Ask HN: Evaluating a pre-seed funding offer - <AUTHOR>

We are a newly formed team who was recently been offered a small amount of pre-seed funding.
We're evaluating the offer, and we wanted to get HNs input on what some important things to look at would be.
Some of the things we're doing are:
Evaluating the term sheet by
- looking at what other pre-seed funds are offering
- asking a local entrepreneur support organization to go over the terms with us
- having an attorney friend (experienced with startups) look it over for any hidden "gotchas"
Gauging the potential benefits of the relationship by
- reaching out to the local community and asking for feedback on the investor
- asking the investor what kind of involvement we can expect from them going forward
- asking the investor for contact info of other companies in their portfolio.
What other things would you do? Any general or specific pieces of advice? Have you been through this before - do you care to share your experience? <comment><USER2> \- Is the investor a high net-worth individual?

\- I would not get a friend attorney even if he has experience with start-ups. Talk the the established law firms and they may be able to defer fees. That way you can be sure that you got the 'gotcha's'

\- Follow up with portfolio companies that the investor recommends but also others whom he invested in but did not recommend. you might learn more in the later case

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the response, some really good points.

To answer your questions, the investor leads a group of high net-worth individuals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know the answer to your question, but it may be worthwhile to post it on Quora as well.

Good luck finding your answer, and congrats on the funding offer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, will do.</comment></comment>


AT&T might just have the best 3G network in the US - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/02/23/surprise-att-might-just-have-the-best-3g-network-in-the-us/

<comment><USER2> My anecdotal evidence is that in Dallas my AT&T iPhone drops about 50% of all calls I make that last longer than 5 minutes.

I am weary of AT&T's recent marketing barrage that boasts of impressive download speeds.

Seriously. When was the last time you heard anyone complain about downloads taking too long on AT&T? Even the above referenced study defines 'reliability' as 'the likelihood that a user can connect to the Internet at a reasonable speed.'

Like I give a crap.

AT&T's plain and simple problem is call reliability. Not download speeds. Not the ability to make or sustain a broadband connection.

It's there miserably voice service that has me contemplating to leave my beloved iPhone behind and run to pick up a Palm Pre on Verizon. For the record, I think the Palm Pre is an inferior phone. But I'd like to be able to make phone calls with some confidence that they will be completed.

</comment><comment><USER3> AT&T San Francisco 'reliability': 55%

That's the lowest 'reliability' number in the chart for any carrier, any region. It's 23 points below AT&T's next-worse region, Denver, at 78%.

<comment><USER4> What I don't understand is why AT&T doesn't just upgrade or build some towers in SF. As you point out, it's an absurd statistical outlier for their metro networks, and the peninsula isn't even all that big compared to some sprawling places like LA, from which I've never read any complaints about AT&T service.

<comment><USER5> Not sure how it is in SF but in most of the US it's very difficult to get the permits/public approval required to build new towers. Existing towers have strict load limits for weight and wind resistance and often require structural testing/upgrades for _any_ work to be done. Verizon seems to manage so I'm not acquitting AT&T of any responsibility here but it's another example of US laws & regulations being incredibly unfriendly to infrastructure development. Of course these towers should be safe so some of these regulations are completely valid. I'm more concerned about the privately owned towers whose owners simply don't want to spend the money on new construction or the communities where a small group of civic minded folks are able to stop the construction of new towers for the sole reason that their appearance offends them. We're going to get left behind in this world if we keep this mindset up.</comment></comment></comment>


On the (provable) security of TLS: Part 2 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2012/09/on-provable-security-of-tls-part-2.html

<comment><AUTHOR> (Part 1: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4494316>)</comment>


Wall Street's Cult Calculator Turns 30 - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703841904576257440326458056.html <comment><USER2> Guess I'm a little too young for the 12c. I grew up on the 28S.

Concatenative languages like the HP RPN offer a nice gentle introduction to programming. In fact, I'll go further and say they _trick you into programming without even realizing it_. One minute you're working through a calculation for the Nth time via the same series of button presses, the next minute you're recording those button presses into a new user-defined button, and moving on to some higher level calculation. I've seen people do this and think they're "just calculating," when in fact they're doing bottom-up programming.

Here's an example if you're not familiar with HP RPN. Say you're performing a repetitive computation like finding the euclidean mean with X and Y already sitting on the stack. These are the buttons you push:

      DUP * SWAP DUP * + SQRT

You can turn this into a program by recording the same set of button presses, then giving it a name:

      << DUP * SWAP DUP * + SQRT >> 'L2NORM' STO

On the 28S and later calculators, there's a menu that holds stored programs. Now you just navigate to that menu and hit the button under 'L2NORM'.

This natural progression from calculation -> programming is something I miss in other languages. I like the _idea_ of concatenative languages [1] like Factor, Joy and Forth, but hesitate to embark on anything more than trivial programming with them; their terseness can be even more extreme than Lisp's.

[1] <http://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Front%20Page>

</comment><comment><USER3> They missed the best geeky part: the most recent 12C (or 12C+ as it's known among the enthusiast crowd) is a hardware redesign, using a modern 32 bit ARM based CPU (Atmel AT91SAM7L128), very similar to the 30B and 20B. But rather than risk introducing firmware errors with a code rewrite, the 12C+ emulates the original CPU and runs the original microcode. It's much faster, of course.

I think they've even released an SDK for it, if you're into reflashing with your own code...

</comment><comment><USER4> RPN saved my butt in chemistry class.

I was taking the final, and the professor lent me his calculator. It was an HP RPN, and he said he didn't know how to use it. I figured it out quickly enough -- as a computer guy I know how stacks work -- and went to town banging out calculations on that thing in record speed.

Since speed is an essential part of test-taking, and I was notoriously slow at doing calculations, I was at real risk of flunking the exam and the course. As it is I saved my bacon. Thank you, HP! Thank you, RPN!

</comment><comment><USER5> >"The financial calculator is headed the way of the >wristwatch: a no-longer necessary device that users >carry because of sentimentality, vanity or an >unwillingness to change,"

I disagree with the wristwatch comparison. I'm in my twenties, and I still rather like having a watch. Checking a wristwatch is much, much, more convenient than pulling a cellphone out of a pocket, activating its display, and reading the time. Especially when outdoors, I'd much rather rely on a wristwatch for timekeeping than a cellphone. I can drop a cellphone. I can't drop something that's tied to my wrist.

<comment><USER6> Sounds like you agree with the comparison but not the conclusion. Calculators, like wristwatches, are instant-on, very durable, and can go through years of use without charging the batteries.

<comment><USER5> I guess I'm really disagreeing with the validity of the analogy. I don't think the situation with wristwatches is analogous to calculators. Wristwatches still retain many functional advantages over cell phones (e.g. hard to drop, always on, etc.) whereas calculators do not. In other words, a smartphone can completely subsume the functions provided by a standalone calculator. A smartphone cannot yet do the same for wristwatches, and hence the analogy is flawed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love the HP-12C. I never realized till now it had a cult following.

Imagine how great it seemed when it was not only a beautiful thing, but also the last world in technology.

<comment><USER8> I have a 17B-II, just preferred the upright form-factor. Beautiful little machine, does everything you need without frivolous bells and whistles. Also a 28S, just because :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hackers might delight more in the HP-16C "Computer Scientist" calculator[1]. It can be set to perform calculations on variable word sizes up to 64 bits, which is amazingly useful when you're working with processors that use non- standard word sizes (e.g., the 29x22 bit fixed-point ALU from a chip I worked on for a few years). It's also a great way to teach someone to program assembler, since it's programmable in a rudimentary RISC style.

Full disclosure: I'm something of an HP calculator nerd. I have an 11C, a 15C, a 16C, a 32SII, and a 42S. Once you get used to RPN, you will never want to go back to algebraic calculators.

[1] <http://www.hpmuseum.org/hp16.htm>

<comment><USER10> I'm a 42s diehard, but the Free42 app for iPhone has gotten so good that I'm not using the real one anymore (and it's larger than the iPhone which is off- putting)

Still, another great calculator for programmers. The extra fn keys are great for working with large hex values.

<comment><USER11> Speaking of smart phone HP calc apps, don't forget the free Droid48:

<http://www.appbrain.com/app/droid48/org.ab.x48>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Excerpted without comment:

 _It runs on an unconventional operating system called "Reverse Polish Notation,"_

Now I need to go and dig up my 15c

<comment><USER13> Ironically, the usage would have been valid as a non-compound term if it had been describing the person rather than the device:

 _To use the calculator, one must adopt an unconventional operating system called "Reverse Polish Notation"._

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here's a quick timeline of what I've used for calculators:

HP 28C (<http://www.voidware.com/calcs/hp28c.htm>): Mid 80's through mid 90's

Emacs calc mode: Mid 90's through mid 2000's

orpie (<http://pessimization.com/software/orpie/>): Mid 2000's through present

If you're an old HP calculator user go check out orpie. It's an RPN calculator for the console. It doesn't appear to be actively developed. Still, it has already got everything I want in a calculator and works very, very well.

</comment><comment><USER15> I love my 28S bought used 20 years ago for $100.

When I got my first real engineering job, you could tell the age of the engineer by the era of HP calculator on their desk (or frequently in their hand). One guy had one with red 7 segment lights and 4 slots in the back, lots of guys had the engineering version of the 12, I had my 28S, and a couple young-uns had the 48. There was one guy with a TI, but he didn't last long.

I find I'm a lot better with the 28 with it's 3 or 4 visible stack items than the single visible one of the smaller calculators. But it is a lot bulkier, and i teats batteries. I think I've had to replace them 5 or 6 times in the time I've owned the thing.

</comment><comment><USER16> The 12c is pretty nice — it maintains the classic HP calculator look and still has the really nice buttons. That said, the HP48 remains the best calculator ever. The m48+ emulator for the iPhone is a great substitute for the real thing.

<comment><USER17> And for Android, Droid48 (my second most used app after the browser).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I own the HP 48G. This was the calculator of engineer's when I was in high school and university.

</comment><comment><USER19> I was dismayed to find the batteries had corroded and ruined my trusty HP-41C, which I bought back in '82. I loved that calculator. I programmed my first hack on it. You could set a flag to run the first program in memory on startup. If someone walked away from their desk, I would grab their HP, write a program to turn the calculator off, then set the flag. It was fun prank, and it actually got a few people interested in learning how to program theirs.

</comment><comment> kai-zer Calculator of choice on the trading desk today. Everyone has one, even the young guys!

<comment><USER20> The calculator of choice I've found on the trading desk is Microsoft Excel. It's also the production data-moving system of choice, with hilarious consequences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What is the right iPhone emulator? There are so many choices, from $3 to $15.

<comment><USER22> presumably the official ones made by HP

\- <http://appshopper.com/finance/hp-12c-financial-calculator>

\- <http://appshopper.com/utilities/hp-15c-scientific-calculator>

\- [http://appshopper.com/finance/hp-12c-platinum-financial- calc...](http://appshopper.com/finance/hp-12c-platinum-financial-calculator)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It may have a cult-like following, but it* is* a damn good calculator.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think the key sentence is:

" _...is the only other calculator test-takers are permitted to use on the official CFA exam_ "</comment>


How the Hippies Saved Physics - <AUTHOR> http://forum-network.org/lecture/how-hippies-saved-physics

<comment><USER2> As someone who's been both a hippie and a physicist I think that's the "physics and eastern mysticism" connection is 99% bunk.

It's certainly true that some great physicists, such as Oppenheimer and Murray Gell-Mann have been interested in eastern philosophy, but for the most part physicists have been drawn kicking and screaming into the strange reality of quantum mechanics by harsh encounters with experimental reality.

<comment><AUTHOR> "For the most part physicists have been drawn kicking and screaming into the strange reality of quantum mechanics by harsh encounters with experimental reality."

The presenter in this video shows a graph of the citations over time for Bell's uncertainty theorem paper that contradicts this view.

<comment><USER2> And Bell's theorem (in itself) isn't all that exciting. There's no contradiction or paradox here, except for people who don't believe in what the quantum mechanical equations say. It's only profound if you insist on believing that the world is classical.

That said, interest has increased in that sort of thing because of quantum information theory, because it is necessary to draw a line between the behavior of classical information and quantum information.

<comment><AUTHOR> "It's only profound if you insist on believing that the world is classical."

That's like saying heliocentrism is only profound if you believe in the geocentric model. By your definition, is there anything that can be said to be profound? It seems to me that your definition not only ignores history, but ignores what makes science worth doing in the first place.

<comment><USER2> Personally, I'm much more blown away by the fact that quantum entanglement makes solid matter possible. In classical mechanics you can't have solids: only the fermionic exchange behavior of spin 1/2 particles makes solids "solid",

In my opinion, it's exactly the opposite: the pop-physics obsession with Bell's inequality comes from people who don't actually understand quantum mechanics but just want to see some miracle which they can then extrapolate to other miracles and end up in science fiction. It leads to the same kind of bogus science as "The Emperor's New Mind"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> What the?!

Can you at least give notice that it's an auto-playing video. Some of us are on dialup out here... and can use a cell phone for high speed every so often.

<comment><USER4> FlashBlock is your friend.</comment></comment>


Economists understand little about the causes of growth - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21740403-first-series-columns-professions-shortcomings-economists <comment><AUTHOR> "Robert Lucas, a Nobel Prize winning economist, once wrote that after you think about the gap between poor and rich countries, it is hard to think about anything else."

In The Economist "Free Exchange" \- the first in a series of the economists professions shortcomings

The article suggests that the profession's focus on quantitative models had meant that studies which ask the important question of why some countries grow are failing to get much attention.

</comment><comment><USER2> This is among the worst things I have ever seen written by a modern media publication. Complete, utter nonsense. The fact it is coming from a magazine calling itself "The Economist" makes it much worse.

I used to think the Economist was an intelligently written magazine containing deep insights etc.

After reading it for a couple years, I realize it is actually something people read on an airplane to gain the slightest aftertaste of wisdom which, when combined with the appropriate Dunning-Kruger effects, is meant to make one feel worldly and self justified without actually having to do any real work or real personal study.

I do not like this article because it pretends that the principals which are universally known to work have not been discovered: Free market, freedom to choose, freedom for market participants to determine prices, minimal government interference.

It dismissed these principals because "they can't be measured."

Imagine being asked to produce a measurement that freedom of speech or freedom of religion as valuable principals. What an utterly moronic attempt to substitute mathematics for philosophy and humanity. There are no measurements to justify these because it can't be done.

One of the most powerful case studies I have ever seen is the differences between India and Japan post WWII. Both countries were subject to colonial forces and released around similar time periods.

Japan took a hands off approach and wound up with sophisticated automated loom technology while India insisted on using government regulations to install burdensome regulations which kept their weaving industry entirely hand operated, preventing the creative destruction of inefficient jobs necessary to grow the economy for the betterment of all.

The underlying Liberal bias in the economist has become so overt it is hard to take them seriously. They want to pretend that free market economics, individual freedom, freedom of speech and minimal government interference are not known to be the things that lead to tremendous economic growth.

People feel impressed by China currently, but their fundamentally totalitarian nature and attempts to nationalize every industry and tinker ruthlessly with their finances and banking sector are going to cause an irreversible implosion, especially when combined with their decision to ensconce their political leaders in permanent government positions of power.

Freedom is going to win. A good example of how China is holding itself back is in how the government has effectively decided to promote WeChat (their universaLly promoted chat app which is basically a feed of your private information directly to the government) and social credit scoring. These measures will result in people fleeing China to innovate ultimately when their highly corrupt political and economic financing systems inevitably fail (see: China shadow banking).

I believe we will soon find that Chinese success is illusory, you can only fake an economy for so long.

The United States is not perfect, but it is closer to these ideals than China ever will be on their current trajectory.</comment>


Show HN: Numpy in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/praveenpenumaka/numpygo <comment><USER2> Cool work! How does this compare with gorgonia.org/tensor?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have created the project only for learning purposes

tensor looks really good with a lot of functionalities and proper benchmarks

I could probably compare the performance and see how I can improve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great job!

Would love to see some performance comparisons with python numpy when the code is ready.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do have some benchmark numbers with numpy. TBH they are not terrible but not great either.

At this point in time, I am trying to maximize the usability of the library rather than optimizing for performance.</comment></comment>


Lonely planets found which float freely through the Milky Way - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/lonely-planets-found-which-float-freely-through-the-milky-way-20110519-1etm3.html <comment><USER2> More seriously: <http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-147>

_The discovery indicates there are many more free-floating Jupiter-mass planets that can't be seen. The team estimates there are about twice as many of them as stars. In addition, these worlds are thought to be at least as common as planets that orbit stars. This would add up to hundreds of billions of lone planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone._

wtf

<comment><USER3> What percentage of dark matter could this explain?

<comment><USER4> My thought exactly. The whole "dark matter" thing seems like just a huge fudge-factor.

<comment><USER5> That's exactly what it is. It's the difference between estimating mass based on visible light and estimating mass based on gravitational effects. If both those estimates are accurate, it implies the existence of a lot of non- luminescent matter. So some scientists look for "dark matter", while others try to find flaws with either estimation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Now, witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle station.

<comment><USER6> "Fire at will, commander."

<comment><USER7> Not funny.

The most effective means of interstellar travel may be bases within planets or asteroids, not spaceships. When humans have communities on the Moon and Mars, perhaps they'll build habitats inside asteroids, then with a few nudges to some of them, upset the entire gravitational equilibrium of the asteroid belt, slinging those asteroids out of the solar system, via the gravity fields of the giant gas planets. Humans are more likely to survive interstellar trips buried inside planets than a spaceship's husk.

<comment><USER6> I don't follow, this is a star-wars pun thread.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a bit confusing, since a planet is defined as "a celestial body orbiting a star or stellar remnant that is massive enough to be rounded by its own gravity, is not massive enough to cause thermonuclear fusion, and has cleared its neighboring region of planetesimals.", the relevant part being "Orbiting a star or stellar remnant". I wouldn't think it would be possible to have a freely floating planet.

<comment><USER9> Yawn. Yeah, if you have a deep affection for semantic pettiness, planets without stars are not possible.

This points to a problem with our definition. For most people planets are anything spherical that's too small to be a star and doesn't orbit another one of those spherical non-stars. That's certainly the definition this article uses.

I'm not really sure how one could be confused by that. One might be petty about it – but confused?

<comment><USER10> You called him petty twice for adhering to definitions, but without these definitions it is difficult to speak precisely. The other part of your comment was much more constructive: perhaps our definition should be amended. Until the, no, these cannot be planets by definition. What is wrong with that?

<comment><USER9> Does the pettiness solve a problem with our communication? I would argue that it doesn't. I would be very surprised if anyone was actually confused by this or other similar articles. This is not even so much a problem with preciseness. All those articles say, in so many words, that they are talking about 'planets that don't orbit stars'. They amend the definition right there and then, problem solved.

This is a common way of describing things. Something is described in terms of something else, the properties that are different are pointed out separately. One might describe an e-book in terms of a book made of paper, pointing out, along the way, the important differences. Since e-books and books made of paper are very similar nobody would protest if, in that context (and after the explanation of the differences), the naked word 'book' would be used to refer to e-books.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think is less surprising than the fact that Jupiter, and in fact all 4 big planets in our solar system, are actually just gas bubbles, and not actually not the rocky balls us ordinary people imagine as planets. That's right: they have no surface.

These planets are just too small to be stars.

</comment><comment><USER12> This was a preview of the astronomical models of the Theory of Matrix / DNA, 20 years ago. Lonely planets float freely in space until they have close to a star and be caught in its orbit. The energy of the star reaches the core of the planet which is a germ of star and triggering the start of a nuclear reaction. When the planet's consumes its mass and becomes light it escapes from the stellar orbit, returning to float in space, it grows becoming a pulsar and then unfolds as a supernova. In <http://theuniversalmatrix.com> website everything is explained.

</comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if they are moving fairly fast because with that much mass, if they have not been sucked into a star/black hole yet, then their slingshot would have massive momentum.

</comment><comment><USER14> Also known as "Rogue planets". (Source: Star Trek Enterprise ep. "Rogue Planet").

Sure enough it's fiction, but I can't think of a better nickname.

</comment><comment><USER15> Small dyson spheres?

<comment><USER16> Way too small - they'd have to contain a star, so they'd need to be at least as massive as one.

<comment><USER15> For a smaller enclosure, is there no alternative to a star? What's the purpose of the star anyways? Heat and light? What if the sphere was perfectly insulated. Perhaps once you replace a star with something else, it ceases being a dyson sphere (by definition)

(obviously, I'm not a physicist!)

<comment><USER17> Stars are balls of matter massive enough to sustain nuclear fusion from their own gravity. The fusion reaction is what releases all the energy.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The 1 way you need to attack shyness - <AUTHOR> http://www.redditall.com/2008/07/1-way-you-need-to-attack-shyness.html

<comment><USER2> It might be better to hear the same advice unpacked by someone who has been through this as a teen. 'Everyone's the same' I think most introverts assume that, but at a more cognitive level . However, these calm, analytical thoughts are swamped by a lot of frantic, emotional unthinking reaction when the moment arrives. Don't beat yourself up even more for not remembering what you knew. These are two different parts of the brain taking charge at different moments. You can use your excessive analytical abilities to aid you. As I grew older the introspective part got directed outward in an attempted analysis of people around me. I don't think I am good at it, but it is endlessly fascinating and also helps in gradually arriving at the realization that we are all faced with the same situations and potential embarrassment. We may not all be the same, but the situations we face often are. Shyness may be due to a lot of different things. In my case, I realized it was a fear and an intense dislike for failure. A lot of early achievers who have been praised for their effortlessly great performances probably have the same roots for shyness. It really is a fear that you are caught out and found to be mediocre, or just like everyone else around you. This comes from internalizing the idea that your worth somehow depends on people's evaluation. Well, that is true up to a certain extent, but again one slip-up rarely ever brands you as a wannabe. The next time you feel your anxieties rapidly welling up, ask yourself what the worst could be. And the objective answer ,unless you are in hand-to-hand combat or being cornered in a dark alley, is it is not remotely as bad as your fears make it out to be. Most fears often resolve to a single question that you have already answered for yourself in the negative. Don't trust you theories, trust empiricism. You'll never know for sure until you have tried. A bit of subterfuge might help too; when paralyzed by fear, allow yourself to gloat that you are the only one even attempting what no around is daring to.

</comment><comment><USER3> Everyone "eats, shits and dies" is similar to the "everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time". I think it's an effective saying, but won't resonate with everyone.

I think the best solution for some folks is to simply force yourself into the situation over and over, like going to a meetup and making yourself talk to everyone. Eventually, your brain will get the idea: okay, I can deal with meeting and talking to new people.

Here's my tip: learn how to ask great questions when you meet people. It takes the spotlight off of you and let's them "do the work". I can have entire conversations where I say very little if I'm feeling anxious at the moment.

<comment><USER4> > "everyone puts their pants on one leg at a time"

i put my pants into a device which holds them open, then i stand on a platform and jump into them.

BTW I'm thinking of starting a company to sell this device. Anyone interested in being a co-founder?

<comment><USER5> Wallace has prior art on this one. Grommit filed the patent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The problem with people who are shy is that we are swamped with advices from people who are not. Seriously. Stop.

EDIT: That being said I can give one piece of advice to guys who are shy. Work out. Work out. Work out. You will be amazed how much NATURALLY produced testosterones can affect your behavior.

<comment><USER7> Imho, you're confusing shyness with a lack of confidence.

<comment><USER8> They go hand-in-hand, and are almost inseparable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oh, bless his heart. He's "never had a problem with shyness" but still thinks remembering his one-line platitude is "sound advice" for the shy.

Extrovert bluster can be so cute!

<comment><USER10> I sure wish I could vote for you. Instead, please take my comment here to mean that I would have upvoted you.

Maybe one day I'll be able to vote again =x

<comment><USER11> I rarely up/down vote but I did upvoted him just for you.

<comment><USER10> You are a gentleman and a scholar, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Doesn't help, but does give me an idea for a great icebreaker...

</comment><comment><USER4> "Everyone is equal" is not a solution to shyness. People are often shy to speak to someone they consider worse than themselves; shyness empirically does not function as implied.</comment>


Show HN: Get paid to send your own emails and newsletters - <AUTHOR> https://footrr.com/

<comment><USER2> At first glance i thought you were posting a "Sign up for surveys" type site but reading through the page this is actually a very refreshing option in a WEB full of bogus PPC's and opinion sites. -Just requested an invite can u approve me? I wanna see the rest.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow that was fast! I saw your request and emailed you your invitation link. Happy (paid) emailing!</comment></comment>


Magic Raises $4m Seed to End the Era of Passwords - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/magiclabs/magic-raises-4m-to-end-the-era-of-passwords-f14dda572919 <comment><USER2> Maybe I'm missing something, but does this require the user to check their email and click a link every time they look to log into a site? If so, I'm wondering how this has been received by typical consumer, or if any of the overhead in terms of support tickets dealing with traditional passwords have still exists for magic links.

Magic seems like an interesting use-case in decentralized authentication. I haven't had a chance to look through the whitepaper, but I'm wondering if this takes advantage of zero-knowledge proofs as other decentralized auth providers have?</comment>


Photography: What are your easiest beginner tips? - <AUTHOR> http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/164 <comment><USER2> I wonder why no one has answered yet.

I was/am a hobbiest and semi-professional photographer (landscapes). I'll try my best to answer your question.

I'd start with two 'threads': "composition" and "technical execution". The oversimplification is these are exclusive.

There are a lot of resources about technical execution: exposure, image manipulation, printing. Equipment is a concern as well: filters, Canon/Nikon, good "glass", etc. For the most part digital cameras have automated what was essentially a master craft. If you get really interested in the old school, Ansel Adams's The Camera, The Negative, and The Print are great to flip through. Photoshop and similar tools are incredibly powerful (and dangerous).

Composition is the artistry of the photograph. There are a lot of easy things to get you started with composition. This entry has 4 "rules" and there is a following post about how to break them:

[http://digital-photography-school.com/four-rules-of- photogra...](http://digital-photography-school.com/four-rules-of-photographic- composition)

Composition is often overlooked, but it's the most important skill. As you learn more and more you can find your own personal style. Also, you'll find good advice that is specific to the photography you're interested in: Still life? Macros? Portraits? Sports? Landscapes? Studio?

The most beneficial approach I've found are photography sites like usefilm.com and flickr. Browse through and find those inspirational images and photographers that you really enjoy. Then, set aside a little time to evaluate WHY you like what you are seeing? Is it the arrangement of light and dark? Geometry? Color? What are the things that make it great? What conditions lead to the great shot? Is what you are seeing repeatable by you?

If you have the time, you can learn about graphic design - just formal 2D design with basic shapes and layouts... these skills are general and apply to photography, painting, typography... big return for a small investment.

It's hard to answer your open-ended question to my satisfaction, but if you are able to reply with more detail I can try to help some more.

and remember

the best camera is the one you have with you. So, carry that camera around - even if it's a cell phone.</comment>