A Third of TikTok's U.S. Users May Be 14 or Under, Raising Safety Questions - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/technology/tiktok-underage-users-ftc.html <comment><USER2> >Yet the concerns are that some under-13 users may lie to get around the age restrictions, and that the platform is not obtaining the required consent from those users' guardians. <

I'm not really sure I see how this is a uniquely TikTok problem or why it's really news anymore from the angle the author is approaching the problem. I get it, I'm a millennial, we grew up with tv and parents telling us the internet is full of molesters (and there's a lot of those, don't get me wrong). But the social landscape children are /already/ operating in is so saturated with digital media that the idea the genie can be put away or wholly regulated at this point seems rediculous.

I've got a 14 year old half-brother who I try to chat with often since I know he wishes we were closer. From time to time he shares the sorts of things him and his friends do online with me and it's so far beyond what's in this story that it's hard to view the article's concerns as anything but quaint. By 11 tons of children are already on discord, snap, insta, tiktok, and whatever novelty app is trending at their school, many even start sooner. This is unretricted usage because, just like my generation when we were kids, Zoomers know that the golden rule of the internet is "Of course I'm 18" and when that's not enough most can come up with a scheme to spoof parental permission anyway.

I get that we're talking about age ranges where children are at wildly different points in their social development and that some do benefit from simply being told "no stay out", but if the goal is actually to provide useful protections for the children on these platforms then we need systems that provide escape hatches for people who get in too deep and not just walls to keep them out. What's more, strong enough walls mostly just encourages migration to new apps where monitoring is harder because no one but the kids is aware the scene has moved. I'm all for responsible app design but we can't attack this in the same way past generations have tried to, we already know a nontrivial amount of children will outmaneuver us and so we should incorporate that into the plan.</comment>


Ask HN: Where did you donate money in 2018? - <AUTHOR> The year is reaching its end and many people feel its the best time to donate money. If you donated money, which organization received it in 2018? <comment><USER2> Liberty in North Korea [https://www.libertyinnorthkorea.org/](https://www.libertyinnorthkorea.org/)

They have an Underground Railroad of safe houses to smuggle people out of NK. Then they resettle and provide support. Finally they film documentaries of their life in SK, put them on USB sticks, and smuggle that back into NK to spread discontent and undermine the system.

<comment><USER3> Wow that's awesome. It says "100% of your donation will help a North Korean refugee reach freedom." To me there's some wiggle room for "our 200k salary is a necessary part of freedom." Not trying to be bleak or accusations, but any idea how much of this is skimmed off the top? At any rate, $3,000 to get a person out of the country and going in South Korea doesn't seem like a bad cost, just curious how it all funnels through.

<comment><USER4> Typically non profits will advertise this type of thing, essentially a program ratio of 100%. This is positively correlated with total donations.

Usually the way to work around this is to have a large benefactor that agrees to use their funds for overhead/admin/advertising, and then they can say 100% of your donations goes to programs.

A sort of necessary pain for non profits because a "bad" program ratio costs them donations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you wish to donate but have doubts about the effectiveness or transparency of many "charitable" organizations I recommend the following website to help guide your ultimate choice: [https://www.givewell.org/](https://www.givewell.org/)

<comment><USER6> That measures only direct results, though. An organization that teaches others to read and write may have a much bigger impact, if they teaches one person who then goes on to do something massive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Colorado 4x4 Rescue and Recovery, 501c3 non-profit organization ([https://co4x4rnr.clubexpress.com/content.aspx](https://co4x4rnr.clubexpress.com/content.aspx))

Full disclosure, I'm a dues-paying member and active volunteer.

They basically provide Search and Rescue (SAR) "lite" and vehicle recovery on Colorado Forest Service roads and Jeep trails free of charge. They try very hard to not compete with either traditional SAR teams or commercial towing services and instead fill a gap between the two.

Having personally been on 60+ missions over the past two years, they're doing incredibly good work helping people out on their worst day, reducing the burden on traditional SAR teams, and in more than a few cases saving lives. At least 50% of the missions I've been on have been people that simply got in over their head and didn't know what to do. Being able to get them and their vehicle home is a fantastic feeling.

edit: A lot of SAR teams are self-funded or funded via grant money that can disappear, so if you can donate to a local team please do. They desperately need the funding to continue doing the work of saving lives

</comment><comment><USER8> I haven't made the donation yet for 2018, but I make donations every year right at year's end to at least these two charities:

\- Doctors Without Borders

\- Direct Relief

Global health problems is where I'm most interested in donating money. I split my money between those two primarily to have a little diversification from idiosyncratic risks to a single operation.

These occupy the vast majority of my charitable giving. I give or have given in the past much smaller amounts to a smattering of other charities: Wikimedia, Give Directly, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Lambda Legal, Girls Who Code.

Also: I'm an avid crossword solver, and over the last year or two some puzzle constructors, as a way of doing good, have started offering packets of crosswords in exchange for donations to a cause. The original, I believe, was Francis Heaney's Puzzles for Progress [http://puzzlesforprogress.francisheaney.com/](http://puzzlesforprogress.francisheaney.com/) for broadly progressive causes, but I have also seen Queer Qrosswords [https://queerqrosswords.com/](https://queerqrosswords.com/) for LGBTQ charities and Women of Letters [https://www.pattivarol.com/women-of- letters/](https://www.pattivarol.com/women-of-letters/) for feminist charities. If it tips you over the edge to donate, do it and go get some puzzles!

</comment><comment><USER9> Years ago, I was a poor college student in a Third World country. A Redditor sent me a copy of Godel Escher Bach and it literally changed my life. Don't overlook giving directly.

<comment><USER10> how were you two connected? I'd love to participate in something like that.

<comment><USER9> I posted in r/GEB asking about the book and he just offered to send me a copy. It was surreal and beyond inspiring.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> \- Doctors with Borders ([https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3628))

\- Wikimedia Foundation ([https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11212))

\- Houston Food Bank ([https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5673))

\- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation ([https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3247))

\- Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Alliance ([https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...](https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8037))

\- A small dog rescue in Houston

\- A small charity for women who are victims of sex trafficking in Austin

I also supported a number of projects (like Homebrew) via Patreon and Humble Bundle though those were not charitable contributions.

<comment><USER12> I believe you meant Doctors Without Borders in point 1.

<comment><USER11> True. "Doctors with Borders" would not be as helpful for sure

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I made my first donation to Wikipedia this year. Now that you got me thinking about it, I should donate to Internet Archive (archive.org), too. I just went to archive.org right now and they apparently have a fundraiser going. Somehow, donations are being matched 2-to-1 so a $5 donation results in them receiving $15. It doesn't say who's providing the other $10, but it seems like a good time to help the Internet Archive.

</comment><comment><USER14> Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - [https://www.eff.org/](https://www.eff.org/)

</comment><comment><USER15> FairVote [https://www.fairvote.org/](https://www.fairvote.org/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I rarely just straight out drop money for some large group or cause but rather prefer to do something closer to me. Usually if there is an opportunity to directly support the cause I do it. It manifests mainly in 2 ways. 1) I participate in the event and pay a fee 2) I know the local population and people in need and donate both cash and in items/food directly

Neither is for any gain but seeing it first hand is such a great experience that you're inclined to do more. I usually advise people to take care of issues locally first. I also support the cause of supporting remote regions and less covered issues when I travel to such places. Don't want to just give money and "be done" with it - there's more to the cause and a nice conversation can also go a long way.

</comment><comment><USER17> Cheetah Conservation Fund, Oxfam, International Anti-Poaching Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, Thirteen, SUNY University at Buffalo.

Respectively [https://cheetah.org](https://cheetah.org) [https://oxfam.org](https://oxfam.org) [https://iapf.org](https://iapf.org) [https://hrc.org](https://hrc.org) [https://thirteen.org](https://thirteen.org) [https://www.buffalo.edu](https://www.buffalo.edu)

</comment><comment><USER18> I gave around $10 to the FSF (in person), and donate all my old clothes to local homeless shelters. I prefer charity to be done directly. Otherwise, I can't really see what is going on with the money.

</comment><comment><USER19> I donated $20 to the Internet Archvie and $20 to the animal rescue that took in animals after the Chico Fire. I'm also a member of the EFF. In hindsight, this isn't a ton of money :/

</comment><comment><USER20> In terms of charities:

The Jimmy Fund ([http://www.jimmyfund.org](http://www.jimmyfund.org))

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital ([https://www.stjude.org](https://www.stjude.org))

Feeding America ([https://www.feedingamerica.org](https://www.feedingamerica.org))

I gave to some political causes as well, but the value of those are far more subjective.

</comment><comment><USER21> \- Wikipedia \- Khan Academy \- Black Girls Code \- Ng Girls \- Dot Net Rocks (.net podcast) (not exactly a donation but I get nothing in return)

</comment><comment><USER22> If you're in Washington State, consider:

[https://foodlifeline.org/](https://foodlifeline.org/)

[https://www.northwestharvest.org/](https://www.northwestharvest.org/)

They both have a very high rating: [https://www.charitynavigator.org](https://www.charitynavigator.org)

</comment><comment><USER23> Islamic Relief is my go-to. They are focusing on the tragedy in Myanmar that folks don't get a lot of visibility on.

</comment><comment><USER24> The ALS Association.

I donated because ALS is a horrible disease that has so few treatment options despite the fact that a lot of research has been done. Having your muscles waste away to nothingness is a fate that nobody should be doomed to.

</comment><comment><USER25> [https://mises.org](https://mises.org)

</comment><comment><USER26> [https://www.hotosm.org/](https://www.hotosm.org/) "humanitarian action and community development through open mapping"

</comment><comment><USER27> \- FSFE [https://fsfe.org](https://fsfe.org)

\- NOYB [https://noyb.eu](https://noyb.eu)

\- Unicef

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I make the start: Big Brother Mouse [0] in Vietnam

\- [0] [http://www.bigbrothermouse.com](http://www.bigbrothermouse.com)

</comment><comment><USER28> I set up a reoccurring donation of 10$ a paycheck to the EFF, it's not much but it adds up, especially with company donation matching.

</comment><comment><USER29> Feeding America EFF Plus several local nonprofits: Grand rapids red project Grand rapids pride center (Others I forget)

</comment><comment><USER30> Hack Club - high school coding clubs [https://hackclub.com](https://hackclub.com)

</comment><comment><USER31> I have setup a monthly donation to Mozilla foundation / firefox and I highly urge and encourage you to do so.

</comment><comment><USER32> [https://teamrubiconusa.org/](https://teamrubiconusa.org/)

</comment><comment><USER33> I donated to The Good Food Institute, The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, and the Nonhuman Rights Project.

</comment><comment> brett-jackson I donated to my hometown's charity to buy Christmas gifts for children in my town who live in poverty.

</comment><comment><USER34> Dynamicland

[https://dynamicland.org/](https://dynamicland.org/)

</comment><comment><USER35> Health in Harmony - saving rain forest with local community-lead projects.

</comment><comment><USER10> \- wikipedia \- eff \- signal

</comment><comment><USER36> My local trail building and mountain bike advocacy group.

</comment><comment><USER37> Catholic Charities

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Salvation Army

A local pet food bank

</comment><comment><USER38> givewell.org

</comment><comment><USER39> Wikipedia and Internet Archive

</comment><comment><USER40> Kuvo.org (jazz public radio)

</comment><comment><USER41> climate activism -- 350.org

</comment><comment><USER42> Isha Foundation

</comment><comment><USER43> EJI</comment>


Maximum Wage - <AUTHOR> https://howwegettonext.com/maximum-wage-3e21048fc107#.v4h3gcvab <comment><USER2> I'd be more inclined to agree, on a few limitations... reduce patent protections to 5 years for any technology implemented completely in software, or protections against software implementations for the first 5 years.

Not pay anyone (including) officers within a company (including bonuses and stock options) in excess of 100 times what the prevailing minimum wage is at the company's headquarters.

These limitations would still allow for a wide income inequality, but necessarily limit the level of inequality per year. Those at the top can buy stocks against taxable income. And would propose other limitations to encourage redistribution and limit shifting funds to tax shelters.

<comment><USER3> Limiting maximum wage would drive people to found their companies overseas and outsource to America.</comment></comment>


Construction of 505-feet wind turbines offshore with a special-purpose ship - <AUTHOR> http://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/renewable-energy/building-giant-505-feet-wind-turbines-offshore-no-easy-task/

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the Gunfleet Sands phase III wind farm off the coast of England. The turbines are 6MW gearless Siemens.</comment>


How to make a pastebin in 35 lines of python - <AUTHOR> http://blog.patx.me/post/760789171

<comment><AUTHOR> let me know if you have any questions or anything. also feel free to tell me if you think something could be done better.</comment>


Store and query numeric intervals in Lucene (Greplin open source) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Greplin/lucene-interval-fields

<comment><USER2> Please excuse my ignorance, but can someone tell me why this is being voted up so quickly?

Lucene already has range queries, is this just enumerating all of the values within a range for the fields? It looks like they don't index these values either in the examples.

Edit: Not that this should take away from adding to Lucene, for that I thank you :)

<comment><AUTHOR> As for what it does, it allows you to store an interval in Lucene, so you could store 1792 - 1796 or you could store 140000 - 125235466734. It uses a similar algorithm as the one used to store numbers so that it doesn't have to store millions of terms in the second example.

(we're pretty surprised by the response too!)

<comment><USER2> Thanks, it's really cool, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> One application that this might be useful for is an IP lookup. Typically they're stored in block ranges and querying can be tricky, especially if its an offline operation done with hadoop. Could also be counter-productive, but an interesting thought.</comment>


The Great Firewall, China's New Cybersecurity Law - <AUTHOR> https://edgylabs.com/2016/11/11/the-great-firewall-china-cybersecurity/ <comment><USER2> I'm not a foreign policy politician and never plan to be, but I wonder if the US has been engaging in conversations with China in the wrong way on this subject.

My guess is that we've been approaching this from a moral standpoint (human rights, freedom of speech, etc) but those arguments have never budged China. I can't think of one issue where we've been able to convince them of policy from a "rights" or "morals" perspective. In this regard, they'll go at their own pace.

In the meantime, one of the US's strongest industries (software/internet) stands to lose a ton of competitive ground with the rising middle class in China consuming their own domestic version of the internet. It's already created behemoths like Alibaba and Tencent with genuine innovation (e.g. WeChat Payments). Perhaps if we removed the moral arguments and simply attempted a trade agreement (even if somewhat compromised) we'd get some ground on getting US internet businesses into China. That'll probably have a greater effect on openness in the long run than sitting from an exiled position lobbing moral arguments over the Great Firewall.

<comment><USER3> > My guess is that we've been approaching this from a moral standpoint (human > rights, freedom of speech, etc) but those arguments have never budged China

No offense but the USA is not in a position to give moral lessons ^^

It might be hard to imagine for an American but the rest of the world doesn't give a damn about your country.

<comment><USER4> The world absolutely gives a damn about the USA, which is evident in how their presidential election just made headlines in almost every country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, globalisation and many of the principles of the free world.

We know this because it is what the media is telling us everyday 24/7\. And there is no way that intelligent and decent Chinese people support this, right?

Whoever that support such censorship which clearly violates the principles that we hold so dear must be uneducated and uninformed deplorables, right?

Oh now I see that you are being sarcastic and I am offended, let me give you a lesson on freedom of speech by downvoting you.

<comment><USER6> > _Yes, this is bad. It goes against human rights, freedom of speech, > globalisation and many of the principles of the free world._

I find it very interesting that you're putting the globalization in the same group as human rights and freedom of speech.

> _We know this because it is what the media is telling us everyday 24 /7._

No. We know it goes against freedom of speech by definition. We know it goes against human rights, because suppressing freedom of speech is one of the main ways to get away with violating human rights. We know being able to get away with violating human rights is bad, because we don't want that to happen to us. You don't need to blame media on what can be explained by reasoning and empathy. Media has enough to be blamed for already.

> _And there is no way that intelligent and decent Chinese people support > this, right?_

Of course there is. History is full of intelligent and decent people supporting decisions that range from distasteful to downright horrific. Being intelligent has little to do with this kind of decision. "Decent", on the other hand, is hard to define and agree on. At best, it's a really low bar to clear.

> _Whoever that support such censorship which clearly violates the principles > that we hold so dear must be uneducated and uninformed deplorables, right?_

That would obviously follow if your previous statement were correct.

> _Oh now I see that you are being sarcastic and I am offended, let me give > you a lesson on freedom of speech by downvoting you._

You seem to be under a false impression that freedom of speech means freedom of consequences. Just like freedom of speech doesn't protect you from legal consequences of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it won't protect you from the court of public opinion.

I consider any downvotes to your comment rightfully earned, because it oversimplifies a very complex topic without adding anything to the discussion of it. Worse, the tone of it leads me to believe that it is meant to actively discourage discussion and disagreement.

<comment><USER5> > You seem to be under a false impression that freedom of speech means freedom > of consequences. Just like freedom of speech doesn't protect you from legal > consequences of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it won't > protect you from the court of public opinion.

You did a good job rebutting my comments until this part. Now I am not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing with me because what you said here is exactly the reality in China now and you seem to be okay with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash Look, we all know this sucks. It's no surprise to us that governments the world over are hell-bent on mass surveillance...

BUT, we shouldn't also disregard the historical and cultural contexts. China has always maintained a very strict command of its people to preserve state stability. Just ask the scholars from the Qin Dynasty. Oh that's right, you can't, because their writings were burned while dissenters were buried alive in mass graves.

You can rail all you want about totalitarianism and mass surveillance from the comfort of a Hacker News thread, but let's be honest here: if a several- thousand-year history is any guide, China will likely move in the direction of more surveillance and control, not less.

</comment><comment><USER7> We operate a Chinese server in China for our Chinese customers, but the Great Firewall make it almost impossible to maintain it from outside China. The speed of any ssh connection is so low that any command that outputs more than a few characters to the screen make the experience worse than dial-up via a GSM modem. It will literally take me minutes to ls -l a directory.

<comment><USER5> Not directly applicable your case, but I will try my best to aid you by giving you my experience.

I live in Singapore and I get very fast connections to some of the sites in China, such as taobao.com and zhihu.com, which I assued employed some additional mechanism to serve overseas users. In contrast, websites related baidu generally loads slower (>500ms), which I assume is because they have no need to serve overseas users. That's from a user's perspective.

I also have a VPS on DigitalOcean in Singapore region. It is accessible in China and relatively fast when I tried to ssh into it within China (<100ms).

My suggestion would be to get a consultant firm or tech firm that specializes in serving overseas users to get some insights on how to setup your infrastructure. Surely there are ways to it, Valve managed to stream Dota 2 Shanghai Major to millions of people outside China. But you need to start by really understanding how the Internet in China operates, not relying on prior knowledge of setting things up in other countries.

<comment><USER8> In Singapore it's most likely the distance that matters. Light travels fast, yet the delays are significantly sensible in a global scale.

<comment><USER9> Not just distance. Some ISPs and hosting providers have direct peering with PCCW.

Latency between a China residential connection and a host outside China cannot be predicted knowing just the location of the host. It can vary by up to 5x just depending on the peering/route.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It seems people sometimes forget China is still an extremely authoritarian state. 2 of my good friends moved here from China a few years ago, they never want to go back, there's very little freedom.

I often wonder if laws like these will pressure people not directly affected to do something about it. Then I remember how so much of history was caused by people doing nothing, and I suspect that will continue to happen into the future.

Long term, I don't see China giving up control of anything, only getting tighter restrictions. I just hope this doesn't result in too big a war in the future.

<comment><USER11> "2 of my good friends moved here"

'here' \- the internet is not one place. I'm going to assume US, but come on dude.

<comment><USER12> not china is pretty obvious, you don't need much more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's always been fun to read comments below a China-related post, as a Chinese. 1\. For me, our government is always trying to do some kind of lazy policy. 2\. Try not to think of it in so-called Western way. China is a developing country and new web users are less-educated compared to those from the west(I have to say). That's why the web rumors are becoming a huge issue in China and people are actually supporting this kind of law. 3\. Like almost all the users on HN can't understand people voting on Trump. Don't judge it right or wrong. Try understand their point of view.

</comment><comment> hash-set The free people of the world need to be working on helping China get out from under censorship instead of letting our corporations abet this crime.

<comment><USER14> You don't think censorship, propaganda and flooding out the truth with lies happens in the West? Give your head a shake. Shit like this happens every time you turn on CNN, Fox News, BBC News, Al Jazeera and any number of other "news" outlets. You assume you're free and uncensored, but really you're just the product of the propaganda and media bias you buy into and are part of the echo chamber of that bias.

Sure, China is likely doing some despicable things. Abhorrent things. Don't kid yourself that exactly the same shit isn't happening every day in the West. We're all subject to it, we're all victims of it and we all propagate it.

Stop yourself and ask yourself this: How much of the shit I believe is actually true? How much of it can I prove from first principles and how much of it is just built on things I've learned through the media or the biases of other people I trust? How much of what they believe is true? What can you really trust?

Who is really free?

<comment><USER15> You're making a false equivalency between China and the West - it's a vast exaggeration to say it's "exactly the same shit" that's happening. There is absolutely propaganda in the West, and there is censorship, but by any objective measure there is much, much more of it in China.

<comment><USER16> If it exists in both places at an institutional level is not false equivalency.

The west has no shortage of propaganda. media complicity, censorship, and legislation drafted up in the name of "national security." You yourself admitted as much.

Please tell us by which objective measure are you referring to? You mention "by any objective measure.", please enumerate what those "any" are.

<comment><USER15> Off the top of my head, the ability to run a web server without first getting approval from the government is a pretty obvious differenciator.

<comment><USER16> So just that one criteria? Thats it?

I believe you are referring to an ICP license which would is more regulatory/bureaucracy than anything else. You are also wrong, you can still put a web server without an ICP license. You won't go to jail for not having one nor does not having an ICP license mean you will automatically be censored . However if you want to have a large online presence then yes you will need to get an ICP license because hosting provider won't allow you to order rack or cages without one. You should read this.

[https://webdesign.tutsplus.com/articles/chinese-icp- licensin...](https://webdesign.tutsplus.com/articles/chinese-icp-licensing- what-why-and-how-to-get-hosted-in-china--cms-23193)

source: I worked for a CDN that put servers in China.

<comment><USER15> From your link: "All sites hosted on a server in the Chinese mainland must, by law, apply for and receive one of these babies [an ICP License] before their site goes live, a rule enforced at the hosting level."

The West doesn't require websites to display their licence number in their footers. They don't require printing presses to be registered with the government. True there's widespread surveillance, but there's no official and intrusive "great firewall": encrypted connections aren't throttled, there isn't widespread use of proxies just to simply _access_ popular sites in other countries. You can use whatever VPN you like in the West. Western movies are routinely banned in China, whereas I can't find a single example of a Chinese movie being banned in the Western world.

Are you seriously making the claim that censorship in the West is literally at the same level as it in China? Because that's all I've said isn't true. I'm not saying that the West doesn't censor or propagandize, I'm saying that it (at least so far) hasn't engaged in to the same degree. I'm as angry at the media and the government surveillance in the West as anyone, but hyperbole does nothing to further the debate.

<comment><USER16> "Are you seriously making the claim that censorship in the West is literally at the same level as it in China?"

No I never made that claim, what I said was that the OPs post was not a false equivalence and that the west had no shortage of similar things done "in the name of national security."

There was no hyperbole or any superlatives used in anything I wrote.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Hakn, an iOS reader for Hacker News - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/hakn.-reader-for-hacker-news./id952484565?mt=8

<comment><USER2> Great design, perfect readability.

The total number of comments could be shown on the details page (transition effect to fast). I miss the "new" tab as well.

But no attribution / mention of HN/ycombinator?

Nice app (but not usable until login and commenting is supported).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> hey y'all!

I had some time between other projects at my day job so I built Hakn, an iOS HN reader app that uses HN's new Firebase API. This was also my opportunity to try out Swift on a shipping app.

HN's Firebase API is currently read-only, so Hakn doesn't yet support login, submitting, upvoting, etc. Currently Hakn is just a light and easy reader app, good for lurkers like myself :)

Hakn is free, so please give it a try and let me know what you think. I'll be bug fixing and tinkering with it as time allows.

Cheers!

</comment><comment><USER3> Sweet!</comment>


Ask HN: Any Devs with ADD got tips on how they handle it? - <AUTHOR> originally posted on r/cscareerquestions, but this seems like a better place.
TL:DR: I am a dev with ADD, looking for encouragement/advice from other devs with ADD. Y'all out there?
Long version- I think I have some heavy form of ADHD. I have trouble staying on scope on PRs, and understanding what other devs consider readable. I am subject to rabbit holes and not staying within the scope of a task. Sometimes I just get straight up distracted and check out youtube, sometimes I can stare at a PR for awhile and miss a stupid error. I'm looking into meds and I've implemented a few strategies that have really started to pay off (Remember the Milk as a type of bullet journal, checking in with myself every 2 hours with what I am working on, why, and how) but I'm curious to hear about other experiences and strategies people have used to survive. There's enough adults without ADD out there, surely we are somewhat employable! <comment><USER2> 1) Get a professional opinion my friend. Look for a cognitive psychologist.

2) Remember the ADD is not a one-way street. It's a cycle. You will return to what your were doing. Concentrate of efforts that record your progress up to the point you were distracted and that make it easy to refresh your focus when you return. Word processors and graphic arts are wonderful for this. Visually structured programming is too. You want to complete a method at a higher level before working at a deeper level. That is, you want to define all the logical units of a method with comments before coding each unit itself. Make the effort to create logically complete camel case variable names. These programming practices will make it much easier to resume work.

3) You are susceptible to distractions, but the distractions themselves are not the problem. You are distracted because: a) you are bored. b) you are exhausted. c) you are emotionally disturbed by something. d) you are interrupted. e) you are inspired. You must recognize what is causing you to be distracted and deal with it, or you will struggle.

Good luck.

<comment><USER3> b), c) & d) for me.

I know I will be disturbed within the next 30 minutes so I put off the deep thinking required to begin coding that oh-so-crucial function or refactoring. Exhaustion is another one - especially exhaustion from emotional disturbance. Double whammy.

Good list btw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My personal experience from the other day:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22135940](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22135940)</comment>


Show HN: An alternative to flickr's UI that focuses on learning photography - <AUTHOR> http://klekr.com klekr is about a simple mission: helping users discover beautiful photos and expand their own tastes for photography.
How? It's based on a simple assumption: if you like the photos by a photographer, you may also like some of his/her favorite photos, and, even more importantly, you may conceivably learn to appreciate some of them that did not appeal to you at the first sight.
By displaying photos from photographers' works and faves together in a single personalized slideshow, klekr makes it a lot easier to see the favorite photos of your favorite photographers.
On top of this simple concept, klekr is developed with a number of unique features that make such photo discovery as easy as possible. <comment><AUTHOR> If you are interested in learning seriously in photography, you might like klekr better. klekr is about a simple mission: helping users discover beautiful photos and expand their own tastes for photography.

How? It's based on a simple assumption: if you like the photos by a photographer, you may also like some of his/her favorite photos, and, even more importantly, you may conceivably learn to appreciate some of them that did not appeal to you at the first sight.

By displaying photos from photographers' works and faves together in a single personalized slideshow, klekr makes it a lot easier to see the favorite photos of your favorite photographers.

On top of this simple concept, klekr is developed with a number of unique features that make such photo discovery as easy as possible.</comment>


Seaside: Your Next Web Application Framework - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7424/2/

<comment><USER2> Existing discussion at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=705568></comment>


Fox Business: "The GitHub dictionary" - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/8r7W8YX.jpg

<comment><USER2> Can't wait for all the wannabe-startup-bros to start throwing those terms around now when they're looking for coders. "Hey man, wanna come forked on my awesome new idea? Send me your pull request and let's get started!"

</comment><comment><USER3> The source is even better: [http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-a- new-d...](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2667694577001/writing-a-new- dictionary/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Wow. I've been using those terms incorrectly all this time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Fox? it coulda been worse...

</comment><comment><USER6> reposotory.</comment>


The Triple Jeopardy of a Chinese Math Prodigy - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-11-19/the-triple-jeopardy-of-ke-xu-a-chinese-hedge-fund-quant <comment><USER3> Another story of a big corporation using the courts to screw over an individual. I have no doubt he was trying to steal from the company, but he was caught, convicted and went to jail, what more do they want? For him to spend the rest of his life in jail for being as greedy and unethical as his former employer? The hypocrisy is incredible.

Also, it's amazing how fast the wheels of justice move when a large financial company has been wronged, no?

<comment><USER4> Reading through the article, they seem to geoeuve they are entitled to own people at a pretty basic level. Their argument basically comes down to 'we paid you now you can never use that knowledge anywhere else.' it's not physical ownership it's cognitive ownership and frankly the courts seem I'll preppared to make such a differentiation.

To add...the deference in courts and the public is generally towards assertions by powerful people as truth. Even when we know they have no basis, the deference remains and frames inferences and interpretation.

Example:

>But they knew, from the tight security in the office and the imposing nondisclosure agreements they were asked to sign, that their work was extremely valuable

It must be valuable because it's secured. I'm not saying it's not, but assuming it is simply because a corporation that acts in this way tries to secure it is nonsense. It's allowing them to author a narrative simply because you assume they act in good faith.

<comment><USER5> That's how Uk and US labour law works work you do for you employer is theirs - and work out of hours "related" to you employment.

Plenty of places have secure rooms I went to an interview at an online gaming company and they had biometric locks on some rooms.

And I have been to more than one interview where you leave any electronics outside the building

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I nearly went to interview with G-Research when I moved near London and was looking for jobs a couple of years ago. I hadn't been that interested in algorithmic trading, but when a rectuitment agent mentioned a 120K starting salary it perked my interest. That might not sound like much to Valley types but for a first tech job in London it's mental.

They sent me one of those online automated coding tests; I prepared for several days, which turned out to be unnecessary as the test was quite straightforward. I completed both questions in the "choose one of the following" section, and an SQL question despite never having used SQL. I think the test was just there to filter out chaff, but they were very keen to get me in for an interview.

I talked it over with my wife, who was also quite stunned by the salary but pointed out that I'd literally just be moving money around to make rich people richer. I actually also talked it over with the boss of a smaller company that had already made me an offer. His advice, which turned out to be very wise, was to research them very thoroughly as a lot of city firms like this will offer big bucks but will suck the soul out of you.

I then spoke about it with a friend who mentioned that one of _his_ friends worked there. This is when I discovered their paranoid security practices, such as handing in your mobile phone as soon as you enter the building. That was the final straw in my head... no doubt they had their reasons but a culture of paranoia was not what I wanted at all.

Going back to how keen they were to get the interview, I remember telling the recruitment agent that I wasn't that interested and that I was going on holiday shortly which would cut down on opportunities to "just go in and see what it's like anyway". At this point he said I could literally name any time of night or day to go to their office, or I could speak on the phone with one of their guys who was currently in Spain for some reason. It started coming across as weirdly desperate.

I ended up going with the offer from the smaller company and have been very happy. I read about the case of Ke Xu not long afterwards and affirmed my conviction that I'd made the right choice.

<comment><USER7> I interviewed with G-Research a while ago, and this was pretty much my experience too.

Everyone i met there - interviewers, other developers on the team, bosses - seemed great: really smart and absolutely lovely. I'm sure i would have enjoyed working with them. They did some aggressive pursuing after the interview. But ultimately, the environment was just too weird and paranoid for me. A real shame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've got to say, I've got a lot less sympathy for Xu than most people in this thread seem to have. Firstly, what he did was absolutely unacceptable, he didn't just copy stuff, he went out of his way to break security procedures at the company he worked at to steal other people's hard work. He then literally fled the country knowing exactly what he was doing. He trafficked in stolen goods handing the IP to his family in China where he knew that the company would never get it back. He got his family to lie in court about the entire thing. He still wont admit what he stole and we all know that the second he goes free he can travel to China and sell the stolen IP. Unfortunately for Xu, because his family lied in court about destroying the IP and because he is from China where we all know any chance of enforcing any contracts is nil, any return to China is basically a sign off allowing him to profit from his stolen IP. So again, I perfectly understand why G-Research wants to stop him, every extra month in prison is another month where he can't hand over their IP to competitors.

I'm sorry but that is a whole head of red flags. Meanwhile, people seem to have a problem with G-Research in what they did to track him down. They tried to stop him travelling - seems pretty reasonable since he fled the country. They tried to stop him leaving HK - seems pretty reasonable since he tried to leave and succeeded in smuggling IP worth millions into mainland china. They hired PIs to watch his family - seems pretty reasonable since they actually DID participate in the crime and lie about it!

I feel sorry for the guy but this really does seem like an example of someone doing pretty much the worst thing they can do in a situation and doing it to the most powerful person they could.

<comment> saiya-jin I agree that his actions would end up in lawsuits anywhere in modern world, and I understand the attempt of former employers to block him as much as legally possible. Kudos to employer for not simply hiring a hitman.

That said - who in all honesty will root for some paranoid vengeful billionaire? I couldn't care less if he loses some 30 millions in his multi- billion empire. Which, according to the article, shouldn't be the case - strategies expired, the secret isn't worth anything anymore, and this is just bullying and revenge, because he can and his ego got hurt. With almost 100% guarantee he is 'optimizing' everything to Guernsey he can tax-wise, so British citizens don't see anything from his vast income.

Not much sympathy for some little man with big ego and even bigger wallet.

<comment><USER8> Well let's be clear about the stakes of this. Firstly, the billionaire isn't going to lose anything - he owns a company with dozens of different strategies. The people who will lose out are the other engineers who designed and built those strategies and now can't use them anymore. Even the risk of those stategies being out in the wild opens them up to the risk of a competitor exploiting their expected behaviour, so lot's of their work is going to have to be re-engineered. Secondly, whilst $30m doesn't threaten the company, having former employees thinking they can walk off with the secret sauce does threaten the existence of the company. So it's not surprising the most famous example of this is the one that's going to get the strongest enforcement.

<comment> saiya-jin There is standard codified punishment for what you describe - it isn't anything special to quant trading, we can talk about secret sauce of many IT companies, or companies in general. Some dev walks out of Google with their Search code/data would be much more scary and damaging.

What we see here is punishment for the sake of punishment, from person who is clearly amoral according to anything you can find on him online (quite a bit). All I say is I have no sympathy for him and the case, which btw even the company itself originally claimed would expire in +-August 2018. Yet they still go for revenge. That's pathetic and clear abuse of legal system from my viewpoint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "The year before, a group of five programmers and managers had left ... to start their own trading outfit. The company ... argued that the five had developed their quant-trading skills at the company, and so any new platform would have to be similar and an infringement of its intellectual property."

interesting, especially when combined with how happy such companies say they are to hire STEM graduates with zero Finance knowledge. is that what one has to expect when entering such an industry?

<comment><USER10> Yes, the more elite the outfit the more security conscious and vindictive it will be. It is defies belief how much they can get away with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Jesus Christ how is that even legal what they did to that poor man. Such non- sense should not be legal.

<comment><USER4> Because the justice system assumes good faith by all parties...

<comment><USER12> If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. \- [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Oliver_Twist)

of course Mr. Bumble is also an ass, but perhaps it takes one to know one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can we stop using the term 'math prodigy' for someone who was essentially a quant monkey - that too at best a decent one?

He ain't no Ramanujan, or a Terrence Tao or any of the recent Fields' medalists who have poured their heart and soul into their craft with no expected financial return.

<comment><USER14> He did, however, graduate third in his class at Cambridge, coming from a rural Chinese background--that's prodigal.

<comment><USER15> "prodigal" \- extravagant - derives from Latin: prodigus.

"prodigy" \- extraordinary - derives from Latin: prodigium.

<comment><USER16> "prodigious" \- resembling or befitting a prodigy, causing amazement or wonder

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I def feel for the guy and how he basically got years of his life ruined by a big player, but him and his family did some pretty shady stuff with regards to the company computers and data.

<comment><USER18> There may be shady behavior about data, but as I read it, the missing computers in the story were his, not the company's.

<comment><USER19> He admitted writing code to de-obfuscate the work of his coworkers and copying it. He gave several electronic devices including computers to his parents as he was being hunted by authorities. He made up ridiculous stories about how the devices were destroyed (ex: one was cremated with his relative) and his parents were caught in court lying about throwing the computers in a river when the company has them under surveillance 24x7.

Nobody likes being lied to repeatedly, especially courts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Whilst it seems apparent from this story that Xu was attempting to steal information from his employer, to me the bigger story is how much access to the justice system in the UK is predicated on wealth.

Not in the use of Allen & Overy, they're a private law firm, anyone who's got the cash can pay them.

The ability to get the quantity of police resource use detailed in this case assigned to a white-collar crime, would seem amazing to UK citizens who would struggle to get that kind of response to likely more serious crimes.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm surprised that Xu didn't simply leave Hong Kong for China.

I doubt China would be as keen to extradite one of its citizens.

Was Xu simply underestimating PdeP's wrath, or did he have more faith in the UK legal system than warranted?

<comment><USER22> This makes me think he really was innocent and wanted to resolve the issue properly.

Otherwise, for a smart guy, he wouldn't be very smart.

<comment><USER23> > Otherwise, for a smart guy, he wouldn't be very smart.

This is the case in a lot of situations. Smartest math guy thinks legal system works on logic and precision. They are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Curious how many of the "signals" they used were simply detecting LIBOR lies.

</comment><comment><USER25> Good Article. Be careful who you work for. Be careful who your friends are.

<comment><USER26> Uh, also, don't steal?

<comment><USER27> >At around that time, de Putron got involved in another legal dispute that foreshadowed his companies' campaign against Xu. The year before, a group of five programmers and managers had left G-Research, then known as GR Software & Research Ltd., to start their own trading outfit. The company responded by first threatening a lawsuit, then, in 2011, by filing one. None of the filings suggested anything had been stolen, but G-Research argued that the five had developed their quant-trading skills at the company, and so any new platform would have to be similar and an infringement of its intellectual property.

<comment><USER28> Intellectual property contracts are common in finance. I had a clause that, if enforced, would have prevented me to work for two years in the industry, while offering half my usual salary in the meantime. I think it's fair (doesn't hold you off forever and also doesn't starve you while you're out of the game). In my case, it wasn't enforced when I left (which is more bad news for me than good, since it just means I wasn't valuable enough :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can anyone tell me what a "trading strategy" at this level might look like?

<comment><USER7> In what sense?

It's a program (or function, or object, etc) where you feed in events for changes in market data and perhaps other things, and it feeds out commands to buy and sell particular quantities of particular instruments at particular prices.

AIUI, that program is typically quite simple in structure: it might work out target prices for some set of instruments based on prices for another set of instruments, with a function that is not necessarily more complicated than a polynomial. Then it buys or sells if the market price is sufficiently different to the target price.

The structure of the pricing function will be designed by a quant, and the coefficients in it will be set by fitting to historical data. A lot of the work goes into developing tools and practices for doing that fitting, backtesting the fitting, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I don't understand the logic behind the 3rd jeopardy. Was it that he didn't show remorse? So the lawyer accused Xu made a mockery of the court and the Judge just went with it?

While reading the 3rd part, I kept thinking "brexit logic" which I have come to associate with British thinking that seems too idealistic to be actually implementable. And yet apparently the entire British judicial system allows it.

</comment><comment> ajay-d Interesting that the trading strategies have a shelf life, and they're basically trying to keep him in court / jail until they deem those strategies no longer valuable.

</comment><comment><USER31> Xu's actions through out the article were quiet self serving, and selfish, no? G-Research is what it is, the behavior he exhibited while quitting and before that, going through sensitive code at the Company is not an innocent mistake.

You have to understand that a company like G-Research could easily be put out of business (or made to suffer severely) if their IP is stolen/disclosed - <USER2> Xu's refusal to cooperate with authorities is Xu's own undoing, not G-Research's.

</comment><comment><USER32> If his attempt was to disappear with something really valuable, he would've left for Beijing without leaving a note, and let their lawyers having fun persuading Air China to detain him on arrival.

It amazes me that in this day and time, some naive rich people genuinely believe of some piece of code can simply magically make money out of thin air (while some look to do so, what they do is a banal spread trading without realising it.) Quants people... they have that habit of puffing an air of mystique around themselves, but when you read their technobabble you can't hold yourself from laughing.

I met a number of such, all claiming some bizarre "supersophisticated" strategy, but even with a level of math availing me, a half baked engineer wannabe, I can't not to notice their math being junk, to the point of it having banal arithmetic errors. Sometimes, they resemble me the crazy guys who are trying to invent perpetuum mobiles - people in that cult-like subculure are not dumb for sure, engineers and mathematicians, but all having trouble with thermodynamics, all thinking that it must me them to find a hack for the first law.

How much of quant thing is RNG, and how much is just a cover for insider trading, think yourself. A man like PdP, may have much more reasons to go after Xu just for suspicion of him getting an idea of how his business was actually making money [https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12016846](https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/nodes/12016846)

<comment><USER33> Writing off an entire field with easily understandable principles seems absurd.

Much of the quant field is very straightforward mathematical modeling. Every field has bad research, but writing off CS as a field because some researchers have created a zombie out of stackoverflow code should also strike you as wrong.</comment></comment>


E La Carte Raises $35M to Expand Pay-at-the-Table Technology - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2014/09/24/e-la-carte-raises-35-million-to-expand-pay-at-the-table-technology/

<comment><USER2> The cynic in me can't help wondering why, if there's such a big mainstream demand for ordering at the table with minimal interaction with the waiter, paper menus with tick boxes and kiosks to pay on the way out haven't been the mainstream way of ordering and paying for food for a while.

Maybe I'm going to the wrong restaurants.

<comment><USER3> It's not the minimal interaction that's the draw. It's the lack of waiting for the waiter to come to you.

<comment><USER2> You wouldn't be waiting for very long for someone to pick up your pre-filled order sheets if the waiters didn't spend any time chatting with other guests.

My point is more that the interaction with the waiter is actually an integral part of how the sit-down restaurant experience differentiates itself from fast food, as well as an opportunity to persuade guests to take extra side dishes and chef's specials from the point of view of the restauranteur.

(Yes, it's probably partly a cultural thing; I don't even _want_ to order a main course until I've got snacks on the table and a drink in my hand unless it's counter service. But notionally more efficient alternatives to traditional table service have been around for a long time everywhere without restaurant owners feeling the need to replace it _en masse_ )

<comment><USER4> As a counter point.

I am somewhat of a food snob, but I don't like to cook. Fast food and cheap (aka applebee's) food is off the table, but the traditional wait time at mid to high end restaurants is simply wasted time. Honestly, I find ethnic restaurants often have a great balance as it's often vary good food without the overhead of an 'up scale' restaurant. But, american restaurants rarely mix casual dining with great food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing I would like is the ability to pay at the table. Moving from the UK where the waitstaff brought the card reader to the table for you (to pay with chip-and-pin) to the US where waitstaff I had met for the first time disappeared with my credit card for several minutes was unnerving at first.

<comment><USER6> Completely agree. I just came back from Istanbul and they use the mobile card readers everywhere. Every bar/restaurant tab was cleared in seconds despite there being 6+ people in our group. This was new to me as an American who had not used them before. I wonder why these aren't being used in the US as they are easier and probably more secure than the current system of signature- matching.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, that's the biggest advantage for me. Once I'm done eating I generally want to at least go outside to smoke/vape, if not leave right away, but far too often it takes a solid 20 minutes to wait for the bill to arrive, wait for the waiter to return the bill, and then wait for them to return with my card. When I've used one of these systems, we finished eating, I swiped my card, and then we left.

Plus, the one I used had the ability to arbitrarily split the check without having to have the waiter remember the random dollar amounts to put on 4 different cards.

<comment><USER8> Once you guys are forced to switch to chipcard readers, you'll have wireless readers everywhere. This is how it happened in Canada in recently years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This device annoys me. I occasionally go to the Applebee's near me, and I've used it once. They usually are either broken or not on (either way, black screen). Anyone here with experience as a waiter with these things? Are they awesome for the waitstaff?

<comment><USER10> Doesn't surprise me.

The thing is, with real POS integration (which most companies don't have) -- you could do all of this from the customer's phone rather than a stupid piece of hardware at the table.

<comment><USER11> It's nice to have a bigger screen so you can see pictures of the food. It makes it more fun to explore your options.

<comment><USER10> My father taught me to never eat at a restaurant that had photos of the food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This would be a godsend in Europe, where to American sensibilities it often feels like you have to have a flashing light and sirens to get someone, anyone, to show up and give you the bill after you're done your meal.

<comment><USER13> To European sensibilities ordering and paying from an iPad would be seen as unbelievably tacky.

I suspect the hurdle here is social not technical, similar to Google Glass.

<comment><USER14> How would you feel about being presented with the bill, and being able to pay for it from your own device - securely, and with minimal input, and without the credit-card machine dance?

Or being able to call up the bill on your own device, and pay it on the spot?

<comment><USER13> Yeah, I think that's preferable.

It could look like a regular bill holders but have NFC embedded. You could still leave cash if you want. Or you can tap your Apple Watch use Apple Pay (or similar technology).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've used one of these systems before, and I gotta say, I really like it.

</comment><comment><USER15> I enjoyed playing the trivia games on it with a group. I didn't like having to pay $1 to unlock the trivia... but then I figured on a $50-$80 group bill, what's $1.

Liked being able to pay when we were ready to go.

In this day whenever everyone sits and plays on their phone and takes photos of the food, this will turn the tables over a tad faster. Something the restaurants should like.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's great not having to wait for the check. I would be really happy to have this at most restaurants (maybe not super-fancy date-type places).

</comment><comment><USER17> I used one and thought it was in the way. It was nice to not have to wait for the check though

</comment><comment><USER18> What? Just get chip and pin machines like the rest of the world.</comment>


Hacking a Bitcoin exchange – the hard way - <AUTHOR> http://sakurity.com/blog/2015/01/10/hacking-bitcoin-exchanger.html?

<comment><USER2> Nice it seems like you have to be really careful what is in the gems you rely on.

<comment><AUTHOR> And websites too. Be careful about all your dependencies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is awesome! contains a lot of detail!</comment>


Self-inlining anonymous closures in C++ - <AUTHOR> http://matt.might.net/articles/static-closures-in-c-plus-plus/

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I can't see how this is an improvement over Boost::Phoenix:

[http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_44_0/libs/spirit/phoenix/doc...](http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_44_0/libs/spirit/phoenix/doc/html/phoenix/introduction.html)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the pointer!

<comment><USER4> Now you get to run yourself in Valgrind to see if your guess about who's supposed to free it is correct.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A lot of people will read this and think "damn C++ is such an ugly language, it should never allow the programmer to do this!".

The reality is that that kind of technique allows to produce extremely fast code because the compiler has got so much "certain" information at compile time that it can optimize very aggressively.

It's more powerful than vanilla C macros because it works with the compiler, not the pre-processor.

<comment><USER6> C++ is the highest-level language that I can accurately guess the assembly that will be actually run by the processor.

YMMV whether that's a blessing or a curse, though!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> $ in C++ identifiers is a nonstandard extension that gcc allows on some platforms - cool (and not portable).

<comment><USER8> You could use, say, "ARG_" instead and it would work just the same. (Phoenix uses "arg".)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What product I should build on iOS and Android? Side Projects? - <AUTHOR> We are a development agency working on mobile projects & web applications.
Last month was very difficult for us.
2 of our long-term customer's projects were finished & 2 other projects were closed intermittently due to budgetary issues. Some of our pipeline projects are not getting confirmed.
We have 4 iOS developers & 1 web developer with very minimal work.
- Do you recommend building a technical product which can eventually generate revenue in next quarter?
- Building in-house side projects, what sort of planning we need to do?
Cheers <comment><USER2> I agree with AbenezerMamo that you should build something new with some hot hyped tech as opposed to a side project with revenue generation goals. It is very hard to generate revenue that fast, stay where your expertise is.

Build something that will work as a portfolio for your agency, a showcase of your skills. That's why I think it must use some new hyped tech. You want to build something that the press will pick up. PR is much easier when you are building something free, cool and using a new tech.

With 4 iOS people, I would definitely choose to build something using Apple ARKit. It is among the most hyped things right now, everybody that tries it loves it and it still with very little reach, meaning there are not many products out there using it. If you build something really cool using it you can get enough attention from the press and fill your pipeline with prospects to build something with ARKit (doesn't matter if in 5 years AR will be the new forgotten tech like Google Glass, until then, big companies will be investing a lot in it, just in case).

That way you keep making your business stronger, not starting another one from scratch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you Soneca!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Improve your existing web presence by creating/optimizing your website (on page seo/blog posts). A good article posted here can get you 10 000 potential customers to your contact us page. That's what I'll do.

More details:

1) set distinct page title (the title should contain up to 63 characters)

2) set disting meta description (the meta description should contain up to 154 characters)

3) create a H1 tag for each page, should be something similar to the page title; create some H2/H3 meta tags

4) add alt and title attributes to website images

5) create a blog/ create a blog post which should contain over 1000 words and explain there what you're company is doing, what technology you use, programming languages..

6) crate facebook/twitter/google+/linkedin/reddit profile and ask for feedback on these social networks

7) make sure the page size is below 2/3 mb and that it loads fast enough

8) submit the website to google webmaster tools; create a sitemap and add it to you're website in the webmaster tools

9) if it's not working, create a new blog post and make sure it's written better

...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks we will take these steps to boost our web presence!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorry to hear your team is going through a rough patch but hang in there! :)

Here is my 2c: Work on something new! This will keep your team excited and push them to learn new things! Maybe play with AR or even Ethereum DApps or coreML for iOS.

Use this as an opportunity to learn and build new awesome things. Your clients would appreciate that I'm sure!

Good luck out there!

<comment><AUTHOR> We have started working with coreML & ARKit a bit.

Ethereum DApps is still early stage for us! Thank you for your feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recommend finding something you can do better (which is not a to-do app) and cloning that. Look for something poorly done in an existing market.

There are a lot of these, and they can either be done better or resegmented into a certain type of market.</comment>


The Equity Equation - <AUTHOR> http://paulgraham.com/equity.html <comment><USER2> Nice article, but drastically oversimplified. Paul ignores two critical issues: Risk, and non-linear utility-of-money functions. These two factors become critical when there is a tradeoff between probability of success and the payoff of success.

Suppose, as a simple example, that I have a startup which I think has a 50% chance of succeeding and being sold for $1M, and a 50% chance of failing and being worthless. Now suppose that Paul selects me to participate in YC, but wants 10% of the company, and I think his help will leave the potential valuation unchanged but increase the chance of success from 50% to 55%. If I accept his offer, my EXPECTED return drops from $500k (50% of $1M) to $495k (55% of $900k) -- but I'd still accept the offer, because increasing my chance of getting that first $900k is worth far more than getting an additional $100k on top of that.

On the other hand, suppose a venture capital company comes along and offers to help me expand into a much larger market, where I'd have a 10% chance of the company being worth $100M (and a 90% chance of the company being worthless), in exchange for taking 50% of the company stock. If I accept the offer, my EXPECTED return jumps from $500k to $5M (10% of $50M) -- but there's no way that I'd accept the offer, because I really don't want to spend years of my life on something which has a 90% chance of being worthless.

It's important to understand the numbers, but in the end the numbers, at best, have to guide you rather than making decisions for you.

<comment><USER3> Actually not. That's why I was careful to speak of the effect of trading equity on the "average outcome" rather than e.g. "average valuation at liquidity." What I'm literally saying is, does the trade improve your odds of getting what you want? That subsumes both your risk aversion and your utility function for money.

<comment><USER2> Your math is still wrong, because of the non-linear utility of money. If I give up 6% of my company, it costs me 6% of any MONEY I might end up getting, but it doesn't cost me 6% of the UTILITY. If I have a utility-of-money function of sqrt($), you don't have to increase my chance of success by 6.4%; it's enough if you increase my chance of success by 3.2%.

<comment><USER3> "Outcome" means the output of the utility function, not the input.

<comment><USER2> Then you're still wrong. I quote from the article: "For example, suppose Y Combinator offers to fund you in return for 6% of your company. In this case, n is .06 and 1/(1 - n) is 1.064. So you should take the deal if you believe we can improve your average outcome by more than 6.4%."

If by "average outcome" you mean "expected value of the utility function", and assuming that my utility-of-money function is sqrt($), I don't need to improve my "average outcome" by more than 6.4% for the deal to be worth accepting; it's enough if I can increase my "average outcome" by 3.2%, since that's how much UTILITY giving up 6% of the MONEY costs me.

<comment><USER4> If a man is wrong, you don't need to tell him so. Just give it a rest and let others form their own opinions.

Seriously, these issues, and a lot of other issues, are covered in "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Read it. If I could figure out a way to get you to feel like you came up with the idea to read it, I would, but I can't, so just read it.

<comment><USER3> Actually, if someone is wrong about math you probably should tell him so.

<comment><USER4> I agree. In private.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Paul - This is Seth Levine (quoted in the USA Today article referenced and appropriately called out in your post). Let me set the record straight. While I've seen plenty of articles come to press that has somewhat inaccurate quotes, this was the first time I've been completely misrepresented in an article. I've written a full post on my views here - [http://sethlevine.typepad.com/vc_adventure/2007/07/setting-t...](http://sethlevine.typepad.com/vc_adventure/2007/07/setting- the-rec.html). It's particularly frustrating in this case, as I've spent literally hundreds of hours working with TechStars and TechStars companies in Boulder this summer (and am the lead mentor to one very promising project). I actually believe strongly in the model.

I hope you'll consider posting this response up to your main site with a reference to my post clarifying my views.

seth levine

<comment><USER3> Ok, if you were misquoted, I'll take that paragraph out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article ignores how market prices work - the formula presented lets you know the maximum equity you can give up and still get a positive return by doing so, but incorrectly explains why VCs accept much less - the minimum equity a VC can accept and still expect a positive return on their investment can be far lower than the maximum the startup can afford to give profitably. The VCs are subject to competition with other VCs, so in such cases they cannot force the startup to accept a just-better-than-breakeven deal.

<comment><USER3> Why can VCs afford to give up stock and founders not? Are you talking about liquidation preferences?

Startups are just as subject to competition. There's a profit margin on taking investment just as there is on hiring someone, and it expands and contracts depending on how hot the startups is.

<comment><USER6> I think I was unnecessarily unclear - let's say we're talking about buying eggs. Suppose I'm willing to pay up to $3 for a dozen. That doesn't mean that I should buy them if I find eggs for $2.99 - I should keep shopping around, because grocers can profitably sell eggs for $2 a dozen, so I'm bound to find eggs closer to the $2 mark. I need to take into account what would be reasonable for the other party when deciding if a deal is reasonable, not just the limits of what would be reasonable for me. If I'm stuck, and _everyone_ is selling eggs for $3 a dozen, then it matters whether that's beyond my personal threshold or not. If I _only_ note how close a deal is to my personal threshold, without noting whether the other party would be likely to agree to a more favorable deal, I'm liable to get ripped off, unless I have no leverage for negotiating anyway, and I can only take it or leave it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Even in a simple model, time should be incorporated, right? The total cost for the life of the company of an employee is included, assuming a particular growth rate. What about for investment? "the total cost of this round of funding" doesn't make sense so much. And surely the rate of increased value of your company matters.

Also, it seems, like you note in the end, that there is still a gut feeling, and here it is stated simply: how can you predict how much your company will grow because of an investment?

This is easier if you have sales numbers that show some trend, where investing $N in business development yields X more users leading to Y more profit. If you're reddit, and you haven't even monetized your users before being purchased, this can be harder. Also organic growth implies less direct business development.

One simple question that I think has a standard/GAAP answer: how much is your company worth if you are making $X yearly and growing at a rate of Y%? I vaguely recall terms like "good-will estimates" and "present value of future money" in the single management class I've taken years ago. But is there something standard for a company going through valuation for acquisition or taking a next round of funding. [Ignore for the moment that a company making a nice profit and growing ideally wouldn't need a next round of funding.]

<comment><USER8> "how much is your company worth if you are making $X yearly and growing at a rate of Y%"

In finance, the standard answer is "the net present value of all future cash flows". Basically, all cash that the company throws off beyond expenses technically belongs to the owners. However, owners could've parked their money in T-bills instead of investing it, and they'd receive interest for it. So you discount these future cash flows by a factor that depends on the rate of interest and the time between investment and cash flow, and then sum up all these discounted cash flows over the life of the company. If earnings are growing, you just figure the increased earnings into your calculations. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value>

I dunno if VCs and acquirers use this method: they face a problem in that it's notoriously difficult to estimate the future cash flows of an unprofitable technology company. They might be building a stellar product and growing market share for years, then suddenly start raising their prices when they become a monopoly. Or they might be building a mediocre product and growing market share for years, and then lose them all when they start raising their prices and a competitor comes along.

<comment><USER7> Thanks!

Then my earlier points are even more important. How much will your company be worth? How much _more_ is it worth after taking more funding? Who knows? All hard questions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Was this article written in response to Seth Levines comment? What Seth Levine doesn't know or doesn't want to tell is that a lot of YC alums could raise the 5K/founder on their own, so money is NOT the primary reason they are there.

<comment><USER3> No, I'd been working on it for a while.

I'd been thinking of taking that footnote out, since it seemed like everyone now finally understood us. But when I saw that old dumb argument again in the USA Today article, I decided to leave it in.

<comment><USER10> I can't help but laugh at the audacity of another tech-related investment firm commenting like that. He _is_ trying to persuade people that YC is just writing cheques.

<comment><USER3> I'm never sure whether such people are clueless or deliberately misleading. I'm inclined to give most the benefit of the doubt and say clueless. When you change the model for something, it takes people a long time to get what you're doing. I remember from web-based software.

<comment><USER3> Maybe this is not so innocent as I thought. Apparently Seth Levine is the partner of Brad Feld, the founder of Techstars:

<http://www.foundrygroup.com/team.php>

What a slimy move. It won't make any difference in the long run though.

<comment><USER11> Definitely self-serving move, and certainly won't make any difference in the end... articles like the USAToday one always need to find that contrarian view in order to seem unbiased. I'm sure Seth Levine was all to happy to provide them the material. But how would you feel if you were a Techstars startup group and you see him making comments like that - blasting the model of his partner's program!?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> From my perspective it's partically an emotional path, not merely an analytical path. A company that's a startup has an intention, and it's one of these:

1\. You use resources to incrementally grow a user base and get market share, then sell it off to a bigger company

2\. You develop technology that enhances a company's market share and pulls users from a competitive company's market

3\. You lose, and the investor loses a small amount of money

The bottom line for me is that the value of your start-up is based on the number of users you can get. It's about your intention X with the assistence of your investor will find the users and people you need. Whether it's a good deal or not is irrelevant if those are not true - take the journey.

Whether it's a Mobius or another VC, for me as an entrepreneur, they have not established a community tool to have access to a community that will help grow the start-up quickly. You're not just buying equity in the equation X you're buying into the community's collaboration.

The equity value is not just based on "here's some money for X cents on the dollar" X it has to go beyond that.

<comment><USER13> "The equity value is not just based on "here's some money for X cents on the dollar" X it has to go beyond that."

Uh, no it doesn't. Equity has value, and so does what you get when you give up value. When you're like for like, emotional attachment doesn't make sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's not an equation, but for employee options my gut has always been that you get options as a function of how much your improve the odds of the company's ultimate success.

Founders get a lot because they take it from zero to something.

Senior folks get a lot because the influence it significantly.

Early grants > Later grants because the ability to change the trajectory is typically smaller.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a nice analysis and good thinking, though it's worth noting that liquidation preference makes the VC equation less favorable. I'm not sure how Y Combinator works, but preference plays a shockingly large role when you run these types of calculations against your hypothetical VC deal.

<comment><USER16> Given PG's formulation, liquidation preference plays no part in the value-of- equity equation, since it can be factored out into the average outcome.

But sure, it does tend to depress average outcome. Then again, if your outcome is dominated by the presence of very-high-value possibilities, a reasonable liquidation preference may be no big deal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> A smart company would give 6% equity to YC just for the advice and publicity. The cash is the least valuable part of the equation. 5k per person can be saved up in a number of months, even for relatively low salaries if you are stingy.

<comment><USER18> I'd honestly be surprised at this point if nobody has offered to _pay_ YC to take equity in a startup.

<comment><USER8> Am trying to remember if I did that after I was rejected from SFP2005...I know that I offered them free equity in exchange for advice and the ability to come to the YC dinners, but I can't remember if I offered cash. Probably not, as I was poor at the time.

My offer was ignored, BTW.

<comment><USER19> Not surprising... the benefit of getting accepted is getting face time for advice and networking with potential investors at their dinners, etc., not the funding.

If they said yes to that, there'd be no need to apply, we'll all just show up at Graham's house every day.

<comment><USER8> Well, if they said yes to that, they'd have equity in a huge number of companies too. ;-)

But yeah, I can understand why they didn't go for it. It's turned out that yCombinator partner time is the scarcest resource in the Founders Programs. It makes sense to concentrate that where it's most likely to have the most effect, in the accepted founders. Which unfortunately doesn't include me.

This was for the first funding cycle though: at the time, nearly everyone harped on the money and not on the fringe benefits. Maybe Graham et al knew that partner bandwidth would be scarce, but I thought I was being clever by going for the part I really needed and offering to give up the part that didn't matter so much to me.

<comment><USER20> It's not only time but respect too. The ability of YC to connect startups with investors and acquirers depends on its ability and commitment to select only the most promising teams. Anything that may look like a deviation from that would harm the YC brand.

Waiving the cash suggests that you have your priorities right, but if YC believes in you, that money serves you both better in your pocket than in YC's, don't you think?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Here's a quick calc to help play with the numbers:

<http://tinyurl.com/yorkoq>

Feel free to click and change change any of the assumptions as you guys fight it out :)

</comment><comment><USER22> at a high-level i agree with the post, however practically speaking, you're overlooking several significant issues: 1) diff between preferred vs common shares 2) liquidation preferences in terms sheets 3) supply/demand for investor capital in the market 4) competitive position of VC/company in the market 5) exit targets / preferences / restrictions by investors / entrepreneurs

these 5 factors (& many others) have _DRAMATIC_ impact on the 1/(1-n) calculation you mention. while i don't disagree with you in theory, practically applied the outcomes matter a fuckload.

see leo dirac's presentation on term sheet liquidation preferences for just one perspective on this: <http://www.embracingchaos.com/2007/08/vc-term- sheets-.html> \- dave mcclure <http://500hats.typepad.com/>

</comment><comment><USER23> Very good article thanks -- why am I not surprised? :-) Few minor points. Sometimes, not often, your initial valuation may affect the subsequent rounds (they shouldn't but may). Crowded cap tables are also problematic. Initial employees contributions, however small, will entitle them to more shares that the later ones -- which may cause discontent. Finally think about how many 6.7% you can give up?

I am not even going to get into option analysis; talk about introducing non- linearities. But even in a linear stream Paul's footnote that YC combinator brings to table a lot more than 6.7% (?) is probably correct, but it should also take into account the effects of the multiplier of the later rounds and options on both side.

</comment><comment><USER24> But it's not that simple. Startups are always measured against their competitors. So even if the 1/(1-n) shows that it is a net gain for me, it may be an overall loss if my competitors make deals that are worth significantly more for them.

</comment><comment><USER25> My apologies -- here's a version with a better formatted URL for the Equity Formulas spreadsheet:

<http://www.nosnivelling.com/Paul-Graham-equity-formulas.xls>

</comment><comment><USER26> For me, the question that the startup should ask more critically is around the total dilution-to-exit. If taking Paul's money for 6% now reduces the dilution at some subsequent round from, say, 40% to 30%, then by my reckoning the founders end up with 66% instead of 60% of the final position. Key here is usually a combination of the value-add from the VC, and their ability to underwrite/cornerstone a good part of that follow-on round. (Although obviously this is only relevant if a larger follow-on round is going to be needed!)

</comment><comment><USER23> I read only some of these comments and I have to say: EASY !!!

This is static analysis of a single decision; and it has to be viewed with those limitations in mind.

Option analysis and risk, nor is dilution after each round is talked about here. Yes if the Google founders had given shares left an right they would be in serious trouble making isolated decisions. Nonetheless, it is hard if not impossible to bring mathematical rationality to something fairly dynamic, if not irrational.

</comment><comment><USER27> These comments are very confusing. Paul -- a simple question: doesn't the amount of capital offered/invested have a big impact on the calculation? Sure I'd give up 6% of my pre-natal company for $1 million. But would I for $1 thousand? No. Doesn't your analysis suggest that in both cases the calculation is 1/(1-n)? Yet the ability to add 6.4% value at exit given $1 million is vastly different than if given $1 thousand...

</comment><comment><USER28> I guess I'm the only dumb one here. Can someone explain to me how he came up with the 1.5 as a multiplier for the new hire's salary? Also the part where he talks about making a 50% "profit" on the new hire and then proceeds to subtract a third from 16.7%. Why 50% and why 1/3? How did he come up with those numbers? Please enlighten me.

</comment><comment><USER29> ok, so we're a new c-corporation out of north carolina, three new unc mba graduates with a fourth ruby coder out in pasadena. we have a hotmail-sized concept with a working prototype already built. it's addictive, the kids are going to love it (parents too). all we want to do is hire ourselves and knock the project into beta. we also know that if we launch and gain x users right out of the gate, we will be able to get a better deal from investors.

questions = what is x? how many users does a hot new web 2.0 service need before jaded vc's start paying attention? what are the other eye openers in your opinion? until i read this article, i had been of the point of view that you should turn down all investment until you launch if at all possible. is that correct or am i wrong?

\- Srini

</comment><comment><USER30> I am thoroughly fed-up hearing this self-serving tripe from investors.

If all I am looking for is financial independence (say $3M), why would I trade an 80% probability of success for a 5% probability of achieving 100 times that by selling out to VCs?

Sure, my expected return is 6 times greater, but now I need approximately 31 (=log 0.2 / log 0.95) bites at the cherry to guarantee an 80% probability [1] of success. That's 6 lifetimes of startups for a serious serial entrepreneur (most of us have energy for one, maybe two, startups).

Unlike VCs, who invest in a portfolio of companies, I don't have a portfolio of lives.

[1] This assumes only two outcomes from a VC-backed company: zero return or $300M exit. Obviously there are a range of returns, but this is a reasonable approximation since VCs have no interest in seeing low returns - they'd rather kill the company than waste their time.

<comment><USER3> And I am thoroughly fed up with people who jump to conclusions after misunderstanding something I've written, and post comments using language they'd never use talking to someone in person. (At least, language I hope they'd never use.)

This is covered in other essays, e.g. <http://www.paulgraham.com/guidetoinvestors.html>

<comment><USER30> I don't see how I have misunderstood you, eg:

"The reason Sequoia is such a good deal is that the percentage of the company they take is artificially low. They don't even try to get market price for their investment; they limit their holdings to leave the founders enough stock to feel the company is still theirs."

If Sequoia took _ordinary_ stock for their money that argument would have some legs. But otherwise, it is self-serving (for the VCs). Once you take their money at valuation X, liquidation preferences and control clauses guarantee that you're not getting anything until the company is worth at least 10X. It doesn't matter whether the founders still have 95%, they've given up control over the outcome that matters to them.

Angels are a different story. I have angel investors myself, carefully chosen, and with a term sheet that is much fairer than anything you'll get from VCs (they can't screw me; I can't screw them).

I used to have some deference for VCs, but after hearing their self-serving arguments and witnessing their arrogance for years, I don't waste my time (being profitable also helps).

Don't get me wrong, we could grow faster with VC money, and I'd do it on the right terms. But these days, if a VC contacts me I always ask them within the first 2 minutes whether they'd invest on similar terms to the existing angels. The answer is always "no". They never have a good response to the obvious question: "how do your terms make sense for a founder?".

As for language, I apologise. I have not used the expression "self-serving tripe" in person with a VC, but I've been close. They need to hear it sometimes.

<comment><USER3> What you misunderstood was that this article was simply about the math of trading equity, not higher level issues like one's personal goals, which I talk about elsewhere.

Incidentally, your specific claim that if you take VC money "you're not getting anything until the company is worth at least 10X" is false. Many VCs, including Sequoia, will let founders sell some of their stock on the way up for diversification. Such deals are usually kept quiet, but they're quite common.

<comment><USER30> Trading equity only makes sense in terms of my goals. The founders own 90% of this company. We're not trading equity unless the math makes sense. If your math says it makes sense when it doesn't, your math is wrong (specifically, money has nonlinear utility for founders, but linear utility for VCs, or more specifically, for limited VC partners).

"Many VCs, including Sequoia, will _let_ founders sell some of their stock on the way up"

How very generous of them. They may deign to "let" you sell some of your stock. Come hither dumb hacker, trade that unencumbered stock for paper you don't even have the right to sell. And just to prove how generous we are, we'll let you keep 70% of the paper no one is allowed to sell (of course, we reserve the right to do whatever we please with our 30%).

Be in no doubt that they 0wn your ass, regardless of the percentage of your company they have. Hence why discussion of equity percentages makes no sense unless we're comparing the same class of stock.

<comment><USER31> hey bootstrapper, what is your company?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Just in case readers would like the formulas in a simple spreadsheet, I posted it as a download from my server:

<http://www.nosnivelling.com/Paul> Graham equity formulas.xls

</comment><comment><USER32> So very useful. These are issues we all have to parse through and while you note it's not a magic formula, it's certainly a good one to understand as a young entrepreneur. Thanks. Nate Westheimer BricaBox.com

</comment><comment><USER33> Paul, I really liked your article and I have always wondered about working out these financial details. Its cool how you did it for employees. I liked the fact that you kept it simple.

<comment><USER34> The famous KISS principle. In case you don't know: Keep It Simple, Stupid

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Great article! Very informative.. I think you just improved my prospects by 10% and that advice was free!

</comment><comment><USER36> Sorry for my ignorance, how can one calculate his company value ?

<comment><USER35> Most of the time it is made up..

The theory is that the market will grow and/or you will exhibit exponential growth. Take for example Google which is valued by the outstanding shares value (market cap) which is driven mostly by public perception of market growth and Google's operation with respect to real and perceived growth..

So apply this to your startup.. get VCs to bid on it.. If you have revenues then you can go to a bank and see what type of credit line your business qualifies for. But since most startups don't have revenue then you really don't know.

Essentially your initial idea is worth $0... this is why angel investors are nice to have. They make the first real valuation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> How can you determine the improved outcome? thanks!</comment>


Ask HN: Site That Parses "Who's Hiring?" Thread Replies for Keywords/Buzzwords - <AUTHOR> Do any of you know of a site that does this? Something even as simple as a table organized by keyword (e.g. blockchain) and posts that include the word. <comment><USER2> somebody built shared this a few months ago: [https://hnjobs.emilburzo.com/#engineer](https://hnjobs.emilburzo.com/#engineer)</comment>