they no longer were "public" intellectuals; rather, they were academic or professional intellectuals oriented toward one another and microfields. In the 1880s, political science could claim one journal; now more than 40 populate the discipline. The American Political Science Association recognizes more than 30 subfields. The larger culture, I believe, suffers when intellectuals turn inward."

This is very much what Ian Stewart has lamented about the field of math. In one of his books (I think "Letters to a Young Mathematician") he mentions that there are now a vast multitude of journals that publish work about math, but that the field now consists of narrow specialists who are unable to understand each others work.

Considering that the whole field of science depends on math, and progress in science often depends on progress in math, the breakdown in math is especially worrisome.

I have the impression that what is needed is more people, within each field, who are willing to play the role of cross - pollinator. These people would not be "popularizers" in the old sense, since they would not be reaching out to the "general" public, but they would be reaching out to various specialities, and trying to unlock the knowledge in each sub-field. Sadly, there are not many incentives for this. I have friends who work in academia, and they would love to see more cross-pollination of ideas, but there is no reward to them for doing so, and there are large penalties if they fail to make progress in their narrow speciality.

<comment><USER3> Besides the problem with the lack of incentive for the author, I also think that it would be hard to get people to read these kind of publications. Quite often there is more than enough published in your little niche that you could read all the time and still not keep up. Building an argument for why you should additionally read something about other fields is quite hard.

At my research institute we have talks for a "general" audience as you described once a month. But they weren't popular at all until we decided to also sponsor a lunch with each of these talks.

<comment><USER4> It also depends on the field. Most of the papers I read are in type theory, and there are a lot of type theory publications because that's where a lot of theoretical CS work is being done. But the vast majority of those publications aren't relevant to my interests or my work, so I can get away with a pretty short reading list. Whereas in, say, linguistics, I'm interested in pretty much everything, so I have no hope of keeping up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wouldn't some of what this article describes happen simply because of specialization?

As the knowledge in a field broadens, no one person, less so a person outside the field, can read and keep up with the publications. Therefore a single field can have 40 journals. And, some topics really are complex enough that they cannot be explained in an "easy-to-read" format because they require an enormous amount of context.</comment>


Elon Musk's Neuralink Presentation - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA77zsJ31nA <comment><AUTHOR> This is very interesting. Is there anyone on HN with the knowledge/experience to assess their claims and how feasible their plan is?</comment>


Things Every Developer Should Know About Localization (l10n) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.crowdin.com/2018/09/04/5-things-every-developer-should-know-about-localization/ <comment><USER2> I think am the only one who hates when the soft I love comes in local language. It just does not fit!!!

</comment><comment> hackerman-2018 Nice article.</comment>


Refu: a collection of cross platform programming libraries written in C - <AUTHOR> http://refu.realintelligence.net/

<comment><USER2> The existence of two separate implementations of bubblesort (one for char, one for uint16_t), in and of it self, says everything that needs to be said about this. This was written by someone who refuses to use even the meager facilities C offers programmers, and doesn't know enough about them to even NIH things well. Moreover, he seems to like overtly complex, specialized code over simple, generic code.

(if the author of this library is reading this: _qsort_ is a libc function that can sort an array of any type, in any way, and does so much more efficiently than bubblesort could ever dream, while not being very complex.)

<comment><USER3> Hello pikhq I am the author of the library and you are absolutely right about that. That bubblesort should not even have made it into the code of the library and that will be taken care of immediately. I was testing something in the past and it made it into the repository.

Thanks for the other comments. I will try to improve on it as much as is possible and would like to make it useful for other people other than myself. I am used to coding like this and this is the reason why I posted it in the net so that I can get feedback and start coding in a better way.

Please keep in mind that this is just in its starting point and is still in Beta. I will use your comments well and would welcome more, in order to know what direction all changes should take

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It appears to be a subset of libc that depends on libc and is slower than libc in almost all respects. I'm not sure what the author was going for here, but it would be advisable to use libc instead of Refu in all instances where one might think to use Refu

<comment><USER3> Hello TodPunk. Your statement unfortunately currently stands true. I am going for a monolithic collection of low level to high level C libraries that can be modulary used for different purposes. I hope to achieve it sometime in the future.

It is in its very first stage and I just put it up in the net to get some feedback slowly. I certainly did not want it posted in HN yet but someone caught up with it and did it for me.

As I said to the other commenter any feedback with contstructive criticism is greatly appreciated. It is the first time I show my code to other people.

<comment><USER4> My only advice would be to ditch libc dependencies and build out things from scratch, and try for simpler approaches. I think you'll find the excercise good for you as a programmer, and good for your project here. Looking at a current libc implementation may help.

<comment><USER3> I will consider your feedback. I agree that libc dependencies should be minimized or even cut off completely but as I told you before the project just began and as such still has to have some minor dependencies. As with anything else free time is all that's needed for things to get implemented.

Thanks.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Controversial U.S. bill would lift Supreme Court ban on patenting human genes - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/controversial-us-bill-would-lift-supreme-court-ban-patenting-human-genes <comment><USER2> Okay, I understand the arguments against this bill and can sum them up easily; patents are meant for _inventions_ whereas these are discoveries. Genes and their properties exist in nature and the discoverers stumbled on to them through some variant of effort and random chance.

Logically, if they exist by default and we are making observations about them, then how do we get to patent/own the very idea of them? An absurd parallel would be Charles Darwin patenting a giant tortoise - an entity that exists in nature - upon his discovery and requiring a license fee each time a natural history museum displayed one.

But that's one side of the story; what's the argument _for_ the bill? Is there a logical reason why the patent system should be expanded to include entities you observe in nature?

I am sure the above can be formulated with more precision and panache, but as far as I can tell, I'm not sure what the equivalent set of ideas are for the people arguing for this bill. The best that I can come up with is an appeal to utility (i.e. it would incentivize X, Y or Z). However that's not a strong enough argument - what's the "steel man" that's missing from this conversation?

<comment><USER3> The reason you're confused is because these articles are oversimplified and these patents aren't literally gene patents or patents of the genetic sequences themselves. I believe the so-called "gene patents" are "composition of matter" patents just like the original aspirin patent. I expanded on this more in a top level comment, but nobody (including this bill and the original gene patents) is calling for simply patenting entities that exist in nature. It's uncontroversial that this cannot be done.

<comment><USER4> I'm not so sure. If a company discovers a rare flower that produces a compound that has useful properties for something, I bet that company wants to monopolise the use of that particular flower. If this law allows that, they will. If this law doesn't allow that yet, the next one might.

<comment> GuB-42 The patent wouldn't be for the flower, but for the use of that flower for producing that particular compound. Or they can patent useful derivatives of that compound.

The idea is to find man-made process involving something unpatentable and patent that process. The pharmaceutical industry is doing it regularly. And I would say it is the patent system working as intended. Others can still do research on that flower and you get rewarded for your discovery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The "competition with China" angle is going to (already has) drive much of the decay of our moral society in the US.

How can we compete with China if we don't <have a surveillance state>/<edit embryos with CRISPR>/<patent everything possible>/<eliminate all protections for laborers>?

Much like Europe has with the US, there is an argument to be made that we should just let them have their piece of the world and return to living happy, normal lives that are less stressed and more focused on being good to one another.

<comment><USER6> What is the problem with gene editing? It will allow us to remove hereditary diseases from the population, and enhance the capabilities of the next generation. Being in control of our own genome seems completely reasonable.

<comment><USER5> Likely a troll comment but I'll respond like it's not since this is so important:

Ummm, have you seen Gattaca? Let me spoil it for you: it doesn't end well. Every reasonable scientist working in CRISPR is against editing the human germline. Here is a good piece on it:

[https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ- line-1...](https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111)

Also note, why do you assume that "we" would be in control? Suppose a government took control of your genome? Or a private company? Given the expense there is almost no way it would be democratic.

<comment><USER7> I watched Gattaca and drew the opposite conclusion. The film defends science through by walking us through the consequences of clinging to the superstition of our ancestors. Being genetically inferior does not wipe away the human drives to belong and achieve. The life of those less fortunate is harder and it is dishonest to pretend that everyone has an equally fantastic life. The main character suffers because of the careless choice his parents made. Even though his parents change their views and recant with their second child, the protagonist remains left behind.

In the world of Gattaca we see that only a few religious nut jobs inflict natural conception on their children. They are called god-born because they are the product of religious extremists. Genetic engineering is common and accessible to all classes. For example portable genetic testing services so ubiquitous that they are available at company party.

As viewers, we should take away what I means to choose to cripple another human permanently. You should think long and hard about winning Jesus points for a second life by consigning a real person with the same ability to feel and dream to Hell in this life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When an article on a simple one-page draft bill doesn't even discuss the text of the bill, that's bad journalism. Here is the actual bill: [https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/E8ED2188-DC15-4...](https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/E8ED2188-DC15-4876-8F51-A03CF4A63E26).

It is actually not directed to gene patents specifically, but totally overhauls section 101 of the patent act, which addresses what kinds of inventions can be patented. The part that draws concern is the following:

> No implicit or other judicially created exceptions to subject matter > eligibility, including "abstract ideas," "laws of nature," or "natural > phenomena," shall be used to determine patent eligibility under section 101, > and all cases establishing or interpreting those exceptions to eligibility > are hereby abrogated.

Those judicially creates exceptions have been used to preclude patenting of genes, algorithms, etc. On the other hand, the law offsets that somewhat by beefing up the utility requirement:

> The term "useful" means any invention or discovery that provides specific > and practical utility in any field of technology through human intervention.

That totally new requirement will be construed by courts, but seems to be directed to limiting the effect of the previous paragraph.

In the land of pure speculation, I think gene patents will still be invalid under this new section 101, because the invention must arise through "human intervention." The bigger effect will probably be on software patents, where the "abstract idea" exception is heavily used, but where the "human intervention" test will certainly always be satisfied.

</comment><comment><USER9> And invalidate Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International by making software patents easy again. This is a gift to the patent trolls and medical extortionists.

</comment><comment><USER10> Patents of that which is all around us should never be permitted. Patents are supposed to protect unique ideas and processes. If what you've come up with is readily available in nature then is it really so unique?

<comment><USER11> Small nitpick, but patents protect novelty, not uniqueness. If someone creates a human gene that is not available in nature, then it is novel.

<comment><USER12> Still, though, what is a gene? Is it just a nucleotide sequence, as described using the letters A, C, G, & T?

For a body of text like that, isn't copyright the more appropriate IP construct?

A patent might be valid if it referred to _a particular process_ for synthesizing that gene in the form of a DNA molecule.

<comment><USER13> I've believed for about 20 years now that the law still has never fully grappled with the concept of something that is both an expression of some sort and yet also a machine. Computer code is the real-world example of that, but genetics are fairly similar.

I think it's why decisions about things like the copyrightability of APIs have been so complicated; the law has still never deeply grappled with the question of how to harmonize the several deeply different legal regimes that "executable expressions" can be affected by. What is the set-intersection of patents and copyrights? That's a really thorny question if you sit down and try to take it seriously.

<comment><USER12> What does the law say about recipes of the sort that you find in cookbooks?

<comment><USER13> Mostly that they aren't copyrightable at all, so it's not a helpful analogy since the law equally clearly holds that software is.

I've heard anecdotally that that's why there's so many cooking blogs that bloviate endlessly about how the recipe will look when it's done and what it made them feel when they ate it first and maybe just a bit of history about the region where it's from before finally almost-begrudgingly consenting to share the recipe, because that's all copyrightable content that can't be legally stolen, whereas if they just posted a bare recipe, anybody could walk off with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The proposal can be found here:

[https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/E8ED2188-DC15-4...](https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/E8ED2188-DC15-4876-8F51-A03CF4A63E26)

Relevant quote: "No implicit or other judicially created exceptions to subject matter eligibility, including "abstract ideas," "laws of nature," or "natural phenomena," shall be used to determine patent eligibility under section 101, and all cases establishing or interpreting those exceptions to eligibility are hereby abrogated."

</comment><comment><USER15> Can someone explain how exactly a law can overturn a Supreme Court ruling? Doesn't it tend to go the other way?

<comment><USER16> In the U.S. legal system, it depends whether the ruling is interpreting a law or a constitutional limitation.

If the court is interpreting a law passed by the legislature, the legislature is free to change the law. In effect, they would be saying "no, you misunderstood us--the law should be interpreted this way and we're revising it so that's clearer." Sometimes the bill drafters are very explicit about this, including a statement in the preamble to the bill or in the legislative history that the bill is being drafted for the specific purpose of overriding X decision.

(Tracking this is challenging--see this article for a good discussion [https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...](https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2695&context=facpub))

On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to begin with. A constitutional limitation can't be overridden by statute.

In this case, the Patent Act is a law passed by Congress and can be changed by Congress within the limits of its constitutional authority.

<comment><USER17> > On the other hand, if a court finds that a law is unconstitutional, that > means that the legislature does not have the authority to pass the law to > begin with. A constitutional limitation can't be overridden by statute.

In the United States, the legislature most certainly has the authority to modify the Constitution and has done so on several occasions.

<comment><USER18> Congress has the authority to _propose_ amendments to the Constitution. Approval from a supermajority of states is needed, without which Congress can't force the amendment through.

(State constitutions vary in how they can be amended.)

<comment><USER17> I was under the impression that no body has unilateral authority to create law (besides the creation of law through court precedent), so I'm not sure what value this distinction adds. That's like saying Congress doesn't make laws, they only propose them. Well, of course that's true but we tend to say that Congress makes the laws as a matter of course. I mean, we even call them "lawmakers", not "lawproposers".

<comment><USER18> A veto-overriding supermajority of both houses of Congress (or a regular majority of each house plus the President's signature or acquiescence) has absolute authority to create statute law at the federal level, within the authority granted to it by the US Constitution; and this statute law can override any other type of federal, state, or local law except the federal Constitution itself.

No other authority has to approve before the change goes into effect, and the Supreme Court will go along with such changes even if they change court precedent unless the law violates the constitutional restrictions on Congress. Most proposed laws don't, including the one we're discussing here.

By contrast, for a federal constitutional amendment, even if every single US Senator and every single member of the House of Representatives votes yes (note that the President is not involved in this process), if the states take no action, no amendment happens.

Very different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This bill would be of no benefit to anyone other than the companies requesting the patents (well, maybe the lawyers for said companies too). There would be no benefit to society, as the patents would be used to extract profits from patients. There would be no benefit to science, as any subsequent discovery opens up the possibility of endless litigation. These patents would decrease competition within the pharmaceutical industry.

We have, as a society, shifted much of our research and development to the private sector. It should be no surprise that the private sector now seeks to recoup their expenditures by protecting them by whatever means necessary.

</comment><comment><USER20> I've not been able to find the proposed language. Does anyone know whether there's any planning for the exhaustion of the patent? It's scary to think of the implications human gene patentability without at least carving it out from Bowman[0], which said producing crops with a patented gene, even by traditional means, was infringing.

[0][https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER21> >Competition with China, where no comparable restrictions exist in the patent system, may have motivated the lawmakers, Rai says.

Isn't that backwards? If they don't have comparable restrictions, why hamstrung American companies by making them respect patents that Chinese companies don't have to respect?

</comment><comment><USER3> I find most of the language discussing this misleading because nobody is actually talking about patenting human genes.

If you're curious about hearing a non-straw-man opinion about "gene" patents, I'd suggest this short article that discusses the BRCA patents and least describes what the patents were actually about. If you're really curious, there are longer more comprehensive sources than this opinion piece:

[https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the- hum...](https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the-human- blueprint-have-owners/a-century-old-form-of-patent)

> Of course, the patent system only protects new things. You cannot get a > patent on the raw, untouched form of a molecule as it exists in nature.

> However, you can get a patent for identifying, isolating and purifying > something that already exists in the world. For example, the inventor of > aspirin at the turn of the 20th century isolated and synthesized the active > ingredient in willow bark, which people had chewed for thousands of years to > relieve pain and fever.

> The greatest confusion in the debate about the Myriad case stems from > failing to understand this distinction. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court > contributed to the confusion when it took the case to answer: "Are human > genes patentable?" Patent experts scratched their heads, because the answer > is undisputed: No, human genes in their naturally occurring form are not > patentable.

> But Myriad's patents don't cover genes in their naturally occurring, > unisolated form, just as the aspirin patent did not cover chewable bark. > Rather, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents claim the genes as isolated, purified > and used in a scientific or medical context.

The gene patents are "composition of matter" patents that apply the genes to particular contexts. I'm not going to argue about the appropriateness of those patents here (which would also seem to apply to the aspirin patent), but I do think it's important to understand what the actual debate is about.

For example, it's also almost certainly false that gene patents covered the entire genome (a response here: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/) ), and it's false that just because one component of a patent mentions a genetic sequence that all use and research of that genetic sequence is a violation of the patent (because the patents include more than just the gene sequence -- they are a specific application).

</comment><comment><USER22> Who even votes for such corrupt bills, and how much bribe money did they receive to do it?

</comment><comment><USER23> how is this not tantamount to a constitutional amendment to curtail the supreme court's legal authority like this

<comment><USER24> Supreme Court rules on particular laws and outcomes of nuanced regulations, and in this with patents it has ruled on vague administrative procedures that the patent office promulgated which happened without legislative guidance.

That means Congress can always just change the law.

The Supreme Court didn't say "gene patents are unconstitutional" they said "patents under this x,y,z regulation don't fit x,y,z part of the constitution being argued, we agree/disagree with the lower court". So Congress changes x,y,z regulation with a,b,c law to provide clarity, and it may create the same outcome as before, amongst other outcomes.

<comment><USER23> What I mean is, they are proposing a law that contradicts a supreme court ruling, which seems unconstitutional

<comment><USER11> The constitution provides a framework for this contradiction.

\+ Congress has the power to propose law. \+ The court has the 'checking' power to rule on the law. \+ Congress has the 'checking' power to change the law to invalidate that ruling. \+ The court has the 'checking' power to rule a law unconstitutional. \+ Congress has the 'checking' power to change the constitution to invalidate that ruling.

Congress always has the power to override the court.

<comment><USER24> re-reading this whole thread, and the ways that multiple other people already explained it including myself, I don't think grandparent OP is going to get it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Agreed. Kill all trade with China. I'll eat the price increases if it means we can stop trying to compete with the regime subsidizing NK.

<comment><USER26> I highly doubt you can eat price increases for the entire US population. These things don't just affect you, so it's a bit selfish to take such a "well _I 'm_ going to be okay" attitude.

<comment><USER25> Ad hom. Also we could just implement a progressive tax on the US pop and redistribute it to those who would get hit the hardest.

In reality, I don't think we're going to stop trade with China, I'm just saying I'd be okay with it and that surface-level concerns with such an idea are easily solvable.

<comment><USER27> At first I'm sure you would be.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Airbnb Hosts Built Mini-Empires. Now They're Crumbling - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/airbnb-hosts-built-mini-empires-now-theyre-crumbling/530923e7-f16a-42ea-ace4-e01867a715b6 <comment><USER2> I have no sympathy for this. I've seen Airbnb cause significant housing shortages in my area (tourism town), with the owners taking advantage of the city's resources without giving anything back. They provide no value (except for undercutting our tradition BnB's prices) and increase housing costs, causing unskilled (and even skilled) workers to need to commute while homes sit empty most weekdays and winters.</comment>


Detecting Algorithmically Generated Domain Names - <AUTHOR> http://nbviewer.ipython.org/github/ClickSecurity/data_hacking/blob/master/dga_detection/DGA_Domain_Detection.ipynb

<comment><USER2> If the goal is to actually detect DGA activity vs just playing around with data, check out [https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/technical...](https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity12/technical- sessions/presentation/antonakakis) for a much more effective approach.

The key difference is the use of _sets_ of (NXDomain) domains vs single domains. With a few additonal features, the boost in signal is sufficient to allow classification as individual DGAs with essentially no false positives.

<comment><USER3> The project discussed in this paper requires having access to all of the passive DNS data in an entire ISP's network, which isn't that practical for many researchers.

OP's machine learning is arguably even more impressive, because it has a decent success rate based entirely on open source data and the domain names themselves, with no other corroborating information (like a NXDOMAIN response).

<comment><USER2> You only need large quantities of pDNS data for the discovery portion. For classification all you need are collections of domains produced by the same algorithm ( which are readily available for the widely-known DGAs.) The domains being NX isn't so much corroboration as fundament -- the NX-producing search over multiple domains is the observable behavioral distinction between AGD vs static C&C discovery.

(I've worked with both Antonakakis and Yadav, and implemented the production version of Damballa's AGD classifier as per Antonakakis).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        # I'm SURE there's a better way to store all the counts but not sure...

I'm seeing the progress with which this comment came to life.</comment>


Friendster to be sold by Month's End - source - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTelecomNews/idUSSHA23911920091204

<comment><USER2> It's unfortunate that they are one the first starters to social networks yet they lost their lead early too.</comment>


Show HN: How Much Minecraft Made (Minecraft revenue calculations in real-time) - <AUTHOR> http://bootstraptemplates.io/infogram/how-much-minecraft-made.html

<comment><USER2> Your "Minecraft revenue calculations in real-time" is a counter in a while- loop, which is deceptive advertising.

<comment><AUTHOR> It actually isn't. It pulls in new JSON data every minute.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Posters of Your GitHub Contributions - <AUTHOR> https://commitprint.com/ <comment><USER2> I think the site is nice - it's clean and directly to the point. No huge hero and no click-throughs to get to the meat of your project. Prices for your posters seem entirely reasonable.

Tangent: I don't understand the fascination with one's own commit heatmap (or any other commit heatmap for that matter). Maybe it seems a bit too self- congratulatory? Vain? I don't know quite what it is, but it rubs me the wrong way and I wouldn't be interested in putting something up like that in my home or office. Maybe because it implies quantity over quality? Whatever the reason, your poster project is nice regardless of whether or not I would buy one.

<comment><USER3> A team commit heatmap would be great for the office tho...

<comment><USER4> In that case, I think it'd be more interesting to throw it up on a large monitor and have it update every day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey yall, looks like it's being hugged to death right now... I'm trying to keep up!

<comment><USER5> Hey, great work!

Similar to my project [https://commits.io](https://commits.io)

Shoot me an email (ortuna AT gmail) if you want to compare notes. I've done a lot of work on how to get those generation times down.

<comment><USER6> I would love to order a poster but I just cannot get over the whole -- exposing my teams private code to a 3rd party thing. Any chance you have a hosted version of this?

<comment><USER7> You could always write a script that walks the real commits of your repo and generates fake commits in a public repo with the same timestamps but no meaningful changes or commit messages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cool project! Quick suggestion: Ditch the "Update preview" button and immediately update the preview after you make new choices.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is there a way to get these for a repo? I'd love order a couple for my teams. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER10> Very cool. I think there's a lot of focus on code quality and organization and shit; sometimes it's important to remember you built something! You should be proud of yourself.

</comment><comment><USER11> It makes me sad to see that people actively contribute to the implicit "open source = Github" assumption. Open Source has always been successful because there was more than just a single distributor for almost anything.

I hope I'll see a new rise of decentralized solutions. For now I'm frightened of the monopolism here.

<comment><USER12> GitHub is so strongly associated with Open Source right now for a few reasons.

First, git is decentralized by default. GitHub has very little secret sauce here; most, if not all, of their cool git tricks are actually pushed upstream into the git client to benefit everybody. For remote management, I can run `git init --bare` in any directory on any ol' ssh box I want and then set it up as a remote and get the same exact `git push` experience. Or use any of the strategies that git supports for interacting with remotes.

So GitHub chose a great decentralized tool as their foundation, and then _got the community UX right_. There's easy permissions management, easy SSH key management and instructions, issue and PR tracking, easily-accessed discussion, etc. GitHub is 95% about community and 5% about easy repo management, IMO.

That said, they're no longer the only player in town. They're the most universally understood, but you can easily set up a GitLab CE server on your own hardware if you want the same thing for free, but there are management costs associated with that.

I think the other critical reason GitHub is associated with open source software is that, after all, it's 100% free for open source software. You get all the above features for free if you don't discriminate about who can see and clone your code. GitLab will give you free private repos, but in my opinion I think GitHub takes the better stance here for the Open Source world. "You want free tools? You have to either pay up or share."

<comment><USER13> git is decentralized, but the most common workflow makes it basically a slightly better SVN. There is always one authoritative upstream repo, and everyone just pushes to that. Really, GitHub + git is better than SVN in only two ways: better merge tools to make branches cheaper, and local branches. Almost everything else could already be done with SVN (or similar) before. git's decentralized nature is only really used by the Linux kernel developers AFAIK.

<comment><USER14> You can commit without pushing, and generally have full freedom to rearrange your repository locally. So no, lots of us make use of Git's decentralization all the time, even without mailing patches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Love the look of the site!

How are you getting these printed and shipped? Do you do it yourself or consume a 3rd party service?

</comment><comment><USER16> I like the idea a lot! I wish there were several ways of visualizing activity so that you might get a more accurate representation of achievement, although that feedback is for github. I like the logo - it's a simple design that represents that product well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks humming! I'm glad you like the logo, it just came to me right before I launched. Very pleased with how it turned out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Pretty cool idea. When I type in my Github name (queicherius) and choose any year however, "february" shows up twice: [http://i.imgur.com/MrI9r6a.png](http://i.imgur.com/MrI9r6a.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that, should be fixed now. Was having some pretty serious issues yesterday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This would be so much cooler if it was wall-mounted art and 365 LEDs.

I'm not big into electronics, but can't you adjust LED's brightness by changing what voltage is sent to them?

<comment><USER19> (It's usually done with a PWM, not voltage. That's easier to regulate.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> A made a similar project for Android smartphones "Github Contributions Widget". [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=by.aleks.ghcwi...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=by.aleks.ghcwidget) The app is open source [https://github.com/xRoker/GHCWidget](https://github.com/xRoker/GHCWidget)

</comment><comment><USER21> If you just want a little widget to display and not necessarily a poster, there is also this: [https://github.com/jrm2k6/contwidgetor](https://github.com/jrm2k6/contwidgetor) (gets your bitbucket contributions as well).

</comment><comment><USER22> Awesome site and idea! I hope you figure out how to work your bottlenecks out

</comment><comment><USER23> What about private repos. Will this work?

<comment><USER24> From the FAQ on the site:

"I don't have a lot of public commits, can I use private commits?

You can, actually. You'll have to make that change on github.com though. Go to your profile and scroll down until you see your contribution graph and click "contribution settings" to change it."

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I guess the site might be overloaded, I tried with my github but it's just spinning.

</comment><comment><USER26> Cool stuff!

</comment><comment><USER27> blatant gyroscope rip off. nice effort in hacking it together though.

<comment><USER28> Link to which Gyroscope you mean? It's a very general search term and I haven't come across a service named that otherwise.

In any case, I doubt so, or it doesn't even matter. Nothing in the world is really so unique, and especially app ideas on the internet. It's not a new idea to make an infographic style poster from data, so who's ripping off whom?

<comment><USER29> I think it may be [https://gyrosco.pe/store](https://gyrosco.pe/store). Either way, not entirely sure ripoff is the correct assumption.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Founder Stuff – A webpage for founders - <AUTHOR> https://founderstuff.xyz <comment><USER2> Interesting list, thanks!

Feedback: All of your Amazon links go to amazon.in. Not necessarily a bug, but Amazon doesn't automatically switch to my local Amazon (in my case amazon.com), and so I end up copy pasting the product name into a new tab, that may end up in less referral revenue for you. You could geocode the user's IP serve them appropriate Amazon links.

</comment><comment><USER3> The design looks to be half flat and half dimensional. I would pick one or the other. Flat UI forgoes box shadows which has the benefit of avoiding the uncanny valley effect. These shadows are so big that the light source would have to be very close to the page yet they are uniform and uni-directional so they stand out as unnatural. I would also move the click handlers from the text to its containing element. There are what look like buttons but they are just meaningless wrappers for the text which actually has the click handler. If it looks like a button it should behave like a button.

</comment><comment><USER4> This looks interesting, though I was a bit surprised to see Dragon's Den in the list of movies. I always found Dragon's Den to be the outlet of the desperate, where one receives a small sum of money for a huge stake their company, and come out of it thinking they got the best deal. Perhaps it has a place as a lesson in how not to get investments...

</comment><comment><USER5> In mobile, you have to click the text --- a href the whole button

</comment><comment><USER6> Nice compilation. Got a few podcasts on my player from it.</comment>


Andrew Wiles: what does it feel like to do maths? - <AUTHOR> https://plus.maths.org/content/andrew-wiles-what-does-if-feel-do-maths <comment><USER2> >> Now what you have to handle when you start doing mathematics as an older child or as an adult is accepting this state of being stuck.

I left High School with a terrible taste in my mouth for math, which is partly why I dropped my STEM major for a liberal arts degree. Now in my late twenties, I am about to start taking math courses at a local community college. I think the hours I've put in debugging code has given me an enjoyment of being stuck for hours or days on end. Hopefully this will help me experience a renewed enjoyment of mathematics.</comment>


A case for microservices - <AUTHOR> http://peter.bourgon.org/a-case-for-microservices/ <comment><USER2> All of the upsides for microservices the author enumerates are really luxuries that may or may not be afforded a harried team trying to beat their next deadline, which they're having trouble doing because they're slowed down due to the use of microservices. This isn't hypothetical; I've been on that team before.

I'm not saying microservices are bad, or good. There are tradeoffs, and in the situations I've been in, the negatives outweighed the positives, largely because the architecture was forced on us without providing the resources - mainly time - to do it right.

</comment><comment><USER3> Started talking about Go, so I'm going to write my own article about micro- services in this comment.

It goes like this:

Micro-services, sometimes good.</comment>


Space Thief or Hero? One Man's Quest to Reawaken an Old Friend (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2014/03/18/289628696/space-thief-or-hero-one-mans-quest-to-reawaken-an-old-friend <comment><USER2> Spoiler alert: they didn't succeed (from Wikipedia) On May 29, 2014, two-way communication with the spacecraft was reestablished by the ISEE-3 Reboot Project, an unofficial group[7] with support from the Skycorp company.[8][9][10] On July 2, 2014, they fired the thrusters for the first time since 1987. However, later firings of the thrusters failed, apparently due to a lack of nitrogen pressurant in the fuel tanks.[11][12] The project team initiated an alternative plan to use the spacecraft to "collect scientific data and send it back to Earth",[13] but on September 16, 2014, contact with the probe was lost.[14]</comment>


How to avoid an IT career dead end - <AUTHOR> https://www.hpe.com/us/en/insights/articles/how-to-avoid-an-it-career-dead-end-1806.html <comment><AUTHOR> What works for you?</comment>


Microsoft built its new campus in Minecraft [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/11/05/microsoft-built-its-new-campus-in-minecraft.html <comment><USER2> They used the Education Edition, not vanilla. But link to source and world download - [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/nzedu/2018/10/19/explore...](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/nzedu/2018/10/19/explore- microsofts-redmond-campus-in-minecrafteducation-edition/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I always wondered why tools like Doom (other better FPSs are available) aren't used to familiarise people with building layouts. I'm sure there are Doom levels that I haven't played in years that I could walk round confidently [1] if they suddenly became real.

[1] Assuming no cacodemons etc.

<comment><USER4> > I always wondered why tools like Doom (other better FPSs are available) > aren't used to familiarise people with building layouts.

Because Columbine, that's why. In the 90s, kids used to recreate their college campuses, etc. in Doom. Then Columbine happened, and such things were viewed as possible mass-murder prep.

Doom is primitive by today's standards anyway. I hear tell Unreal Engine is sometimes used for architectural visualizations, etc.

> I'm sure there are Doom levels that I haven't played in years that I could > walk round confidently [1] if they suddenly became real.

Given that Doomguy moves at approximately 50 mph, it'd take real-world you quite a bit longer to explore those real-world levels.

<comment><USER5> This despite the claim that the columbine shooters used doom was false.

<comment><USER6> I remember it being reported that they had played Doom.

What do you mean by "used Doom"?

<comment><USER5> People spread a rumor that the shooters had planned out their spree by building their high school in doom and playing it

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems smart. We tend to like things more, the more that we are familiar with them.

So this will mean that employees like the new campus more when they first walk on it, because they'll be more familiar with it.

<comment><USER8> It'll be interesting to see if familiarity with the digital space correlates to comfort in the physical space.

<comment><USER9> Minecraft's proportions are a bit wrong, for example Minecraft people are two blocks high, a block seems to be roughly one metre. And obviously in reality very few people are two metres tall!

Also movement speed in games is unrealistic, because it turns out moving is boring, so Minecraft's "walking" speed is much faster than you'd walk - over 4 metres per second, enough that in an hour you'd cover about 15 kilometres! It's not a _sprint_ but it's a decent Marathon time for example, and those guys aren't walking.

Together these effects can give the impression that a nice large space (say 5x5x2 metres, a pretty nice two person office) is rather cramped.

So I'd anticipate that when they see the real thing they'll be cued to find it more spacious.

<comment><USER5> Nitpick: "Steve" in Minecraft is actually 1.7 meters tall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Smart way to get more kids interested in/familiar with Microsoft?

</comment><comment><USER11> has that viral ad feel. Lots of game engines would be better tools for the job.</comment>


Ask HN: CSS framework for native-looking cross-platform desktop web apps? - crooked-v Electron is getting big these days, and yet it seems awfully hard to find any good toolkit out there for producing UIs that look reasonably native on multiple desktop platforms. <comment><AUTHOR> You may want to try: [http://photonkit.com/](http://photonkit.com/)</comment>


Converting Python2 to Python3 [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.neckbeardrepublic.com/screencasts/converting-python-2-to-python-3

<comment><USER2> I have recently started writing small stand-alone scripts/apps in Python3. It's been a pretty interesting experience. Aside from certain frameworks not supporting Python3, it's been pretty easy. The biggest problem for having code that I want to run on Python 2 and 3 has been unicode vs str literals until I discovered

      # encoding: utf-8
      from __future__ import unicode_literals

After that the only code that explicitly does something different is a library I have (<https://github.com/ipartola/groper>) which cares explicitly about int vs long.</comment>


Star-Stabilized: We Rotate, the Universe Is Still - <AUTHOR> https://gfycat.com/PowerfulPrestigiousFish <comment><USER2> The originator's YouTube channel is awesome:

[https://www.youtube.com/c/AlphaPhoenixChannel](https://www.youtube.com/c/AlphaPhoenixChannel)</comment>


Bat Bot, the Flying First Robot Bat - <AUTHOR> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a25002/behold-bat-bot/ <comment><USER2> Neat. I wonder how much work it will take before it can hover. I just spent too much time on YouTube watching people crash drones (often into people). I could see some applications for this filming at crowded venues once it's more developed.

<comment><USER3> Putting a camera on any flapping-wing platform is going to require a heck of a lot of image stabilization, to say the least. You would probably have to put the camera on a neck like a heron's.

<comment><USER2> I thought about that shortly after posting my comment. I could still see it being used by consumers for low quality videos, or maybe for medium quality depending on how much can be salvaged from software stabilization. But then just thinking about the weight alone for decent cameras and how much more they weigh than this entire platform!

I see it mostly as a cool research project right now. Like most research projects it will likely never see mass commercialization, but it's still really cool. And maybe something they learn from this will be useful for something else entirely.

I also actually know one of the professors who worked on this, as he taught my first programming course way back when. He just loves to build cool robots.

<comment><USER3> Oh yeah, I'm not saying the project is anything short of awesome!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This reminds me of the first robot bird [http://ed.ted.com/on/xtyd4M5V](http://ed.ted.com/on/xtyd4M5V) that was built a few years ago. I would be interested in knowing how difficult it is to build a robot bat once you already know how to build a robot bird. Is there any specific challenge in emulating the way bats fly compared to birds?</comment>


Show HN: A website for my dog Frank (svelte.js and tailwind.css) - <AUTHOR> https://benwinding.github.io/frank-the-collie/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is just a fun little minimal website I made the other week using all _free_ api's and libraries.

\- sapper/svelte (view library and routing)

\- tailwind.css (styling)

\- GitHub Pages (for free hosting)

\- simple-form (free contact form emails)

\- Instagram Access Token Generator – Pixel Union (free instagram token to access instagram api)

Feel free to use the source code in any way!

[1] [https://github.com/benwinding/frank-the- collie](https://github.com/benwinding/frank-the-collie)

</comment><comment><USER2> Neat! How did you enjoy using svelte? It's an interesting design pattern. Do you think it's the future of front end web dev?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I enjoy it and I think it has it's place in the future. Though not sure it's good for every application as apparently the virtual DOM scales much better than svelte (which doesn't use a virtual DOM).

But I love the syntactical sugar in the svelte library. And the single file components make you very productive.

I think that utility css like [1] tailwind.css is definitely going to grow in the future. It seems verbose at first but the re-usability and fast development time, makes you extremely productive!

[1] [https://tailwindcss.com](https://tailwindcss.com)

<comment><USER2> Cool! Thanks for the information. " Though not sure it's good for every application as apparently the virtual DOM scales much better than svelte". My understanding of the pattern is that svelte should in theory scale better because you could do more optimizations at compile time. But perhaps I need to dig deeper on how it's implemented.

> And the single file components make you very productive.

Good to know you like this, thanks. I've started to do the same (single file components with style, html, and script in one) as well.

I'll have to explore tailwindcss. Not sure if I've seen that before, thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why does iOS accept GoogleCookies in Safari and doesn't sandbox it? - <AUTHOR> when i login in any Google iOS App like Google Maps, it logs me in systemwide in iPhone + my Safari Browser as well - why does apple not sandbox  apps? <comment><USER2> App data is normally sandboxed. However, Keychain items can be shared between apps using keychain groups.</comment>


Affordable housing can cost $1M per apartment in California - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2020-04-09/california-low-income-housing-expensive-apartment-coronavirus <comment><USER2> This is crazy. Give them some money so they can move to a cheaper part of the country.</comment>


Seed capitalism - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/businessview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10834563

<comment><USER2> This is a great article. Two key points for consumer oriented startups: it always takes longer and foolproof is hard to do. Key paragraphs:

[T]wo other key characteristics of the successful entrepreneur: persistence and perfectionism. Mr Bissonette had expected to have the new product on the market within a year to 18 months. In the end, it took four years.

Experience had taught Mr Bissonette that "when you launch a new category, you make one mistake and it could be your last chance." So each new version of AeroGrow's kitchen garden was tested to destruction with people whose fingers were anything but green. "We kept building the best system we could, watched how people would kill their plants, and changed it so they couldn't kill their plants that way any more," says John Thompson, AeroGrow's marketing director.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great article. This reminds me of the Excite team, after the 6 of them graduated from Stanford, they decided to start a company simply because they want to pursue entrepreneurship, without even having an idea of what they will be doing.

I think it's important to show that entrepreneurship succeeds when you are persistence, have a strong drive to succeed, and have the determination... rather than how media portrait it as random luck (ex. Founder x first started the company because he couldn't find something that does y)

<comment><USER4> In Triumph of the Nerds, a great feel-good movie for Internet startups, there is a nice time capsule vignette of the founders of Excite, when the company was just getting started.

In Bob Cringely's documentary. Joe Kraus and Graham (the other co-founder) are interviewed while working in someone's basement. They're sitting in near darkness, illuminated by the glow of multiple workstations. In this brief vignette, they both exude confidence. Joe Kraus, dressed in jeans, seems to be very entreprenurial charismatic. Graham reminds me of a young Bill Gates and demonstrates Architext's technology on Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Later, in the documentary, several months or a year later, Bob Cringley goes to visit the massive brand new, post-VC offices of excite.com. Graham and Joe lead Bob on a tour - and you can see that the founders are still very much the same people - humble but world-affecting ambitious.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for that. I will definitely check it out.

I read about Excite's early days in Founders at Work.</comment></comment></comment>


GitHub – Introducing the New Premium Support - <AUTHOR> https://blog.github.com/2018-09-17-introducing-the-new-premium-support/ <comment><USER2> This is apparently a new "plus" plan to their premium plan. Does anyone have any details about what premium content you get access to (referring to the "Access to Premium Content" bullet point)?</comment>


Growth Capitol? - <AUTHOR>

Have started a B2B Search Engine by bootstrapped. Where and how do we find a support Group or network to Pitch for Growth Capital? <comment><USER2> I am a B2B bootstrapper and would strongly recommend against seeking any capital at the very early stage; instead find your customers ( the people who will pay for your application) and work for one of them as a consultant / contractor. Learn your customers business problem that you are trying to solve and pitch them your product and go from there.</comment>