How to Invest in Startups - <AUTHOR> https://blog.samaltman.com/how-to-invest-in-startups <comment><USER2> > You should try to limit yourself to opportunities that could be $10 billion > companies if they work (which means they have, at least, a fast-growing > market and some sort of pricing power). The power law is that powerful. This > is easy to say and hard to do, and I've been guilty of violating the > principle many times. But the data are clear—the failures don't matter much, > the small successes don't matter much, and the giant returns are where > everything happens.

This is the main reason why most people should avoid VC money. As a founder/employee all of your eggs are in one basket and the chance of having a billion dollar exit is practically 0. VCs get to raise billion dollar rounds, live off of the 2-3% management fees and go around spraying and praying with the hope of hitting a unicorn. If that doesn't work they take their top donkeys and try to pump and dump them, marking up their investments in the process in order to raise another round.

<comment><USER3> I have a feeling that this is all past results that don't guarantee future performance. It is tuned to the time when Google, Amazon and Facebook were created - but this evolution phase is over.

From Ben Thompson newsletter:

"""

where would $1 have been best invested on March 25, 2015, when Altman wrote his post?

* Unicorn basket: Uber ($41.2 billion -> $53 billion), Palantir ($15 billion -> ~$26 billion), Airbnb ($10.5 billion -> $35 billion), Dropbox ($10 billion -> $7.4 billion), Pinterest ($11 billion -> $10.4 billion), and SpaceX ($10.1 billion -> $33.3 billion) = +$67.2 billion and a CAGR of 11.6%.

* SAP 500: From $2061.05 to $3,234.85, for a CAGR of 9.87%

* Big Tech: Apple ($714.84 billion -> $1,321.6 billion), Microsoft ($338.6 billion -> $1,210.1 billion), Google ($386.1 billion -> $938.6 billion), Amazon ($172.5 billion -> $929.6 billion), Facebook ($230.9 billion -> $595.1 billion) = +$3,152.06 billion and a CAGR of 23.14%

"""

plus correction:

"""

However, I did err by not including dividend payouts, which are basically reassignments of market cap to individual investors. Interestingly, this results in an annualized S&P 500 return of 11.7%, which actually beats the unicorn basket annualized return of 11.6%! More on this in a moment.

"""

<comment><USER4> > where would $1 have been best invested on March 25, 2015, when Altman wrote > his post?

Which is an unfair criticism to Altman, because typical VC returns only mature 7~10 years later. If you put $1 into Uber in 2009 and exited at IPO, your returns would far exceed the S&P. This is a terrible financial analysis from Thompson, but I don't think that was his real point from the newsletter anyway.

That being said, the point still stands, investing in venture is generally NOT a good strategy in of itself. The general recommendation is less than 5% of your overall net worth.

<comment><USER5> This is weird, because if you are talking about tenor of 10 years, you need to include the 90% of companies that exited at $0.

<comment><USER6> Of course you include them - the whole point of VC investing is that even if most of your companies exited at $0, the 1 10,000%+ return made up for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> " The spectral signatures of the best companies I've invested in are remarkably similar. They usually have most of the following characteristics: compelling founders, a mission that attracts talented people into the startup's orbit, a product so good that people spontaneously tell their friends about it, a rapidly growing market, a network effect and low marginal costs, the ability to grow fast, and a product that is either fundamentally new or 10x better than existing options.

You should try to limit yourself to opportunities that could be $10 billion companies if they work (which means they have, at least, a fast-growing market and some sort of pricing power). The power law is that powerful. This is easy to say and hard to do, and I've been guilty of violating the principle many times. But the data are clear—the failures don't matter much, the small successes don't matter much, and the giant returns are where everything happens."

This is just one type of company and limiting yourself to just that is limiting and a driver to some of the mind bubble issues in SV.

<comment><USER8> The purpose of start up investing is to find companies that are going to become more valuable. In order to do that you need to predict what other later stage investors are going to find valuable. You're not there to change the world, you're there to flip a dog-walking service for 10x return. So that dog walking service better be run by a tall white guy who practices yoga and constantly talks about transforming the world.

<comment><USER9> It seems your analysis isn't very generous. Your example would likely fail the litmus test laid out in the first paragraph on at least these points (at the _very_ least):

\- a mission that attracts talented people into the startup's orbit

\- a product so _good_ that people spontaneously tell their friends about it

\- a network effect and low marginal costs

\- and a product that is either fundamentally new or 10x better than existing options.

<comment><USER8> I'm sure the wag founders are talented. I'm sure that some of wag's customers love it. I'm sure that you can argue that it has the same network effect as uber. I'm sure the founders of wag will effuse about a paradigm shift in the canine ambulatory marketplace of ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > but people tend to be either slow movers or fast movers and that seems > harder to change. Being a fast mover is a big thing; a somewhat trivial > example is that I have almost never made money investing in founders who do > not respond quickly to important emails.

I think I'm self-aware enough to recognize that I am probably a slow mover, and this is one of the most annoying aspects of my personality that I would like to change. I get hung up on small details, iterate too many times, and want things to be "perfect" before I publish or share them.

Has anyone successfully changed this aspect of themselves? Sam mentions that this personality trait seems to be mostly invariant over time, but surely there are some habits that one could develop that lead to an eventual change (if not in personality, then at least in behavior).

<comment><USER11> I think there are areas where slow movers have an advantage. For instance, an area where the cost of an iteration is high - a slow mover may have an advantage planning and executing the iteration.

But, if you want to get faster, one thing is to ask yourself - do I have enough information to make a decision; is it possible to get more information - almost always the answer is yes, but will the cost in money or time or other resources be worth the additional information for the decision - or do we discover just as much moving forward to discover if a decision is wrong. Another question is if a decision is wrong, can we recognize that outcome quickly and what is the cost to move to a different decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some comments in here seem to miss the point. Sam's perspective here is from an investor's pov. He's _not_ saying that everybody should build a unicorn. From a VC/Angel perspective it only makes sense to invest in those kinds of companies. So if you're not that kind of company, you probably shouldn't bother running after VC money. Instead, build a profitable business over which you have full control and can support you, your team and preferably make you financially independent.

Sam, or SV's, way of thinking is not the only path to success.

Im not fond of VC startups, but that doesnt mean it's a wrong endeavor. Most of the apps we use on a dAily basis exist _thanks_ to that model.

<comment><USER13> > Most of the apps we use on a dAily basis exist thanks to that model.

Don't count me in that 'we'; an app coming from a VC funded company is a red flag for me _not_ to use that app. Any app that I've used from that category I've later come to regret. The last one was duolingo, and I now realise I was suckered there too.

<comment><USER14> So these companies are red flags and regrettable experiences for you?

Spotify

GitHub

Dropbox

Facebook (+ Whatsapp, IG)

Google

Twitter

AirBnB

Slack

Uber/Lyft

Amazon

etc, etc. I could keep going all day.

<comment><USER13> There's only two on that list that I use and both on the desktop, not as an app. One that I regret signing up for and am in the process of moving away from; the other I use anonymously and would like to see displaced.

<comment><USER14> You don't use Google Maps? No LinkedIn? Stripe? Square? SpaceX? Tesla? Unity? Epic Games? Twilio? Docker? Elastic? Cloudflare? Android? YouTube?

Ok, it's fine if you don't use them...but to see no value in these companies at all? Come on - that's ridiculous and I suspect you know that but want to push a few buttons.

<comment><USER13> I see SpaceX and Tesla as different. They are engineering/manufacturing companies and have a legitimate need for venture capital to help meet the very heavy capex demands on such companies in their first 10 or so years. (I also wouldn't include Cloudflare).

What I don't like and would describe as unhealthy is the use of venture capital to massively scale software companies, usually in a 'free-service' model, until they have grown to monopolise the market and can then be 'monetised'. I think that is a very toxic model.

And no, I didn't mean to push buttons. I was only objecting to the assumption made in the original comment to which I replied. My viewpoint is far from unique, however much it may come as a surprise to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Sometimes it feels like a lot of the attempts to find themes and trends in terms of what makes startups successful are very much in hindsight. I'm not saying you can't tune your vision to some degree to identify strong startups, but it seems like a lot of the time people are looking at successful/strong founders and then identifying any of the traits they have as markers of success. I guess there is a pattern though? There's a reason successful VCs continue to succeed and aren't just one hit wonders..

<comment><USER16> The only pattern is "resourceful" founders and plenty of money. Saying there is science behind investing in early stage startups is like saying there is science in finding out successful humans. It's all hogwash. Market size, MRR, ARR TAM, PAM, CAM, WHAM are all absolutely irrelevant and just straws that investors like to clutch to when they have no idea what to do. (Microsoft started writing basic programs with just few thousand basic programmers, facebook was hotornot app, google was a search app etc etc)

What really matters is how obstinate the founders are. And equally important is how much money they have.

It's much more predictable to invest in stocks even if they are the sum of human emotions.

<comment><USER17> I don't really agree with the first part. The world is packed with startup founders who are obstinately cranking away on ideas years after it's become obvious to everyone that it will never work.

Things that increase the small chance of success are addressable market size, timing, founder track record, and product-market fit. I agree with you on available capital since it enables teams to pivot multiple times, try things that might not work, and scale quickly at massive deficits by undercutting competitors and spending heavily on marketing.

<comment><USER16> This is why I quoted "resourceful" because this is not intelligence or anything quantifiable. Success has almost nothing to do with intelligence, if intelligence can even be precisely defined. I remember the CEO of Redhat quoting that he decided to do a startup because he thought he was not intelligent enough for working.

"Resourceful" is switching plans and finding a way to make it work.

Addressable market and market fit changes as startup evolves. And founder track record only works because of network connections , VCs trusting you with money and the founder already being rich.

As with everything hamfisting money into startup increases it's chances. Uber for dog walking? electric scooters?

What's the saying.. When the wind blows hard enough, even chickens can fly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> my "tin foil hat conspiracy" is that all the talk in tech about startup investing just distracts everyone from real wealth creating opportunities that already exist in public markets that literally anyone can access.

seed investors/VCs/etc are incentivized to discount public equity opportunities because they're trying to prove their own value to their LPs

<comment><USER19> VC is an industry unto itself, a discrete _sport_ even, and essays like this are defined in terms of that industry: the business of "exits" by acquisition or IPO. Opportunities that anyone can access are thoroughly offtopic.

Frankly, I have to wonder who is the audience for this post.

<comment><USER20> >Frankly, I have to wonder who is the audience for this post.

I had the same thought. My guess would be founders of "hot" companies. Altman is signaling that he knows all the ways to be a great investor (and presumably puts them into practice).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "The spectral signatures of the best companies I've invested in are remarkably similar. "

I want to say something snarky about bombarding a company with electrons to ionize it, but it's actually a pretty good metaphor.

I think the "help them" bit is good, too, and something a lot of VC's don't seem to be that good at.

<comment><USER22> > I think the "help them" bit is good, too, and something a lot of VC's don't > seem to be that good at.

I look forward to the day I meet a VC good at helping a company. I think, most of them are good at motivating founders by creating economics that displease the founder if they don't perform, but that's more of a stick than a carrot. I'd love to meet and hear about a VC truly focused on the carrot side of things.

<comment><USER23> In our customer portfolio we have several of these. But definitely not all of them. VCs good at helping companies are usually early stage. Later on you're more or less expected to fend for yourself unless a crisis hits.

One way in which such help materializes is in the form of a board, and the quality of that board can make a huge difference. It could even be a net negative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Finally, I've found that most of the time when founders call asking for > vague help, what they are really asking for is emotional support from a > friend. Invite them over to your house, make them tea or pour them a drink, > and start listening to their struggles.

That's super true. In my experience, it's always difficult to see investors as peers sharing the struggle with you, but who more than them can do it?

<comment><USER25> > In my experience, it's always difficult to see investors as peers sharing > the struggle with you, but who more than them can do it?

For any given startup, wouldn't the founders have much more at stake than does the VC? I'd expect the VC to have many concurrent investments, whereas the founders' whole life is wrapped up in that company.

I would think that owners of other businesses of similar size would be much more sympathetic.

<comment><USER24> You're very right. What I was referring to was actually relative to the external world. IMHO it's easy to fall in the trap of seeing investors as "antagonists" you gotta win over, ready to spot any weakness even AFTER investing in you, but in truth, they're actually really rooting for you. With the major exception of vested employees, there's no one else that will root for you as much as they do

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > It seems that more people want to be investors than founders

This may or may not be true but it paints an innacurate picture. There's always a ton of highly talented people willing to be founders and start businesses. And there's always a ton of businesses with plenty of labor to start new projects. All you need to do is look at the insane number of brand new projects created on ProductHunt every single day. There's only enough consumer demand to satisfy a tiny percentage of those products created. This indicates a massive oversupply of highly talented labor.

The problem is opportunities. opportunities to build real value that people are willing to pay for, are sorely lacking. In short, everything that can be done (legally) has been done (the low hanging and mid hanging fruit). And, all that's left is the really really hard stuff.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think the returns are in the Series A.

Invest on a $20M SAFE Note in a 90 day old startup out of YCombinator, or write a check at a $30-35m pre-money valuation at a company doing $2-3m in revenue with 300% growth rate, metrics, referencable customers, the beginning's of a team....

</comment><comment><USER28> As a fellow aspiring essayist and man of letters, please greet this comment with a bit of forgiveness for I assure you I have the utmost empathy for anyone tasked with writing an essay in the genre of "generalizable advice for startup founders and investors" or "observations on capitalism and the role of startups therein". But let my gripe also be recorded as follows. Why must we continually imbibe to the dogma of successful angel investors with such utter disregard for critical thinking? Upon first glance I noticed the recycling of the old trope the iPhone, which I've seen before in this essayist's prose. Steve Ballmer pointed out that it was the bundling of the iPhone with AT&T contracts that allowed it to expand, not some merry band of first generation iPhone lovers. I recall with equal love and loyalty my Creative Zen Mosaic mp3 player, circa 2009, which led to no such outcome for Creative, not for lack of my extreme love and admiration. And let it also be known that the essay commits no shortage of fallacies, most notably the straw man fallacy, in which we are led to believe that most investors think only about the current size of the market. Either we are supposed to believe that those in positions of wealth, power, and influence, have no concept of how markets might change in size over time, or might not have a concept of time altogether. Both equally unlikely. Instead, we tell ourselves smugly, that investors must all be robber baron caricatures like the oilmen of yore or the real estate tycoon who now inhabits the white house, completely unaware of the changing and dynamic nature of the world, and that we, though we may be poor, might be able to create fabulous wealth with this secret knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER29> Anyone know anything about investing in podcasts? Like, suppose you find a fresh new one, where it has a lot of potential but just needs more practice/exposure/equipment. And you want to help them get there quicker by giving say $20,000 in hopes they hit it big and their show becomes very profitable down the road.

Perhaps investing in a twitch channel or youtuber is similar?

I just wonder if there's any help or guides to doing this or if it's ever been done.

<comment><USER30> What's the exit / return for the investor? You're better off just sponsoring it or finding sponsors for them and splitting the proceeds or just giving it all to them. But investors? I don't think there's a rational strategy here.

<comment><USER29> Poking around I found this: [https://pod.fund/](https://pod.fund/)

Apparently they are investing in podcasts with a lot of potential. And then when they become profitable they take a cut of the earnings.

<comment><USER30> It's basically a high interest unsecured loan on future revenues. It's very much the Mr. Wonderful model from Shark Tank. 7-15% return on revenues for 3-5 years on $25k-$50k investment. Maybe it makes sense for some, maybe it doesn't. But as an asset category? I wouldn't be plowing money into podcasts expecting much of a return. The successful podcasts don't need your money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Step one: Be born into a upper middle class to uber wealthy family with connections to even more money & power (was in an incubator out of 10 of us 1 succeeded; sold his company for $350 million & his father was a VC)

Step two: Try your hand many times with your ideas, each time hitting up your built in wealthy network (VCs) you were indirectly or directly born into

Step three: Maybe you the rich get richer and you get to invest in startups or you give up and become a VC cause they are your people. If you become a VC or an angel you invest in rich kids because you want to make money; safer bets then investing in the poor kid.

Those who don't follow the above mold.. go ahead ...startup while working a full time job.. oops first, 2nd or 3rd didnt work.. damn now i have mouths to feed there go my startup dreams while richie richie is on his tenth living off other people's money. Now if your poor go ahead startup but you need to feed yourself.

<comment><USER32> And, at least anecdotally, I've found similar to be true for just people in general. Being from a family with means acts as a de facto dues card being invested in (education, upbringing, connections) and a college degree acts as a de facto dues card for general employment.

You can't tell me Sam being a student at Stanford, and the benefits of a middle class upbringing, weren't big pros when he was being chosen for that first batch of YC investment. Would a high school drop-out with a GED, with the exact same idea and a co-founder with a similar background to them have been given the same opportunity? Would they have had other investors even remotely interested? Would they have had their company purchased for 43 million dollars?

I do not have a degree, I did not want to take tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt on. I am 34, companies want a 4-year degree for most entry- level stuff now (and I'm not even CS). I still do not want to take on tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt.

So change wealthy to "formally educated".

\- Step 1: be born into a wealthy middle class family and/or qualify for lots of scholarships and/or qualify for lots of grands and/or be willing to take debt that might take you a decade or more to pay off for the hope of higher earnings

\- Step 2: graduate and get a starter job that allows you to minimally service your student loan debt, obtain graduate degree while working

\- Step 3: work those connections made with graduate degree, become boss of someone with 10x as much experience on the job with minimal real-world experience yourself.

Those that don't follow the above mold... go ahead... apply for promotions/better positions based on experience alone... oops 4-year degree required to get past pre-application screening, rejection "we're looking for someone with experience AND a 4-year degree", unfortunately the promotion is only open to employees with a 4-year degree so consider getting one... damn now I've been doing the job for the employer for 13 years and my boss has been in the industry for 5, and my boss also qualifies for the extra training the company provides as a manager and manager-level only awards making their CV even more impressive both internally and in the industry... damn, I'm taking home less this year because of the insurance increases... if I go get a degree, in 4-6 years I'll have 40-60k$ of student loan debt at 4.53% interest while only making 34k annually but I'd be eligible to apply for a position making 7% more!

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Sam Altman has this weird style of writing with such an authoritative voice to sound convincing with very little substance to back up his claims (my other favorite one is the one about "life advice" when he turned 30 years old [1]). It would be perfectly fine to convey the same thoughts by just being a bit more humble and make it clear that these are just his (unfounded) opinions.

> I look for founders who are scrappy and formidable at the same time (a rarer > combination than it sounds); mission-oriented, obsessed with their > companies, relentless, and determined; extremely smart (necessary but > certainly not sufficient); decisive, fast-moving, and willful; courageous, > high-conviction, and willing to be misunderstood; strong communicators and > infectious evangelists; and capable of becoming tough and ambitious.

> The spectral signatures of the best companies I've invested in are > remarkably similar. They usually have most of the following characteristics: > compelling founders, a mission that attracts talented people into the > startup's orbit, a product so good that people spontaneously tell their > friends about it, a rapidly growing market, a network effect and low > marginal costs, the ability to grow fast, and a product that is either > fundamentally new or 10x better than existing options.

This reads like a bad Tinder profile. It becomes problematic when aspiring entrepreneurs (I certainly have been guilty of this when I was just starting out) start believing they should now optimize for a certain founder profile that a particular investor (especially a well-known one, like Sam Altman) is looking for. Other investors have other profiles, I know of one who supposedly only invests in GSB graduates, even though his investment track record has very little to do with GSB. When you believe this as a young founder, you'll work hard to fit that profile and will reach out to them when you think you've finally marked off all the check marks, only to find out that the investors will back track on their thesis and find another reason not to fund you. The truth is that most investor theses, no matter how well formulated, break down in the face of FOMO, and will not matter much when it comes to writing checks. The paradox of raising money is painfully obvious: investors will want to invest the most when you least need it, not when you meet some random investment thesis.

It's important to realize that Sam Altman is human too, and makes mistakes like anyone else:

> However, sometimes bad founders have good ideas too, and investing in them > is the chronic investing mistake that has been hardest for me to correct. > (My second biggest chronic mistake has been chasing investments primarily > because other investors like them.)

I'm willing to bet that in reality, most of Sam's investments looked more like this rather than meeting the high standards he laid out. I just wished he would be more humble to admit this.

[1] [https://blog.samaltman.com/the-days-are-long-but-the- decades...](https://blog.samaltman.com/the-days-are-long-but-the-decades-are- short)

<comment><USER34> I call it the Hacker (News) Essay style and it's a persuasive essay style. Paul Graham writes in the same style. So I see its adoption as the result of the master-apprentice process. It is most effective with 20:20 hindsight because nobody can predict the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Fool me once. Fool me twice. Oh heck, fool me three times. But I'm not going to be fooled again. I've stopped investing in startups (so-called angel investing) when I realized that it's a fools' errand to invest in super early stage startups or in "convertible notes" or "pre-seed rounds" without any sort of informational or operational leverage. I'd rather invest in myself and other asset classes.

<comment><USER35> But fool you ten times, and you get Dropbox.

<comment><USER36> 10x that number and you're on the right track (still hoping for a Dropbox).

Angels should be trying to do about 100 deals to break even. Seeds roughly 50-60 deals VC's 30 PEG 5-10

Angels who write 10k checks @ 100 deals JUST to break even extremely tough. Deal sourcing is so hard.

Anyone who thinks they can get by w/ < 100 as an Angel is largely fooling themselves. New VC's fall into this trap regularly. The pro's know the numbers and the pattern matching.

Fool's money is fool's money if you jumped too far w/o knowing what the pool is made of, so at least learn what the primary patterns are before you jump too deep.

<comment><USER37> Is that 100 startups with ideas, you would be willing to build yourself?

<comment><USER36> As an investor, no, don't limit yourself to ideas you would build yourself. Know just enough to decide whether the idea has merit and the team is worth the trouble.

Angel.co has a great article because there's enough data now to make some insights[0]. TL;DR; any credible deal - get in on it.

But it needs to be law of large numbers, so don't start until you can support 100/60/30/5 deals for your size. No matter how good the idea/team sounds at the angel level, it's likely to fail. YC still has a 50% failure rate >5 years. Arguably they're the 'great filter'.

[https://angel.co/blog/venture-returns](https://angel.co/blog/venture-returns)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The accreditation rules really bother me. Excluding people based solely on wealth is silly. I think you should be able to take a test to prove you know enough to invest.

<comment><USER39> Eh. The U.S. education system has taught me that anyone* can beat any* test. Seems like there's value in saying "if you really fuck up, you are at least have a background that says this will not be your entire livelihood."

*almost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> ' For example, although the iPhone was derided for not having many users in its first year or two, most people who had an iPhone raved about it in a way that they never did about previous smartphones.'

I was there, and that was only half-true, or not really true.

I recall statements like "I've never had such a feeling of relief as the moment when I threw it out of a moving car window." And early adopters generally complaining with almost brain melting frustration at any number of UX boondoggles.

I think people knew somehow it was the future, and couldn't stop talking about their iPhones, but a lot of the talk was negative.

Without hindsight bias there might be a deeper lesson to learn from the iPhone, that "users love it" isn't the perfectly accurate wording to summarize adoption conditions.

<comment><USER41> I think part of what kept the iPhone going forward was the inevitability of the many minor flaws and missing features (Copy+Paste!) being added in the near future.

<comment><USER32> >and missing features (Copy+Paste!)

Oh man, I forgot about that. That was so annoying! I went to the iPhone from Motorola Q9h (and before that a Treo 650) and was like "What?!? I can't copy- paste?!?! What is this BS?!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > I have almost never made money investing in founders who do not respond > quickly to important emails.

My nightmare is a boss who expects synchronous responses to emails.

</comment><comment><USER27> Potentially really bad timing on this post.

I'm calling peak bubble in 2020, Softbank companies imploding all over the place... investors ratcheting up terms on later stage rounds, tons of IPOs at 40%+ below last valuation, and we're encouraging more people to invest.

Anybody doing angel investing should consider themselves a "patron of innovation", and assume zero returns.

</comment><comment><USER43> It would also be interesting to see how to short startups.

</comment><comment><USER44> Interesting that both sama and pg have both used the phrase "spectral signature" in articles published within a week of each other.

</comment><comment><USER32> Step 1 is really: "be unlike 70-90% of the United States and actually be able to qualify as an investor. Good luck getting there."

</comment><comment><USER18> For those who don't think public markets present enough risk, Nancy Pelosi is set to net $130K off Facebook call options expiring this week [http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/ptr- pdfs/2018/20010631.pd...](http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/ptr- pdfs/2018/20010631.pdf)

<comment><USER45> Can you share the link for all Congress? or how does one browse these declarations?

<comment><USER18> Yes you can easily search by congressperson on that website

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> For some reason made me think of Matthew McConaughey speech in The Wolf of Wall Street

</comment><comment><USER47> Not a single thing about modelling? Do VCs even know basic accounting? Does anybody care about balance sheets, income statements and reports? "Accounting is the language of business", if you believe that old guy from Nebraska.

</comment><comment><USER48> side question - are these "invest in pre-ipo shares" services that offer private shares to semi-public investors worth looking at ?

</comment><comment><USER49> Off topic: I can't subscribe to this blog with any of my emails (at the bottom of the page), getting a "Invalid email" for literally any valid email address I would enter.

</comment><comment><USER50> If you swap the context of investing in start-ups to the extreme of praying to the correct Gods to get rainfall, you'll be hard pressed to find any differences.

From personal experience, if you pray on Tuesday evening and if it's a colder than usual morning on Wednesday, you pray on Thursday, I've found that it appeases the rain Gods.

This is comparable to 'founders need to have X quality and Y quality, and respond to emails quickly'. It's silly.

Except it's not silly if what these guys are doing is taking _other_ people's money to invest. Then it all begins to make sense - in the past the priests talked to Gods via special powers. Today, nerds speak to the God of intellect and science. They need to put out predictions and rationalizations to reinforce faith in their ability to talk to the God of intellect and science. It's the same mechanism, the Gods have changed. We're playing a confidence and faith game over and over again.

The entire scientific grant system is based on priesthood, which is why anytime somebody actually makes a scientific breakthrough, the existing priest caste tries their best to ridicule and ex-communicate them while another set of priest-potentials fights to take credit for the discovery and establish themselves as new priests. Real science gets in the way of the priesthood system by undermining the credibility of existing priests.

Hence my bold prediction - within the next 10 years, there'll be a billion dollar start-up with founders who don't quickly reply to emails and whatever other voodoo Sam believes he possesses to tell success from failure apart - it's all hubris, besides the trivialities of 'willing to work hard, intelligent, goal oriented'.

<comment><USER51> Maybe it just makes Sam's life easier if his founders respond to emails fast

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> > The spectral signatures of the best companies I've invested in are > remarkably similar

Why is it necessary for writers to over-complicate with this type of phrasing any points that they are trying to make? My thought is it distracts.

Why not just use 'qualities of the best companies'?

I point this out because if you are a startup and you are doing marketing you should avoid anything other than simple language that pretty much anyone can understand.

I could infer what the writer (Sam) meant from the context but there is no reason I should have to do that.

Also little organization or structure in the presentation.

<comment><USER53> To many people (including me), this type of phrasing doesn't distract. It draws a more vivid image of what he means. I suspect the same is true for you with other turns of phrase; before the spectral signature thing, for example, he calls investor laziness "a bug that you can exploit" rather than directly saying "other investors should do this thing so you will have an advantage if you do it".

I agree it's not the kind of thing you want to do when marketing to the general public, but the target audience for an essay on how to invest in startups isn't the general public.

<comment><USER52> We will have to disagree on the point I guess. To me it's just a typical barrier that both tech people and attorneys throw up to keep out newbies and/or make it more difficult for them. And it's also somewhat (for lack of a better way to put it ) 'snotty' you could say.

And there is a wide divide between people that might invest in startups (someone's uncle or mother) vs. 'the general public' (ie 'watches family feud').

Also to your exact point I am sure there are vastly more people that would be able to understand what was meant by 'a bug that you can exploit' vs. 'spectral signatures'.

I am thinking that someone pitching investors and using what amounts to (or appears to be) an invented or recently invented way of referring to a concept would not have a good reception either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> _Thanks to Jack Altman, Max Altman, and Luke Miles for reviewing drafts of this_

Realising that there's a "Sam & Max" in the Altman family made me giggle :)</comment>


Show HN: NowLink.Me, share a one-time download link to a file with anyone - <AUTHOR> https://nowlink.me <comment><USER2> [https://send.firefox.com/](https://send.firefox.com/) is also pretty cool with up to a 1 GB file size.

<comment><USER3> If this thread is for self-promotion, see also my [https://filemap.xyz/](https://filemap.xyz/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Suggestions:

1\. The privacy policy would be better placed as a separate page with its own link on the homepage.

2\. The privacy policy currently has what looks like boilerplate text, which, at least to me, is totally inadequate when the claim is that the file is encrypted (and it's presumed that the platform cannot decrypt the file).</comment>


ARM unveils next-gen, 2.5GHz Cortex-A15 processor - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/ARM-CortexA15-MPCore/

<comment><USER3> Arstechnica has a great write up: [http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/09/arms-eagle- has-...](http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/09/arms-eagle-has-landed- meet-the-a15.ars)

Interestingly, Ars says it's a laptop and server chip, not really aimed at ARM's traditional embedded market.

<comment><USER4> Tablets, likely, laptops very unlikely - neither Windows or OSX run on ARM (which together make up over 98% of laptop OS market share <http://gorumors.com/crunchies/operating-system-market-share/>). I suppose Windows 8 and OSX 10.7 could be out before 2012 and ported, but I wouldn't bet on it....

<comment><USER5> Is there any good reason to sacrifice any significant amount of battery life for performance in a tablet class device at this point? I think consumers will find the happy medium of device battery life (full day for SmartPhones, couple of days for tablets) and CPU evolution will need to be more incremental to meet those demands.

<comment><USER6> Honestly, I don't need a computer more powerful than my Motorola Droid. If someone could make one of those that had the battery life of a feature phone, I'd take my Moto Droid any day of the week.

(Actually, I don't see why you think that tablets should have multi-day life expectancies. I'm almost always using them in areas where there are plugs. My phone on the other hand almost never leaves my pocket. )

<comment><USER7> "Honestly, I don't need a computer more powerful than my Motorola Droid. "

How can more performace ever be a bad thing, things you have not even imagined or been invented yet to do on a mobile because the performance is not there yet. E.g. things that I know: 3D video recording and photography, great performance augmented reality, instant search with social network and location data built it, HDR video recording.

I don't even know what I don't know...

And its not even multiday - I would love my iPhone to be double the performance and 8 hours non stop video play. That would be awesome, nothing more frustrating than being stuck on a train with a mobile that has run out of battery, only so long you can stare at the hot chicks :)

<comment><USER8> There's probably things in theory you can do with it, but in practice I really haven't found a need for more performance in the past 5 years or so. I have a low-powered, old laptop and a full-powered, newish desktop, and I really don't run into anything I want to do on the laptop but can't. Admittedly, I don't play much in the way of recent games, so that would be one possible use. There's scientific computing, but I run that all on remote servers or by spinning up VMs in the cloud these days. I just haven't run into much of anything else that needs the CPU cycles. In retrospect, I should've bought a lower-powered desktop machine!

<comment><USER7> Each to their own I suppose, I have a few laptops generally replace them every 2-3 years. Currently an Alienware M11X and a Acer 1215N. Even for "just" email, browsing, reading I really like the "instant" feel from the newer core 2 duo processors and an SSD.

I also occisionally fire up a bit of Starcraft 2 so the M11x is great for that.

I use an older computer at work and it is really painfull waiting for it to load apps and even Firefox - ultimately it is only a few secords but that is annonying to me.

For my phone the iphone is brilliant but battery life is a real issue. I read on it all the time (walking, trains, tube, waiting in line). Occasional game and youtube video also. Extra battery would be great espeically when I'm on holiday or weekend break or just have played a few videos and haven't had a chance to charge it all day

The performance is fine at the moment but I would love it to be faster - <USER2> apps to launch instantly, multitask instant, youtube vids play in HD with no lag and the ability to do more on it e.g. take HDR video, compress and edit movies I take on my camera, play full 3D games with great graphics e.g. upcoming Sword.

You can keep your 5 year old machine, but I am really looking forward to the Dual core ARM processors - thats why I own share in ARM and Qualcomm :)

<comment><USER8> Hmm, the SSD is a good point. I don't think my interactive desktop usage is very often CPU-bound, which is one reason I don't notice much difference between the older and newer machines I own. But an SSD might make some difference, because I'm guessing some stuff (esp. app startup) is I/O-bound.

I do often take a software approach to speeding things up, though. For example, my solution to Firefox taking a few seconds to start up was to switch to Chrome. ;-) And thanks to the amazing JS compiler advances over the past few years, my old laptop runs JS much faster today than it did when it was new!

<comment><USER7> Yes buying an SSD was the single biggest increase to speed I have ever seen from one component. I run SSDs on all my laptops and I would highly recommend it. Have a 2TB USB for all my storage so 128 or 64gb SSD which is not that expensive is fine.

Agree on software approach - I love Chromium and really struggle when forced to use Firefox for work. IE I wouldn't touch with a 40 foot pole and thanks the IE tab extension for Chrome I never need to :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Intel should be worried. With support for 1TB of memory this seems like the first ARM chip that can really make a dent in the server market. I expect the big players with significant energy bills to be very interested in this.

<comment><USER10> Supporting 1 TB of memory on a 32-bit system reminds me of the bad old days of DOS extended memory. Are there any plans for a 64-bit ARM chip?

<comment><USER9> I don't know, but it's the obvious next step. There are certainly rumours that ARM is going to go that way. I'm not plugged in to the chip manufacturer gossip network but my guess is that ARM doesn't want to start an open fight with Intel before they have

1) Tested the server market. A 32-bit chip has its limitations, but for things like caches that are IO limited it is fine, and

2) Got their 64-bit architecture nailed down. I expect they don't want to give Intel a long lead time to respond.

<comment><USER11> When power is a major concern, and that is the applications ARM is targeting, using a 64-bit system when 32-bit would suffice is counter-productive. A 64-bit CPU naturally requires more transistors and thus more power than a 32-bit one. There are other overheads (in OS etc) associated with a 64-bit system. The difference may not be great, but for many applications it is a cost with no reward.

Comparing to MIPS, they have had a 64-bit ISA variant for a very long time, yet all the recent cores have been 32-bit as this is all their current target markets require.

A full 64-bit system is really required only for HPC-type applications, a domain currently owned by Intel and IBM. If ARM are interested in eating into this market segment, it is most likely a very long-term goal, and obtaining a foothold in the 32-bit server space would serve as a first step in that direction.

<comment><USER12> Networking equipment is another place where 64-bit systems are useful. See chip offerings from places like NetLogic and Cavium, for instance: their multicore MIPS chips are 64-bit.

Databases are another place where 64-bit systems shine. Maybe you already assumed that was included under "HPC-type applications", though. When I hear HPC, I think number-crunching, not databases, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Where does one get a datasheet for one of those?

I was looking for the datasheet for previous models, but all I could find were press releases.

<comment><USER14> <http://arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a9.php>

There's quite a bit of documentation under the Resources tab. A15 docs won't be released until later.

<comment><USER13> Thanks. Now I remember that it's Qualcomm's chips that I couldn't get datasheets for:

MSM8660: Dual Core, 1.2 GHz, Q2 2010 ([http://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2010/06/01/qualcomm- sh...](http://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2010/06/01/qualcomm-ships-first- dual-cpu-snapdragon-chipset))

QSD8672: Dual Core, 1.5 GHz, Q4 2010</comment></comment></comment>


AGPL no more - <AUTHOR> http://blog.opalang.org/2012/05/opa-license-change-not-just-agpl.html <comment><USER2> I found the headline a bit misleading. Maybe it's just me, but when I see "AGPL no more", it sounds like the FSF is deprecating the Affero GPL. And the article isn't even about a project dumping the AGPL, but licensing different components in different ways while retaining the AGPL for a major part of the core.

I'd hope for better headline writing in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought the domain name next to it was giving a hint. Better headline might have been: "Dual licensing business model does not work anymore" but that's long.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The future is BSD style licenses, not the GPL3 variants. RMS got a little too clever for his own good.

Why on earth would you agree to give up your source code/competitive advantage to save writing a few hundred lines of javascript? It's one thing to try and write a kernel from scratch, but to sell your soul for a Javascript library (looking @ you, Sencha Touch, which is mostly re-themed jQuery mobile) is silly.

At least these licenses have a good purpose: they provide a shibboleth for identifying the ideologically pure.

<comment><USER4> You seem to be implicitly assuming that "the future" is "a few hundred lines of javascript".

<comment><USER5> Also implicitly assuming that all code is written for competitive advantage, and that licenses are aimed at developers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> from the post: "The Opa compiler will remain an AGPL project."

The title on the blog post is "Opa License Change: Not just AGPL anymore"

<comment><USER7> From the post: "The standard library and the native backend will be licensed under the GPL license with the so-called ClassPath exception, like Java. The exception means you can link the GPL code with any code, opening the door to license your application under any license."

<comment><USER6> Yep, multiple parts having multiple licenses. My point was the AGPL is still in the mix.

for completeness here is the list from the post:

1\. The Opa compiler will remain an AGPL project.

2\. The standard library and the native backend will be licensed under the GPL license with the so-called ClassPath exception, like Java. The exception means you can link the GPL code with any code, opening the door to license your application under any license.

3\. The forthcoming Node.js backend will be licensed under the MIT license.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _most developers won't release the source anyway while they develop for many possible reasons: It's not working yet, they are not proud of their code yet, they don't know what to do with it yet, etc._

Well under the AGPL they are required to release the code… Sorry, but that's copyright law and that's the copyleft licence.

<comment><USER9> No, they are only required to release the code when the distribute the result. The license does not compel a developer to release the code before they've started distributing it.

<comment><USER10> In the context of the AGPL, serving an application is like distributing a binary, so they should distribute its sources too.

<comment><USER9> Which probably doesn't apply while the stuff is still in development.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Will the formerly AGPL components continue to be dual-licensed under the AGPL as well?

If not, that's a problem, because the AGPL and GPL are incompatible, so that means that nobody can use the AGPL for new forks/patches on the product anymore.

(That's not quite true in that they can receive a copy of the product from someone who received it under the original AGPL license and therefore can and must redistribute it under the AGPL, but the point is that, when making licensing changes, you should always _add_ a licensing option instead of changing it, because the latter isn't really possible, and the former is more explicit as to the outcome).

<comment><USER12> AGPLv1 and GPLv2 are not compatible. GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are compatible because of clause 13 in both licenses. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License#Compatibility_with_the_GPL) for more details.

<comment><USER11> Ah, I didn't realize that the project was released under the GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Developers take note: License with AGPL at your peril, or rather at the peril of your product, which most people will not touch if it is AGPL licensed.

<comment><USER14> On the HN frontpage not far from this thread, there is a story about 10gen raising $42M with their AGPL licensed MongoDB.

<comment><USER6> from the MongoDB licensing page: <http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Licensing>

"The goal of the server license is to require that enhancements to MongoDB be released to the community. Traditional GPL often does not achieve this anymore as a huge amount of software runs in the cloud. For example, Google has no obligation to release their improvements to the MySQL kernel – if they do they are being nice.

To make the above practical, we promise that your client application which uses the database is a separate work. To facilitate this, the mongodb.org supported drivers (the part you link with your application) are released under Apache license, which is copyleft free. Note: if you would like a signed letter asserting the above promise please request via email."

On the the other hand Opa's statement was "And because of the latter, every program written in Opa, that links to the runtime, must itself be released under the AGPL or the GPL."

Very different scenarios for developers.

<comment><USER14> I was just indicating that "License with AGPL at your peril" is an overreaction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What is the difference between LGPL and GPL with the classpath exception?

</comment><comment><USER16> Why not LGPL?

<comment><USER12> Most likely for reasons described in <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not- lgpl.html> .</comment></comment>


Wikipedia Supports Emojis? - <AUTHOR>

Take a Look!<p>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%F0%9F%98%84 <comment><USER2> Wikipedia has many redirects or disambiguation pages for single unicode characters. What's so great about this one?</comment>


List of Fully Funded PhD Programs in Machine Learning - <AUTHOR> https://www.profellow.com/fellowships/fully-funded-phd-programs-in-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> This is a laughable "list". They list a handful of big-name schools. Here's a reality check: most research universities "fully fund" a PhD for any STEM field.

Oh, and once you are on the page for a bit, a full-page popup blocks the screen asking for your information.

BAD DOG! NO TREAT FOR YOU!</comment>


Ask HN: How did you find contributors to your open source project? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Most of the time your users will become your contributors. That's mostly true for libraries targeted at developers, but even if you build software for non- technical users some of them will be developers and will eventually contribute.

Don't expect your community to build large features for you, even though that happens from time to time my experience is more that most people contribute small patches and improvements. That's great too because the small things can be quite time-consuming, so if your community has your back on things like documentation or translations it can help a lot.

One of our latest open-source projects is Klaro ([https://github.com/kiprotect/klaro](https://github.com/kiprotect/klaro)), an open-source consent manager for websites. We already got some really great contributions from our community, most people that contributed did so to solve a problem they had with the software (e.g. missing translations) or to build something they wanted for themselves. We don't accept all PRs but if they are in line with our development goals we're happy to merge them.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wrote an Elixir mix task that would create Ecto models based on an existing database schema. A few people contributed with most being things that they would want or changes that would be minor (such as spelling mistakes or fixing documentation). The benefit I think I had in getting those contributors is that the code base was very small so it was easy to take in at one time and it was in a language that is going to attract devs that are putting in the effort to learn something new and may want to experiment with the language.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a small lib that I wrote to solve a specific problem at work and open sourced it, it's on my personal github profile, with the company copyright. Never made any sort of advertising or publishing on it: it was just there sitting idle on github, and it wasn't even getting commits since it just worked in the only place it was used.

One day I got a random email a person who found it through google: the name of the lib contained the keywords they were typing. I got a "thank you" email and that's it. It's been 10 years. I have no idea who else might be using it.

</comment><comment><USER5> The technique I've usually seen succeed is when the author begins by posting an informative write-up about their project to developer focused websites (kinda like the one we're one right now). You'd ideally want to highlight the future roadmap of the project (eg. things that you want to incorporate into it) and ask people with relevant skills to contribute and/or spread the word. All the best!

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't know, but if someone is interested, they can try. Note that I do not use GitHub; I use Fossil. Which newsgroups might I try? I did post on HN too (and got no responses), and on IRC, but I don't know which IRC channels to try. I tried to ask them but they don't know either.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've seen posts on HN about open source software that led to finding contributors or projects.</comment>


Google Turning into AI Company to Win New Markets Like Cloud and Transportation - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbinsights.com/research/report/google-strategy-teardown/ <comment><USER2> I wish you well Google, really.

But do some simple excercises first before starting something more ambitious with AI.

Like autocorrect that knows if logged in user prefers female or male forms. Or perhaps smarter search engine that helps discover knowledge not just crap copy-cat sites. Or perhaps News or Youtube recommendations that won't go down to lowest common denominator. Or Music recommendations that will learn and adapt from my listening habbits.</comment>


Ask HN: Engineering group to fight Covid-19 needs fee waiver from Slack - <AUTHOR> Hi,
We're organizing an engineering group to devise solutions to help against COVID-19.
We currently have 390+ people in our Slack. This includes ex-FANG, software developers and mechanical engineers. We also have PhDs, medical doctors, nurses and other clinicians.
The growth of our group was (is) extremely rapid. I expect to be quickly approaching Slack's horizon of 10,000 messages via the free plan.
Cutting off our messages will deprive us of important past insights and discussions. This will hamper our activities significantly.
Paying the standard plan's fee seems punitive in this situation. Indeed, even the non-profit rate implies monthly fees of $1,125 if we reach 500 members (we added hundreds today).
We are literally working to find ways to help frontline medical staff, who we are worried might be overwhelmed by COVID-19.
Given the time constraints, we are concentrated on products, not on funding.
Under the unique circumstances, can someone reach out to Slack corporate to ask for an exemption?
Our group is: helpfulengineering.slack.com <comment><USER2> If you have hundreds of members, why not ask each for a couple of dollars to cover slack costs? Or use a different platform. Or self host something else. Not to be overly dismissive, but my first impression is that you have a bunch of devs finding something interesting and wanting to follow along rather than a key cohort of people who will "disrupt covid-19." I don't see why Slack should pay for a bunch of people to use their platform. They are in the business of making money, and offer reduced costs for non-profits. If that doesn't work for you, use something else.

What is wrong with a subreddit for this, for example. Or a mailing list. Or just self host a chat app.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi,

I'm interested in responding to your comment.

>Not to be overly dismissive, but my first impression is that you have a bunch of devs finding something interesting and wanting to follow along rather than a key cohort of people who will "disrupt covid-19."

The group was founded with the intention of coordinating mechanical engineers and medical clinicians to build physical devices.

For the developers and engineers coming in, most state they have considerable mechanical or device background. It's possible that the value of some of these people is low. I don't think so. I'm not willing to have to pay the admin costs and externalities of gatekeeping access right now.

To be clear, I think we're conscious of the challenges and ways we can fail. In actively figuring out designs or devices to build, we're trying to organize hundreds of disparate people. One of our admins seemed to just have pulled a 24 hour day, and most of us have regular jobs. I think there's an underlying assumption that we only have a short period of time. We may fail but we want to give the best effort we can.

I agree with your premise, that engineering help alone is insufficient. We have a dozen doctors who trickled in but a major deficit is medical clinicians with organized opinion to advise us. These people may become fewer and less available in the weeks to come.

NOTE Please contact us (email in profile) if you are a clinician who has insights in what is needed in a situation where there is a vast surplus of patients in respiratory distress, or other ways we can help (e.g. we have heard requests for PPE needs from clinicians). Note that one reason we need multiple opinions is because of the different cultures and organizations that might exist in emergency environments.

>If you have hundreds of members, why not ask each for a couple of dollars to cover slack costs?

I'm not uncomfortable raising money, but right now, the organizational demands are extreme. I'm unwilling to add to this by having some sort of finance committee and managing the ethics and optics of raising money.

Also, narrative is important and raising say, X dollars for operations could affect efforts to raise 100X dollars to actually build medical devices to alleviate suffering or reduce the burden on clinicians.

>I don't see why Slack should pay for a bunch of people to use their platform. They are in the business of making money, and offer reduced costs for non- profits. If that doesn't work for you, use something else.

There's significant costs Slack incurs to engineer and build its services. We're grateful for this.

However, the marginal cost to slack from our existence and activities seems to be about the same as this discussion is to HN.

> Or use a different platform. Or self host something else.

I'm not sure there's a lock in effect, but given our presumption of urgency, we couldn't migrate without losing many hours of everyone's time, admin resources, etc. The culture here among engineers seems to prefer Slack and I expect there would be abundant residual effects from a change.

Charles He

<comment><USER3> Asking each member to PayPal 2 dollars to keep this going will be a great test of who, if anyone, is actually committed to the project and let you cut out dozens of people whose only contribution would be bike shedding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, it appears that Slack has upgraded our plan so we are not faced with the 10,000 message horizon issue.

We're extremely grateful to Slack for the rapid response.

I would edit the post but I cannot any longer.

<comment><USER4> Did they adjust based on this HN post? We are wanting to get the My Climate Journey Slack account (550+ people) upgraded as well...

<comment><AUTHOR> To be clear, we got a trial period, and this was warmly given.

(I don't want to misrepresent what happened.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In most disaster scenarios, programmers are not welcome because they're dead weight.

Unless, of course, they can write a fat check.

So if you want to actually help, donate money.

</comment><comment> free-messenger You could use free Chat with Jabber(XMPP).

There is a public english chat room for COVID-19: xmpp:email@example.com?join

A public german COVID-19 chat you find here: xmpp:firstname.lastname@example.com?join

Or feel free open a new chat room on a server you like or at your own server if you want to.

More informations (german): www.freie-messenger.de/sys_xmpp

</comment><comment><USER6> Hi all,

Can we get more eyes on this.

We're working on open-source projects that can help reduce Corona virus infection and design high tech solutions to help ICU doctors and nurses dealing with CoVID19 patients.

If you are a tech with medical knowledge then we need you. If you are a tech with respiratory knowledge you'll be a valuable member. Please join!

Maybe we should tag this with "Show HN:" it may get more traction?

</comment><comment><USER7> Maybe I don't understand the pricing correctly, but I think you're not "limited" to 10,000 messages. The limit is on history and searching through messages, in which the 10,000 limit kicks in. I think you can send as many messages as you want.

We've been using Slack for years and are way past 10,000 messages. You just can't search messages dating back many years. Although we can get the files we sent many years ago.

<comment><USER8> They don't want to lose "old" insights if the growth of the group makes it that over 10k messages are sent in a short time (say 2 weeks).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> have you considered using any of the numerous free open source alternatives to slack?

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder why Slack hasn't at least done discount rates for large memberships, or a cheap version that just gives chat access. It supports a big group very well, but a group of curious strangers meeting online is going to be obscenely expensive.

</comment><comment><USER11> Any thoughts on [https://opencollective.com/](https://opencollective.com/) ?

</comment><comment><USER12> I work in Healthcare IT and am interested in joining. Any reason we can't migrate to zulip or mastodon?

<comment><AUTHOR> Please email me, in my profile.

Short answer: there's sort of a lock-in effect and we really have other needs right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What ways are they possibly helping?

Not to doubt the venture but at this stage I'm not sure what can be done.

</comment><comment><USER14> You didn't have to use slack

</comment><comment><USER15> Discord, Zullip(spelling?) and others can provide the functionality you want for free.

</comment><comment><USER16> How do I go about requesting an invite?

<comment><AUTHOR> Please email me, in my profile.</comment></comment>


Show HN: The Pond - My platform-agnostic HTML5 game - <AUTHOR> http://www.zolmeister.com/2013/10/the-pond.html

<comment><USER2> So I think you lose your colours once you collect more than 4 total. You start with two, and you absorb the colour of any fish you absorb. Not quite sure how it all works, but that's what the source says.

The arrow key commands feel a little funny to me, they turn the fish to swim towards the direction you are pointing. I would much rather use left/right to turn and up to go faster. The down key wouldn't need to be used, as the fish slow down automatically once you release the up key.

It's a nice relaxing game, works relatively well with just a trackpad too.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tried it on a phone with Firefox and Chrome browser. Works fine directing the fish with the finger - though sometimes you do not see the fish because of the finger. Maybe using inclinisation of the phones to direct the fish is a better idea - kind of like doodle jump.

</comment><comment><USER4> Biggest problem with the game is that the sizes are too close. Several times I assumed i was the same size with more rings inside of me or even bigger than my prey but the fish i touched actually killed me. Too confusing and obscure currently but the concept is great.

</comment><comment><USER5> Its difficult to tell whether a fish is smaller, or larger than your self. Might color code them based on whether you can eat them or not.</comment>


The Wonder from Down Under: The Fairlight CMI Digital Sampling Synthesiser - <AUTHOR> https://paleotronic.com/2018/10/16/the-wonder-from-down-under-the-fairlight-cmi-digital-sampling-synthesiser/ <comment><USER2> If anyone has one of these gorgeous machines (or knows someone that has one), please get in touch (email in profile). Through a very circuitous process I managed to score some of those 8" floppys Vogel made for the CMI in 1979 - would love to rip them for the Internet Archive and hear them in their original glory.

<comment><USER3> As well as Vogel's own CMI app, Arturia make a VST called Fairlight V which has most of the original sounds and does an excellent job of capturing the audio character of the instrument.

Chances are good the floppies are part of the original sample library, which is widely available.

<comment><USER2> They came with an invoice from Deram Limited in London sent to Roger Linn in Hollywood. Signed by Gloria Calbrath and John Styx. The invoice says the producer was Vic Coppersmith. Artist: Europeans. Invoice line items says it includes "ENC DEMO SAMPLES FOR LINN ELECTRONICS". Dated January, 1982.

The three disks are labeled:

1) "Ultranox drum sounds, Simmons Drums Sounds, Tom Severetts Drum Sounds"

2) "Freddie Perren's Drum Sounds"

3) "Audio Disk: Vic Coppersmith / Europeans"

All three disks are BASF 128 Bytes(!), 25 Sectors.

If you can point me in the direction of those original sample libraries I would be appreciate it, as it gives me a space to start parsing these!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "However, despite its deficiencies, Australian distributors and consumers were interested, so much so that the Musician's Union warned that such devices posed a "lethal threat" to its members, afraid that humans in orchestras could be replaced!"

Funny how the music business in general can be such a bunch of Luddites. Player pianos, the phonograph, the Hammond organ, magnetic tape, synthesizers, digital recording... all of them were going to just kill music.

<comment><USER5> ? But it happened. Older musicians tell me about a time (1960s and before) when they had several gigs each day - playing in dance halls, radio stations, clubs, tv stations, studio work.. Now venues can just turn on the radio or CD etc. People write music on their computers. How many places where people dance has a live band with actual musicians? (No, DJs don't count) By the sound of it, there's virtually no gigs nowadays compared to back then. Those things you mentioned didn't kill music, but live music, actual musicians, have a vastly reduced role in society (in the West at least) compared to 50 or 100 years ago. I understand why the Musician's Union would be worried.

<comment><USER6> > People write music on their computers

I'm perfectly fine with that. Computers can be musical instruments and even if they don't take years to master to get a tone or a riff out that does not diminish the accomplishment, which is all about creating original sounds, not about _how_ those sounds are made.

<comment><USER7> People creating "computer music" are a mix of composers and producers, but not players which is a totally different piece of work. Apart from live DJs, but there's very few of them doing anything on stage that could be called "playing an instrument".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It turns out the demo/warez group of the same name, which I'd guess far more users here have probably heard of, did get its name from the synthesiser:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairlight_(group)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairlight_\(group\))

The group and its members also have an interesting history.

</comment><comment><USER9> I was sold when I saw the early version of the touch screen:

"a light-sensing 'pen' which can tell its location on the CRT by synchronising with the video signal"</comment>


Startup Zenefits Under Scrutiny for Flouting Insurance Laws - <AUTHOR> http://www.buzzfeed.com/williamalden/zenefits-under-scrutiny-for-flouting-insurance-laws#.jtRmpzyAp <comment><USER2> Quote from the article below. I'm curious - is this type of behaviour the YC- encouraged way? Skirting laws and regulations to grow revenue? IIRC PG has mentioned preferring founders who are willing to break the rules. Or are startups like AirBnB and Zenefits the outliers?

\---

"I made like $15,000 in the time I was there, just on commissions. And I never got my license," said an insurance salesperson who left Zenefits this summer. She estimated she had more than 100 conversations with different customers about insurance. "I took my test three times in a row, and I failed. They still let me work."

Without her license, she had to improvise on calls with customers.

When faced with a tricky question, "I would just google it," she said. She would tell the customer, "Hold on one second, let me email the expert, he's on the line, hold on one second, I'll get back to you." But in reality, "I would pick one of the first three links and I would just go off of that."</comment>


Telco lobbyists accidentally send their talking points - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180829/18030740541/that-time-telco-lobbyists-sent-me-all-their-talking-points-about-trying-to-shift-blame-to-internet-companies.shtml <comment><USER2> Where are the actual documents? The reasons Masnick gives in the comments are extremely unconvincing: that there's "non-newsworthy" stuff in them (ok, and?) and that he doesn't want to do to a Verizon lobbyist what the Intercept did to Reality Winner.

If he'd just included a link to the documents, I'd have been interested in his interpretation. But after making a point of how long the 12-page document was, and then getting only a few quotes, I'm wondering what he's "editorializing" out of them.

<comment><USER3> From his comment: "There was other info in the document that I don't think is newsworthy and probably is not worth releasing publicly."

He doesn't literally say it, but I think the implication is that the information is in some way sensitive or private. I suppose he could have written that sentence and it would be technically true if the "info" was like, the weather that day, but I doubt that's what he meant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I haven't seen a techdirt article on here in years. Were they banned or something?

<comment><USER5> No, still very much active: [https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=techdirt.com](https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=techdirt.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> An oldie, but goodie:

"Well, it could happen, you see, if the President of the United States were to use the power of his office to help us mold public opinion and help us get that legislation." \--Arlington Hughes

[https://youtu.be/s2NNZdigSXg](https://youtu.be/s2NNZdigSXg)

</comment><comment><USER7> Hmm. Companies doing business all over USA like federal regulations: no need for patchwork compliance. No wonder scaled-up IP packet routing companies want to prevent states and municipalites from imposing their own regulations.

</comment><comment><USER8> That's just gmail's auto-disclosure feature at work.

</comment><comment><USER9> Masnick took what could have been a great piece to use against telcos, and turned it into an embarrassing attempt to defend Google/Facebook at all costs. His claim that Google and Facebook know less about you than your ISP would require you to pretend that encryption and Google Analytics / Facebook's "pixel" don't exist.

<comment><USER10> It's worth nothing that the vast majority of Americans have their internet setup as defaulted. So, every DNS request goes to the ISP's DNS servers (your ISP knows every single domain you visit regardless of association with Google/Facebook) and every domain name that doesn't exist winds up at the ISPs own search/not found landing page. Plus if you use your ISP's email server (like my mom) who knows if they're reading your email, too.

<comment><USER9> DNS requests only give the hostname. Google/Facebook's analytics services get them pretty much everything about the users' interactions with sites that include them.

I'm not arguing that ISPs aren't a privacy risk or that they shouldn't be fought. I'm pointing out that Masnick damages his own credibility by making stupid claims that, in order to be believed, would require either a technically unskilled reader or one who is willing to pretend the modern web/internet works differently than it does.

Masnick attempts to frame this debate in a way where everyone who doesn't join him in ignoring/defending the privacy violations of Silicon Valley tech companies is "on the other side". It's a dishonest and shitty way to frame things, and doesn't reflect reality in any way.

ISPs have plenty of black marks against them. Lying in order to pretend ISPs are the only ones we should be fighting isn't helping anything.

<comment><USER11> It's a shame you're getting downvoted because you are correct. The dramatic acceleration of TLS adoption means that your ISP is getting less and less info about their customers' behaviors.

But if your browser has ever logged into something like Facebook or Google, then any site with embedded content will be sending info about your behavior back to them. A LOT of sites carry pixels from those companies, but anything can do it: an embedded tweet, a YouTube player, a "like" button, etc. This is on top of the info they collect from your direct interactions with them.

<comment><USER12> He's not correct which is why he's being downvoted. As TLS rolls out further I suspect you'll see more ISPs move from firewall/router devices being deployed with their service to an edge proxy under the guise of additional security, "our new routers terminate all connections before they reach your computer directly allowing us to block malware and other dangerous packets" \-- while that statement is 100% true what it doesn't say which is also true is "...and allows us to see all of the information on all of your sessions and process that per the terms of our privacy policy".

<comment><USER13> Which browsers are going to trust an ISP signing cert?

<comment><USER12> As the ISP I'd pop up a reply asking you to load my certificate into your browser, example for Chrome: [https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/3505249?hl=en](https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/3505249?hl=en)

With a notice informing you if you refuse you won't get the malware blocking and scanning services to protect you. Depending on the laws the ISP may require you to accept the certificate in order to pass TLS traffic.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>