MtGox: Announcement of Commencement of Civil Rehabilitation Proceedings [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.mtgox.com/img/pdf/20180622_announcement_en.pdf <comment><USER2> (Question from the FAQ) Although I have not filed a proof of claim by the filing deadline for the bankruptcy proceedings, can I file a proof of claim in the civil rehabilitation proceedings?

(Answer) Those who have not filed proof of claims in the bankruptcy proceedings or who have filed proof of claims after the filing period had passed (i.e., the date of the investigation of claims, May 25, 2016), may file proof of claims in the civil rehabilitation proceedings. We plan to post further details on this website.

</comment><comment><USER3> If I'm pretty sure I had money in Mt Gox but I'm not sure how much, how could I ever file a "proof of claim"? It's not like Mt Gox was sending depositors balance statements every month or something.

<comment><USER4> The complete trade history of every MtGox customer up to 30.11.2013 was leaked in 2014, you can find your own trade records in the leak. However, the leaked trade records didn't contain emails/names that you can search for, so you need other details to discover what your userID is. This page may be helpful: [https://bitcoin.tax/mtgox](https://bitcoin.tax/mtgox)

If you registered at MTGox before mid-2011 you can use the user database leak from around then to find your userID, which you can then use to search the trade records.

<comment><USER5> I did a quick look, and balance info appears to be available through 2014-02-25, if the 'stamp' field in the mtgox_balances file is to be trusted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting claim:

Q15) How was the Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash sold?

A15) As in sales from December 2017 to February 2018, upon consultation with cryptocurrency transaction experts, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash were sold in a manner that had no effect on market price and not by ordinary sale on an exchange

Wasn't there a paper that showed a strong correlation between a the time of the bitcoin transfers from MtGox and subsequent strong decreases in BTC prices?

<comment><USER7> Even if it wasn't sold directly on an exchange the recipient of the bitcoin could have transferred and dumped the coins on an exchange.

They could also have sold an existing position to net their new exposure to zero.

<comment><USER8> Also, people were watching those addresses. So when it was sold off-exchange, people still could see it and react.

<comment><USER9> If the market assumes "coins are moving" to be equivalent with "coins are being sold", then the market is stupid.

The coins could have been moved around for other reasons than to sell them. The coins could also have been sold at certain price at a certain time, but with a contract that says it won't be moved until a time in the future.

The market did _not_ react to coins being sold. It reacted to coins being _moved_ and it made certain assumptions.

As far as I can see, the trustee has done everything correct regarding the sale (not flooding the market). It's just the market that is so volatile that it reacts to every tiny thing that happens.

<comment><USER10> >If the market assumes "coins are moving" to be equivalent with "coins are being sold", then the market is stupid.

And yet, whoever sold off at that time is probably pretty happy with themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just read it through and it seems that:

a) any owed assets will be paid in Bitcoin, unlike the bankruptcy proceedings which gave you fiat at (I believe) the rate when mtgox went under

b) a form will be posted to mtgox.com to fill out and send to them before October 22, 2018

Has anyone who filed in the bankruptcy proceedings got any money back? If so did you get it all back?

<comment><USER12> Had 2 BTC in there. My claim was approved and everything, but I haven't heard of anybody getting anything back yet.

<comment><USER11> Ok interesting. Maybe their plan is that once all the claims are in, if total valid claims amount < recovered coins, everyone (who filed) gets full amount back. Hopefully anyway

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I left a small fraction of a bitcoin in my mtgox account years ago, because I couldn't be bothered to look up the exact decimal value when I transferred it out. I bought at I believe $8. At the time, it was worth a few cents. Today I think it's worth something like $3k.

<comment><USER14> There is no obligation to return the current market value. To make you whole, you would get 8 back.

<comment><USER15> He used $8 to receive in exchange a certain amount of bitcoin. What he lost when Mtgox filed for bankruptcy was bitcoin, not USD. To make whole, shouldn't you receive what was lost?

<comment><USER16> That's not how bankruptcy works. He effectively made an unsecured, interest- free loan to Mt Gox for $8. The only thing he's entitled to in the event of default is that $8, what the company used his loan for is irrelevant.

<comment><USER17> I think OP meant he left $8 worth at the time of BTC in his account, not $8 USD.

<comment><USER16> It doesn't matter whether his $8 was in the form of BTC or not, _all he did was make an $8 loan_. Sure, the loan contract might have stated he could've accepted BTC instead of cash at withdrawel, but that's completely irrelevant once the loan issuer entered default. At that point OP is obliged to accept JPY as restitution, per the bankruptcy laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What's the current value of BitCoin against USD relative to the price Mt Gox went under? (I do not know where to go to conveniently answer that question and I'm sure there are many who will read this who will.)

<comment><USER19> BTC was priced at ~$825 on 2/1/2014 when Mt Gox disabled transactions, and is around $6,150 now. Provided they're able to pay out ~13% of each claim, claimants will at least be able to "break even" on the freeze (ignoring, of course, BTC's astronomical gains in the last 4 years).

<comment><USER20> You forget that on Mt Gox, the price dropped to something like $125 before they shut off trading... I know because I bought some at that price just before they went dark

<comment><USER21> Same here. Everyone was fleeing from BTC like rats from a ship. Luckily I managed to sell everything I had when it was close to $1000 and buy all the BTC I could when the price dropped to two hundred something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I am a ~1BTC debtor of MtGox, and while I understand that this is a positive development for those with substantial assets, I kind of just want to get something and move on.

The fact that I now have to dig through my paperwork and refile another claim, and maybe wait another year or five is annoying.

<comment><USER23> Your claim was worth around $483 plus some interest. With this CR your claim will be worth that plus over 15% of what a BTC is worth in those N years. Your claim will likely be doubled, surely that's worth under an hour of your time scanning your passport again?

<comment><USER22> If I were actually sure to get that money, of course. I'm not as confident as you are.

Let's put it this way. If I were to offer you my full stake of whatever I am due from MtGox in the next 5 years, would you pay me $450 right now? (Assume I can prove to you that my original claim of not quite a bitcoin was valid)

<comment><USER23> Yes. That's quite a good deal, the trustee has already secured cash backing for the cash value of your claim.

<comment><USER22> Cool. I'm in. What sort of proof do you want me to provide?

<comment><USER23> Shit, now I actually have to come up with the money ;) In July the trustee is going to announce how the claims are supposed to be made. I'll send you another message when that's clear so we can set something up. If I forget or try to chicken out you can contact me on mail at tinco dot nl.

<comment><USER22> No no no. No fair kicking the can down the road. :)

I have to decide how I feel about this _now_ , and how I feel about it now is "well, my chance of a payoff just got more uncertain".

The longer we wait, the less uncertainty there is.

If you think I should be happy about the news, then _you should want to take the risk right now_ not in a few months after whatever new information comes out.

<comment><USER23> In my head the big uncertainty is how long the claims procedure is going to take, and how long the determining of the final CR plan is going to take. The estimates seem very optimistic to me, so I totally understand your hesitance in feeling good about this development. But I can't buy your claim if I don't know what is needed to transfer the claim.

<comment><USER22> I understand.

I think I made my point. It looked like I was on track to get ~$400 sometime fairly soon. _Now_ I maybe get a bunch more, but possibly further years down the line, and I have to file more paperwork and keep thinking about it and all that nonsense. That's not an update I'm happy with, even though the nominal claim I have is larger.

I'd rather just have the $400! And so would you.

Cheers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I followed the instructions leading to [https://archive.org/details/MtGox2014Leak](https://archive.org/details/MtGox2014Leak) but the mtgox_balances file when unzipped is an exe file.... where is the real file?

</comment><comment><USER25> Great news for people who were affected by the whole Mt. Gox incident.

It took a very long time but it's nice to see that there will be people getting their Bitcoins back. I'd assumed most people had given up hope or were at best thinking they would get the original fiat value.

Bravo to the trustee and those involved.

<comment><USER26> The trustee deserves no thanks. He has actively fought against this for years while drawing down a hefty fee for his office. This action was forced by the court.

<comment><USER27> If you hadn't realized, it was the trustee who held the BTC all these years despite the bankruptcy law saying all assets need to be liquidated for distribution which could've happened years ago at 10th of the price but no one seem to appreciate that part but complain on every move he makes.

Besides he has a lot of liabilities to cover going the unprecedented route that is cryptocurrency civil rehabilitation case, can't just blame him for not giving us BTC back sooner.

<comment><USER26> I would have been fine with liquidation and distribution years ago. That would have been financially better than the plan prior to civil rehabilitation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have no idea how much I had there when this happened, is there any way I can know?

<comment><USER29> At least until a few months ago (haven't checked lately), on mtgox.com you could log in with your original credentials and check your balance to make a claim. Not sure how that's going to be handled now.

<comment><USER28> I don't see anywhere to login really.

<comment><USER5> instructions: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17377474](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17377474)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The creditors group: [https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/](https://www.mtgoxlegal.com/)

</comment><comment><USER31> so I got this line ... what does it mean ? (I vaguely remember having about 2 BTC there ... ) 1384381780866513,"2013-11-13 22:29:40",716300,94b5ad4c-2a91-4e16-bb00-7c95a13a522b,456130f6a84dff2ee89fcb3d9a21c64a,NJP,sell,USD,1.99,875.6199,99.665,87268.639,5.25372,99.665,523.612,0,0,IL,02

</comment><comment><USER32> "This is good news."

</comment><comment><USER33> I thought the FBI seized the BTC and auctioned it all off?

<comment><USER34> The Japanese government is responsible for this Japanese company. The FBI has little involvement.

You're likely thinking of the Silk Road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> yay cheap bitcoin

this is the largest and last Sword of Damocles hanging over bitcoin for now

<comment><USER36> You mean besides the whole tether issue?

<comment><USER37> And Nakamoto's coins?

<comment><USER6> Those coins are his. Without him there would be no bitcoin.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


DJI Drones to Warn They're Near by Sending Wi-Fi Signals to Phones - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcmag.com/news/371956/dji-drones-to-warn-theyre-near-by-sending-wi-fi-signals-to <comment><USER2> I'm starting to become more and more suspicious when tech companies offer free features out of the blue, so forgive me for asking this question:

Could this end up being a plausible "serving the customer" reason for DJI drones to start collecting and reporting Wi-Fi signal, location, and temporal data back to the parent company on a regular basis? (That's with or without the matching phone app being installed and running.)</comment>


Could The GPhone Be Nigh? - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/08/24/could-the-gphone-be-nigh/ <comment><USER2> Grrrrreat, so Google can listen to your phone calls as well as read your email, view your schedule, track your browsing, etc... :)

If the phone isn't locked to Google services and is based on an open source platform it could be nice. Personally, I'm waiting for OpenMoko to be consumer ready... <http://www.openmoko.org/></comment>


The Adobe/Apple Flame war - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/04/11/the-adobe-apple-flame-war/

<comment><USER2> Jean-Louis Gassée (born March 1944 in Paris, France) was an executive at Apple Computer from 1981 to 1990. He is most famous for founding Be Inc., creators of the BeOS computer operating system. After leaving Be, he became Chairman of PalmSource, Inc. in November, 2004.</comment>


Jim Collins: 10 Suggestions for Young People - <AUTHOR> https://remo.org/2020/06/04/jim-collins-suggestions/ <comment><AUTHOR> Jim Collins is the author of Good to Great.

He's one of my favorite business thinkers.

Enjoy his 10 suggestions for young people.</comment>


On the Future of Apple and Google - <AUTHOR> http://stevecheney.com/on-the-future-of-apple-and-google/

<comment><USER2> _But the Watch is where Apple's chips / hardware / OS vertical integration will really shine. That's because with wearables, there is a sort of third axis beyond performance and power: volume. The Moto 360 is double the volume of the small Apple Watch, an unpleasant difference and one that almost no one will stand for at a given price tier when holding the two devices. If wearables follow fashion, you could make a case for Apple owning this category. _

Interesting angle.</comment>


Ask HN: What are some good examples of small companies beating big companies?  - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> There is a good example in the high end digital art niche. A few years ago a little known software company released a program called ZBrush. Their 2.0 release rocked the industry and became a must have tool for CG animation in film and games. The company, Pixelogic, suddenly became a player in a tight space competing with the likes of AutoDesk.

The success catalyst, to me, was their lateral approach to solving a long time industry problem (real time polygon count). They innovated a new paradigm. And they executed with a rock solid product.</comment>


Ask HN: Should DEV and PROD environments be segmented? - <AUTHOR> I am experiencing dissonance between developers, security, and infrastructure teams on the topic of whether to do network layer segmentation for DEV and PROD environments.
Security and Infra folks say yes and want firewalls between the environments with different levels of change control.
Developers say no and argue that different VMs/containers are sufficient and don't see value in having firewalls between DEV and PROD.
I see value on both sides of this argument but would love to know what others are doing here. <comment><USER2> As a developer it is worth it as long as you have separate teams responsible for development and production. Segmentation means that a prod server can't accidentally be configured to access a dev resource (db instance, etc). If you have development hand off installation packages and instructions it also means that dev never has to touch prod servers (except read access to logs, etc). It also eliminates the temptation to "temporarily" use a dev machine/instance as part of prod to solve a problem (and then leaving it that way for years).

</comment><comment><USER3> Absolutely must separate. One reason: controlled access to prod. You cannot let any arbitrary untrusted device on your corporate network connect directly to prod instances. You rather need a VPN or other jump host in the middle.

Same rules don't apply in dev and are counter productive there.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have seen the following patterns implemented:

Pattern 1: * DEV VLANs + DEV Subnets * PROD VLANSs + PROD Subnets * Firewalls between DEV and PROD subnets at network layer \- firewall rules implemented by separate net/sec team

Pattern 2: * DEV VLANs + DEV Subnets * PROD VLANSs + PROD Subnets * Firewalls implemented through Security Groups (cloud based platforms) \- firewall rules delegated to product teams

I would be interested to see what other patterns teams are using and how security and operations protections are achieved.</comment>


Storm warning for cloud computing - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7421099.stm

<comment><USER2> That's the most paranoid thing I've read in a long while.

Well, it's true, so perhaps paranoid is the wrong word. But if you've got secrets so dark that you can't trust Gmail with it, then I don't think email is the correct form of communication really.

It's got nothing to do with cloud computing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds like a business opportunity for someone outside the U.S.</comment>


Show HN: Forkbin lets you fork public lists - <AUTHOR> http://www.forkbin.com

<comment><USER2> Very nice! I've been toying with a similar idea for a while too, here's some feedback and ideas from my own project:

\- Bug: Don't let me create empty list items.

\- Definitely let people make private link-only anonymous lists without being logged in, then let them claim (ie. fork into an account) when they make an account.

\- Have an embed code, so that you can make a list and embed it in a blog post or whatnot. Then you can maintain the list on forkbin without worrying about updating your blog post every time something changes.

\- If you let people include media in the content (top music videos? best photos of X? etc), then they can use it for much more than you originally planned.

Also, think about what kinds of lists you want to optimize for. I've been trying to break down all types of lists into a small set of orthogonal categories, this is what I've come up with: <https://gist.github.com/2467329> (feedback welcome--note that maintaining this list and accepting feedback is a pain itself).

Best of luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> Quite a cool idea, nice! :)

Suggestion, might be friendlier to let us play with the app first, before requiring an upfront commitment to register.

After clicking the "Fork" button, and then seeing that form... CMD-W and onto the other 20 open tabs :p

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Yeah, I think you're right--registration shouldn't be required to create or fork a list, especially for newer users who are curious to try it out for the first time.

<comment><USER4> Seconded. Having a demo that you can immediately start playing with is _absolutely vital_ for gaining traction with a novel app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is cool, but I'd like to be able to fork one of my own lists. Consider this use case:

I'm a freelance web developer, for example, and there are twenty things I need to do on every project. I could create a master list of things that need to get done, then simply fork that list every time I start a new project, which will inevitably have a unique set of other items to be completed.

<comment><USER6> I assumed that's what this was: git-like management of lists. As soon as I found out the social aspect was mandatory, I tried to figure out how to close my account and failed.

Please, people: If you don't have a way to delete accounts on your app, it's not ready to go live.

<comment><USER7> You can make your list private. So, it isn't pure social as you mentioned. Email me at email@example.com. I will delete the account for you. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks interesting. But perhaps give a use case so that we can see where it will be useful (in particular the forking action)?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! The idea was started out of the desire to make travel itineraries easy. For example, my girlfriend and I made a list of things we wanted to do when we went to London. It was a lot of work to comb through all the various travel sites, but we still built an itinerary together.

I think most people will share the same basic group of tourist locations (eg the food markets, major art galleries, etc) but they'll want to do other things uniquely interesting to them. So it'd be easy to fork a basic "London tour guide" list and then add your own couple of items there. I think it'd be more interesting to look over other people's lists rather than search through a bunch of web sites with ads.

Another idea I've had is that I go shopping through the produce section of Safeway all the time (I live in Sunnyvale, and that move-in list on the home page is real). I have no idea what I'm doing, but I have friends who buy the healthy stuff. I would like to see what their shopping lists look like.

<comment><USER9> I love the simplicity.

We started with a very similar premise around collaborative list-building for travel when we created <http://www.planapple.com>. (We're a couple years of features and iterations into it now, so it's grown beyond simple lists in both functionality and UI complexity.)

FWIW, we've had trouble getting any traction on public list sharing, and we've tried a handful of different approaches. Our users are very happy to collaborate in small groups, but that's where it ends.

Some stumbling blocks:

1\. You'll need a critical mass of really good, yet somewhat mainstream, lists to attract people who will fork an existing list.

2\. Until you have that, you'll attract mainly people who want to build their own lists from scratch and enjoy/are willing to put "a lot of work" into their planning. And that's fine (it's who we're getting now) -- but that kind of people tend to build highly-customized lists that aren't likely to appeal to most other users.

3\. Mainstream users aren't that willing to spend effort searching through a bunch of different lists to find one that matches their interests. (Though if you have ideas for an algorithm that can figure out my list for London on a backpacker's budget won't appeal to your interest in a luxury London holiday, let me know!)

4\. In practice (for travel planning, at least), the lists tend to contain a mixture of general-interest info plus specific details (like my hotel confirmation number) -- which means they need filtering before they could be made public (and people don't want to spend time on filtering).

But I definitely don't mean to discourage you -- just wanted to pass along some of what we've learned.

Thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is an open version of google schemer ?</comment>


Going sponsor-free – 3blue1brown - <AUTHOR> https://www.patreon.com/posts/19586800 <comment><USER2> If you're reliant on ads, you tend to optimize your content to attract more advertisers and eyeballs. If you're reliant on donations, you tend to optimize your content to cater to the richer (or upper middle class) segment of society with disposable income.

I'm pointing out the widespread belief among the techies that the second option is inherently more noble than the first.

If I create content that caters to the local population of, say, Mombasa, am I more likely to produce more if I rely on donations, or if I rely on google displaying ads of Mombasa businesses? Would you, a techie in the USA/Western- Europe with disposable income, even hear about my channel?

(edit: That said, I don't like brand promotion from the creator within the video either since that introduces a huge bias. But I'm all for algorithmically generated ads where the creator has little control)

<comment><USER3> In your analysis you shouldn't forget that advertisers don't consider all eyeballs equal either, and are willing to pay far more for ads shown to high income users. The difference in effect might not be as large as you're making it out to be.

<comment><USER4> Have you worked in advertising? It's nothing nearly so simplistic, but not so complicated either.

It's not about capturing the highest income audience its capturing the largest audience in the income demographic of your product.

Think something like (amount a customer will spend) * (% of demo willing to spend at all) * (size of income demo). Naturally more people are less rich and the first two terms are highly product dependent.

Stereotyping a bit, McDonalds isn't going to be making big inroads showing all of their ads in opera houses and Lamborghini is not making any sales advertising at Goodwill.

<comment><USER5> This still implies that higher-income eyeballs will be more valuable, doesn't it? McDonald's might not value rich people so highly, but Lamborghini will be willing to pay 10,000x more per customer gained. Of course the details could confound this (supply and demand for each category of consumer, conversion rates, etc.), but it seems like a reasonable default assumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I fully agree with him. In-video ads should die.

I don't really mind product placement as long as the brand matches the content of the video (a gun channel promoting gun manufacturers is fine by me) but I'm getting so tired when a totally unrelated video promotes some shitty pay-to- win mobile games or forex/binary options exchanges/betting sites.

<comment><USER7> all ads should just die

<comment><USER8> Unironically this. For reasons which I won't bother expounding on unless someone asks, I consider (all) advertising to be immoral. The world would be a much better place if advertising was heavily regulated or banned.

<comment><USER9> Why is all advertising immoral? Markets with limited information flow become inefficient. Advertisement just speeds up the flow of information?

For example, if I created a service to file taxes for free [0], what's wrong if I advertise it so that more people can gain from it? Most people don't even know that CalFile exists, for example.

[0] [https://www.ftb.ca.gov/online/calFile/index.asp](https://www.ftb.ca.gov/online/calFile/index.asp)

<comment><USER10> The internet was heralded as enabling practically unbounded information flow. In my opinion, this removes the need for ads as information channel.

If you have a service to file taxes for free, and it really is good, shouldn't it spread by mere word-of-mouth? Wikipedia never ran any ads, for instance.

<comment><USER9> Why does Google exist if there is practically unbounded information flow? Oh right, because there is 1) so much information that we can't process it all and 2) sometimes information just doesn't spread. If I host a website but nobody links to it, does the information on my website ever get spread?

> If you have a service to file taxes for free, and it really is good, > shouldn't it spread by mere word-of-mouth?

In an ideal world, yes. But my point was that _a service for filing CA state taxes for free already exists, but most people still don 't know about it because it's never advertised._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> 3blue1brown is awesome, some videos are extremely interesting and useful but others are too specific imho, like, I love his videos explaining general concepts about algebra, analytics, machine learning, quantum mechanics and blockchain, but not really his videos about a particular obscure mathematical problem, especially if the same obscure thing recurs multiple times (say, something involving pi and lighthouses).

But glad to hear there won't be "b r i l l i a n t . o r g" (made hard to copypaste on purpose since I've no interest in encouraging them due to spamming too many of videos I watch) interruptions in the videos anymore

I think 3blue1brown's formula is amazing for laying the fundamentals of advanced mathematics. But it's not needed for deep diving into specific topics. And there are more than enough advanced core topics remaining to cover instead.

<comment><USER12> That's really interesting. I found that I loved, similar to the occasional video numberphile does, watching Grant explain how one might realistically solve an interesting problem. A particular favourite is the one on the Inscribed Square Problem, which, although introducing some elements of topology, engages me more from the get go. He poses a problem and my curiosity keeps me engaged until the very end, it feels a bit like a detective story, I get the same satisfaction as some of the better Sherlock Holmes stories where in the course of reading I think "Damn, I could have come to that conclusion if I'd paid a bit more attention!".

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmgkSdhK4K8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmgkSdhK4K8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> These videos are excellent. They earned my "patreonage" a couple months ago.

<comment><USER14> I'm a huge fan and a patron too, but I'm curious. He doesn't show his monthly earning but I see he has 5000 patrons. Even at the minimum 1$ tier, that would still be 5000$ a month. While that's not "Youtube rich", I don't think that's "small audience either. I assumed that he had enough backing to comfortably make videos without having to worry about money or sponsors.

<comment><USER15> 5000 patrons is good, but YouTube advertising is where the real money is because (a) these math-type of videos have no expiry date; (b) Google are getting better at monetising videos; (c) 3blue1brown is possibly the best videos on the topic and not likely to be beaten by the competition.

In 10 years his 'Essence of Calculus' videos will probably earn more money per month than now.

<comment><USER14> Sure, I'm sure he gets decent money from ads too. My point was that, I don't see why he needs sponsors in the first place. My 5000$ estimate was a bare bare minimum. Realistically, I would guess around $10k-$15k from Patreon and another $5k from Youtube at least (he has 1M subscribers, which is the "Made it" threshold).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am usually amazed twice by 3B1B videos. First by the way he presents the material, then by the fact that I've never seen it presented anything like the way he did it. While I'm no mathematical scholar, I have read and re-read a lot of "basic" linear algebra and calculus. Usually choosing a different source every time I have to go back and re-read it. And I've never come across anything that does as good as his series on those two subjects.

Granted, I'll still forget the material since I don't use it every day. But I do believe it gave me a deeper insight, and will help me remember it longer.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's always fascinating to watch the various thrashings about that creators will do to try and protect something that's clearly special to them, especially when those wild decisions end up being completely irrational.

This move is not rational. Ads do not behave like this article says they do, and every draw or consequence of ads listed here are resistable or mitigatable on his part, since he is the content creator.

People do crazy things for love, and this content creator clearly loves his creation.</comment>


The Threat of Cyberwar Has Been Grossly Exaggerated - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/07/the_threat_of_c.html

<comment><USER2> What I would really like is a "What you can do to help calm the hysteria" post. If you understand what cybercrime attacks really are, you know that it's ludicrous to suggest that we're "losing a war". But most people don't, and those people are susceptible to this warmongering.

I can explain to my friends why a bunch of teenagers pinging my website too many times is not comparable to a ground invasion of Pennsylvania. But even though this might make them skeptical of the hysteria, it doesn't empower them enough to fight against it. If Washington really is heading towards trying to control the web, what exactly should we, those who know better than to go along with this, be doing to combat it?

Somehow writing letters to my congressman just doesn't feel like really getting things done.

<comment><USER3> Congress is using their current power to get more power. It's supposed to be up to the executive branch (using veto etc.) and the legislative branch (declaring a law unconstitutional etc.) to hold them back. But really, the branches have an agreement to mutually increase their power instead of acting in the best interests of the people they "serve." As far as I can see, there isn't anyone left who's powerful enough to stand up to them.

<comment><USER4> _legislative branch (declaring a law unconstitutional etc.)_

That would be the Judicial branch, the legislative branch is Congress.

<comment><USER3> d'oh

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Try living in DC and listening to the radio. Its bad enough all of the ad spots are targeted at government employees but the amount of FUD is incredible.

It's leaked in to academic recruitment as well, I believe it's the University of Maryland is advertising enrollment for some cyber security program they run.

</comment><comment><USER6> Large-scale targeted cybercrime can cause chaos even without a "Die Hard"-style "fire sale" that relies on bringing down infrastructure.

If random military families had their identities stolen, their bank accounts drained, and their homes flooded with harassing calls (at best) or SWATing attacks (at worst), you can bet that morale would suffer in the field. That's a level of cyber-crime that relatively unskilled attackers could bring. Do the same to any industry and you've done some damage. "Targeted crime" is a form of warfare.

</comment><comment><USER7> Foreign threats against national security exaggerated? Say it isn't so!

Of course, I'm glad Schneier is providing a sane counter-voice to all this nonsense, but I am constantly amazed that it's even necessary. Everyone who cares and/or matters in this 'debate' should understand the basic premise of hyperbole being ridiculously common in any discussion of national security.

</comment><comment><USER8> This may be so, but the threat of cyberwar has also been grossly under appreciated.

Consider the state we live in today. Remote execution exploits that remain unpatched for significant periods of time on the most popular operating systems of the day are very common. Government authorities seem helpless to stop relatively mundane acts such as leakage of secure data (identities, financial data, etc.), maintenance of huge networks of "zombie" machines, use of zombie networks in perpetrating denial of service attacks, etc.

Imagine a competent hostile foreign government with a well funded and talented team of hackers putting every known technique into use. Doing research to discover unpatched vulnerabilities. Taking control of massive botnets. Exploiting numerous individual systems, using very sophisticated phishing and social engineering techniques where necessary to gain useful confidential information from individuals. Using that information to snow-ball into more useful information. Carefully exploiting systems at major corporations to gain access to sensitive data and systems.

Imagine what you could do with that if you were careful and executed a well thought out plan well. Gain access to millions of email accounts without their knowledge. Gain access to internet banking and stock trading. Transfer billions of dollars out of the country before it can be stopped. Manipulate stock prices and make a fortune. Crash the stock market and the entire stock trading system by executing trades automatically on behalf of thousands or millions of individuals without their knowledge. Destroy companies by causing them irreparable damage. Sabotage an internet company's systems via compromised internal systems, while botnets DDoS it from the outside. Or simply execute huge numbers of automated orders, exhausting the company's inventory. People end up with items shipped to them they don't want, the card holders get the charges reversed as fraud, the company ends up with no inventory and no revenue, for a lot of companies that could be a death blow.

It won't be the end of the world, it won't be a catastrophe on the scale of hundreds or thousands of human deaths, but it could be an incredibly bad day for a lot of people.

And this hardly touches the surface. What's _feasible_ and what's been done so far are not the same. We are living in an era of false confidence due to non- event feedback. It's only a matter of time before the right means and motive come together, we can only hope that the result is only just barely bad enough to kick us out of our complacency.

<comment><USER4> ...imagine if those "Microsoft-Spurned Researcher Collective" people had been a wee bit angrier.

I wouldn't expect government-level resources to be particularly useful in causing havoc -- stock-scammers and phishers and other spammers tend to do just fine, and the only reason viruses/worms are less destructive than in the DOS days is that people have better uses for them now (sending spam).</comment></comment>


Apple Takes a (Cautious) Stand Against Opening a Killer's iPhones - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/technology/apple-iphone-pensacola-shooting.html <comment><USER2> Apple CAN'T open the phone. Is there any proof they can?

This continued framing by the media that it's Apple's choice is unfair.</comment>


Exact String Matching Algorithms - <AUTHOR> http://www-igm.univ-mlv.fr/~lecroq/string/

<comment><USER2> This is a nice catalog of algorithms to study to home your analytical skills and a good place to start if you are doing sequence matching outside of the usual text matching.</comment>


Y Combinator cuts its pro rata stake and makes later investments case-by-case - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/16/changing-policy-y-combinator-cuts-its-pro-rata-stake-and-makes-investments-case-by-case/ <comment><USER2> YC is supposed to be an exclusive program funding companies they believe will work.

I find it interesting that they choose to change their investing program instead of changing their application program. Why not keep the program smaller and more exclusive instead?

<comment><USER3> Because they want to have their cake and eat it too. YC has followed a similar trajectory to many successful tech innovations. A novel approach that has aligned goals with their clients, strong & visible leadership, a huge emerging market, an appetite for a new approach - we're now essentially 2 generations of leadership removed from PG & co and while I have no doubt the people in charge are very smart and good at VC'ing, YC is now a totally different beast from 10+ years ago. It's motivations, goals and practices have changed and I have no doubt the next incarnation will come along and eat their lunch too.

<comment><USER4> In what ways does it seems the motivations and goals have changed? I'm particularly interested in this as I just rejoined YC as a partner after running a startup for five years. I first joined as a partner 10 years ago.

<comment><USER5> For starters, back in the day, YC was mostly seen as a place anyone could get funding and build a great company whether or not they had a great network. Nowadays, it seems more and more like having that network is the primary thing that gets you in YC.

(Not a criticism, and I can see the merits of that choice. But, when I talk to my friends about YC that usually comes up.)

<comment><USER6> > YC was mostly seen as a place anyone could get funding and build a great > company whether or not they had a great network.

that's likely because before the success, there was no way anyone with the network would come to YC as a first port of call. And with technical partners able to judge the incoming seed company on the merits the founders themselves, YC managed to pick the successful ones (mostly - obviously there are failures).

When the success of YC's model became so prominent that it is a culture all on its own, the technical partners no longer work the same way as the old way. I don't think it's possible. So network, and human capital is used as a filter, rather than deal with the massive amounts of no-name people.

<comment><USER7> I mean, your explanation makes sense, but fundamentally YC felt a lot more meritocratic and open back in the smaller days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'll disagree with some of the other comments here and say I'm very happy that YC made this change instead of shrinking class size. YC is still one of the most exclusive programs around, and always will be. Anyone who has the privilege of attending will always have an advantage over those who don't - even if it's just because they'll learn from the best and make great connections. Follow on funding is great, but with how inflated some series A valuations have been lately - it's just too costly to the core YC program to keep doing that type of funding indiscriminately. I'm sure this was a difficult decision to make, but it feels consistent with the YC mission. And it seems like the right thing to do.

</comment><comment><USER9> Refusing to commit either way until a lead investor term sheet happens seems like a clean way to mitigate the signaling risk. What am I missing about that? If that works, couldn't YC have always picked and chosen investments to follow on with?

<comment><USER10> Overall, it's a solid solution. Some hiccups: \- It's common for new investors to ask about pro rata ahead of writing a term sheet (can impact the investment case/deal). \- Especially in difficult times, new investors might invest under the condition that existing investors do their pro rata.

<comment><USER11> Hopefully YC has enough power to slap firms around if they try and slip a contingency on YC pro rata into a term sheet.

<comment><USER10> No firm does, especially in a tricky environment. That's a wild comment to make...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The problem here is that everyone will know if YC will follow up or not during the process.

Investing is game of information. If an investor can't figure out who else will be on the cap table, they have much bigger problem.

The way it is going to go down is that investor during meeting will ask if founders think YC is in that round. If founders say something along the lines of YC decides after term sheet, it basically means no.

In the end , the overall result is that less YC companies will raise, but the good once still will, but it was always the case.

<comment><USER13> > If founders say something along the lines of YC decides after term sheet, it > basically means no.

Why would it basically mean no? It seems like the new policy makes the answer "Maybe, and there's no way to find out until a lead investor has signed on the dotted line".

<comment><USER12> YC partners doing a lot of introduction during the fundraising process.

It puts them in a tough spot. If YC partner writes to an investor, this company is awesome, plz invest and then investor asks if YC is going to invest?

And they get back, you commit first and then we decide, it just doesn't look/sound good.

It is important to remember is that a lot of companies in YC batch fundraise on SAFE, so when a priced round comes along probably 90% of them are not even in a position to fundraise, because a product didn't work out, team issues etc.

Also, there is YC Series A program which basically is going to be the sign of approval for investors and I am pretty sure YC is going to follow in 100% of cases for that one.

<comment><USER14> If they just do that for everyone and get a reputation for sticking to writing back that they wont decide until you've committed though, that would mitigate the signal

<comment><USER15> As an investor, if YC contacts me with a "great investment opportunity" and does not invest themselves even tho I _know_ they could have, the investment better be successful. Because otherwise, I will feel cheated on. "Do as I say, not as I do" type of relationship is not exactly what I am looking for.

In the previous system, they had skin in the game, they literally were putting money where their mouth was: same companies, same valuation. If I make money they make money, if I lose money, so do they. You can't beat that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There used to be prestige, mystique, exclusivity, and desirability associated with being a YC company.

I kinda feel now it's just become a numbers game machine.... back as many as possible, some will win. There doesn't see anything special about the investors or the investors in this model, it's just about churning out as many companies as possible and playing the numbers.

Am I right or being overly cynical?

<comment><USER17> I got the sense that the personal and network support given initially might have been worth 7% of the company (especially for founders who needed that kind of advising), but the partners' ability to add value has gone down recently, making follow-on investments less likely to succeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Is waiting to see a term sheet from a lead investor enough of a move to mitigate concerns about optics? I'm not too familiar with the series A process - is the round basically over by that point? Or is there still work to do in assembling the rest of the syndicate or an opportunity for the term sheet to be revoked? It seems like no matter what, the continuing desire of an early investor to participate on follow on rounds is a strong signal to future investors about the company (especially if it's a prominent early investor like YC) - and there will be a lot of incentive to acquire that sort of information before the funding round is finalized.

</comment><comment><USER18> So now if you are a YC company and YC declines to invest, every other investor loses out.

Does this not strongly dilute the power of being in YC? Seems nuts to me. Why not just shrink the number of incoming companies?

<comment><USER19> No, the opposite. Every other investor wins because they can invest more $$$ and own a bigger % of the company. Before, YC had a right to maintain its 7% stake, leaving less room for new investors to acquire ownership.

<comment><USER6> if YC doesn't invest, won't that be a signal that they don't believe the 7% is worth it?

it makes it hard for startups that would need more money to prove their profitability to lose out on new rounds, or have to give up more for those rounds (as investors will need better incentive to invest without the YC signal).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I am having thinking about doing a startup for a while, whatever trips me up is how to go about acquiring customers short of cold calling. Are incubators helpful in introducing you to potential clients? Especially if your product is b2b or enterprise, having worked in large corporate enterprises I can't imagine how it works to get your foot in the door.

<comment><USER21> If your product is Enterprise or B2B, you need a few things (in my experience):

1) A first client to take a chance on you, because no one wants to be the first client, very few companies will buy something that no one else has bought. In my experience your first client (or first few) is the result of some existing personal connection to the client (i.e. a favour/referral), and expect to be at their beck and call for a while, and probably take a bath on the price.

2) You need an experienced sales team that knows how to sell to enterprise/B2B. This is not something you can "pick up" or learn on the job (or at least is very difficult to do). You need to hire someone who has done it before, otherwise you will stumble and spend your way through months-long sales cycles only to have them fail at some late stage because you didn't know how to prepare.

3) You likely need standards certifications and third-party testing. Look into ISO 27001 and other similar standards if you're a software company. Get third- party security testing done up front. Have pre-written answers and "white papers" around privacy, data governance, scaling, deployment, etc..

I've been on both sides of selling into enterprise and medium/large B2B and it's a solid 50/50 mix of your actual product capabilities and your company's ability to navigate procurement and due diligence.

<comment><USER22> #2 and #3 are probably true for enterprise but definitely not true for SME B2B. Source: we've been targeting that niche (15-500 employee companies) for 8 years. Have made two experienced sales hires both in the last year, and dont have any standards certifications. Most businesses are very reasonable and just want you to solve their problems.

<comment><USER21> Fair enough, I was definitely thinking medium-size B2B and up, where the people you're dealing with while trying to sell the product are (probably) not the internal stakeholders who want to buy it (i.e. procurement, IT/security, etc)

It also depends on what you're selling of course. My experience is in data management solutions (including PII data), and standards/requirements can be pretty demanding in that world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This has major signaling issues. That being said I understand it.

</comment><comment><USER19> Is YC cutting prices? Is the new YC deal $150k for 4%?

The article suggests that YC is reducing its stake to 4%, however the quotes presented don't seem to be really saying that.

I'm not sure if this story is a technical announcement about how they handle pro rata, or an updated version of the YC Deal for newly admitted startups?

<comment><USER24> No, this is a smaller and more technical change. YC's standard deal ($150K for 7%) isn't changing. This is about how we handle pro rata investments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> YC was always about exploiting the startup mystique by creating a sweat shop of fruit fly startups, some of which will make it big by sheer dumb luck. It's the index fund of the startup scene, but naive new grads who can't get audiences with first-tier VC firms still fall for it.

<comment><USER26> Have any of the founders that made it big and exited rich turned around and said they feel ripped off by YC?

<comment><USER27> How many lottery winners feel ripped off by the lottery? Not agreeing with the GP comment but your question is just silly

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> It does not change much for the two very ends of the spectrum, that is the solo-hero bootstrapping from scratch and the moonshots however needing a lot of cash... while anything in the middle gets squeezed if not profitable on its own. Good to me as an observer: less serialization and templates, more unorthodox and fun.

</comment><comment><USER29> This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think YC's days are numbered, as are many other startup accelerators, and this is just another sign. The model is breaking down and isn't really up to date with the way startups develop these days. And with the raging bull market of the 2010s winding down, it's clearly looking like the end of an era.

Without another entrepreneurship catalyst (in the early 2010s it was the rise of mobile app markets and social media) we are unlikely to see the return of the accelerator model in its full glory.

</comment><comment><USER30> I am actually surprised they were doing this at all.

They have no obligation to support the startup beyond the initial 7% investment more so for the Series A. Companies who can't stand on their own two feet and raise money on their own simply don't deserve to survive.

I actually wish YC would take it a step further and offer an option where they don't invest any money at all. You participate in the accelerator, have access to their resources, are part of the alumni but simply don't accept the $150k and 7% equity dilution.

<comment><USER31> YC is a for profit entity. Why would they offer a free cup of coffee much less access to the resources and network if they aren't getting anything out of it? I like YC and enjoy HN, but the altruism comes after the profit (as it should).

<comment><USER30> I should have clarified. I meant an option where they take some fraction of 7%. Not sure whether this is necessarily a great deal for YC or not. Depends how cheaply they can raise the $150k they need for each company in each batch.

I just know for many startups like mine $150k is basically worthless. It's not enough to hire and you just stay somewhere cheaper and commute into YC for the program.

<comment><USER32> You're right. A no investment incubator would kind of suck but there are pay to play incubators?! Reverse investing? Makes no sense, but your scenario would be better than that. Nothing wrong with a Harvard scholarship.

<comment><USER33> There are few government run 0% equity accelerators. Start-Up Chile gives $35k in reimbursed expenses and six months of office space + mentorship. Their hope is you stay in Chile and they make it back in taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> My prediction here is that for natural and totally understandable reasons, it will be hard to gauge the investability of international companies vs US startups.

So over a period of time, we might see prorata moving to US startups fairly naturally . Given the other issues around travel in a post-COVID world, this will might to a return to US centric portfolio allocation.

</comment><comment><USER35> This could be a result of a failed investment strategy by YC or insufficient interest by investors to raise additional investment for new funding. I sincerely hope that it is the latter and not the former. The latter can be addressed far easier.

In 2017, it was announced that YC was trying to raise a Billion dollar fund. How did fundraising turn out?

</comment><comment><USER36> Can someone put this whole piece into plain English, e.g. we're going to fund less startups? or no more 150K for 7%, now it's 100K for 4% or something like that in the first paragraph? I have no idea about "pro rata stake", or what "case-by-case" exactly different from what it has been doing.

</comment><comment><USER37> I don't think there's any opportunity anymore. The market is super saturated, capital has dried up, and only insiders have a shot at funding. The cards are stacked against outsiders.

I've lost hope on the Silicon Valley dream and decided to just use my big brain to make money in public markets, which is surprisingly easy given how much effort the government puts into pumping up the stock market.

I used to think YC was great, I applied several times, but YC doesn't really represent what it used to anymore (to me at least).

Just my 2 cents.

<comment><USER38> The coronavirus situation has certainly altered capital markets but outside of that your comment doesn't conform to the data. There was more capital deployed in the last several years, at all levels, then we've ever seen.

<comment><USER37> I wish I could say that was my experience.

<comment><USER38> Making generalizations about the world at large based on your personal experience is a mistake. Look at the data.

<comment><USER39> I mean, yeah, look at the data: [https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/21-charts-showing- curren...](https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/21-charts-showing-current- trends-in-us-venture-capital)

It's not really a secret that angel and seed funding has been steadily dropping since the mid-2010s.

With that said, I think that @brenden2 is overvaluing funding. Most people around here build software -- which can be _easily_ bootstrapped. For those in hardware/biotech/energy/etc. it's much harder to get out an MVP without funding.

<comment><USER38> Ya, I believe 2014 was the peak when it comes to seed deals per year so fair, we are below peak. But there was a TREMENDOUS rise starting in about 2005 or so (a combination of coming out of the dotcom bust then the rise of mobile with iOS/Android).

Overall I see the availability of seed funding as still quite high.

Very much agree with your last point about overvaluing funding. It's never been easier to bootstrap something for a year or two. Get an actual product working, maybe have a few users, and then go for funding to scale up. We see this in the data too with median company ages at the time of seed funding rising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> YC is nothing like it once was. PG was the man.

PG was high priest of what was once a secretive religion for people who liked productizing tech.

Over the years its become just another Sandhill VC firm.

I haven't heard of any big companies out of YC recently. Is it because PG left and the culture changed?

</comment><comment><USER41> Other than "have a shitload of money", how does one become an LP in a YC fund?

<comment><USER42> Found a successful company, but I suppose that is also "have a shit load of money".

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This raises the question, why didn't AirBNB and Stripe go public when the market was ready? Looks like the strategy of staying private for longer isn't really working out for anybody.

<comment><USER44> From what I saw in the news, it doesn't appear Stripe has had any problems attracting funding without going public.

<comment><USER43> AirBNB raised $1B and Stripe $600M. Just a guess but terms would've been MUCH better if they'd done it in the stock market. Really puzzling why they didn't go public when markets were ripe, now YC is paying the price.

<comment><USER45> I wouldn't be surprised that companies like Stripe arrive at a point where they want fewer investors controlling their company.

When you are Stripe big, what does YC do for you that you can't do with your own money printing machine? Aside from cash, there must be other advantages to having investors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> ``` "In addition, processing hundreds of follow-on rounds per year has created significant operational complexities for YC that we did not anticipate. Said simply, investing in every round for every YC company requires more capital than we want to raise and manage. We always tell startups to stay small and manage their budgets carefully. In this instance, we failed to follow our own advice." ```

Is picking winners difficult? Or is it that the economy has a hard cap on how many winners will occur every year?

<comment><USER31> Both. YC batches are littered with companies that disappeared. That's not a criticism of YC, that's reality.

<comment><USER46> I completely agree. But I am curious as to why the economy only allows a certain number of winners. As in, why do 90% fail?

Additionally, if you fund 100% of companies equally, if 1 becomes FB and 99 become nothing, dont the winnings from FB pay for the losses of the 99?

<comment><USER30> 1) It has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with whether people love your product and you have product-market fit. Getting to that point takes time and mostly companies run out of money before they get there.

2) Yes that is how VC works.

<comment><USER46> With regard to 2), if that's indeed how VC works, then YC just needs to fund every company. There's no need to do vetting if you are guaranteed to fund the next FB and the earnings will outweigh all operational expenditure on non-FBs.

1) People would definitely love a machine that prints gourmet food for them in their house, but it's really difficult to do that. It's so difficult that the amount of money it would take to make such a machine is pronably greater than all of the money in the world. This is what I mean by "the economy has a cap on the number of new ideas that can be funded"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> The pro rata was never guaranteed anyways, isn't the the nature of a pro rata? It's an option to act.

</comment><comment><USER48> It'll be nice when startinvest launches their alternative trading system for crowdfunded startups.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm assuming this won't change how YC runs their continuity fund?..

</comment><comment><USER50> The hero image shows a person, but the article doesn't say who that is.

<comment><USER51> Yeah that's a bit odd. It's Michael Seibel, YC's CEO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Going to 4% makes YC much more attractive. At 7% it's really hard to justify, though even at 4% for such a small investment it may be a hard pill to swallow for founders who aren't right out of college.

<comment><USER10> I believe YC is still taking an initial stake of 7%, the 4% corresponds to pro ratas and follow on deals. I think the article just messed that up

<comment><USER32> Yeah, I think you're right, I had trouble following the article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> So, and I may have misunderstood, a company can now get _into_ YC, but might not be invested _in_ by YC?

So its a two tier system. We like you gorgeous, but not enough to sleep with you (sorry, invest in you).

Why not just pick the ones you _will_ sleep with (sorry invest in). Why have the half way signal? If investors don't like investing pro-rata, that's not because they don't like making money - its because they think YC is not picking all winners.

Isn't that the problem? Competition?

Edit: Perhaps I need to understand raising finance better. But, re-reading the announcement as quoted, it still seems there is a two-tier system, and it looks to me that YC will have placed a bullseye on its shirt - if they will only pick 1/3 of companies, then any investor must assume YC has some extra information in the market for lemons - in which case the simple solution is just wait for YC to invest / SAFE / whatever, and invest in that. If a YC company tries to raise a round without a letter from YC, it just won't get anything ... ?

Instead of every investor now either making its own decisions, they just wait for YC to signal its own special knowledge.

I would like to see how many companies close a round without YC from now on?

<comment><USER10> I believe this is related to follow-on investments from YC after the initial investment

<comment><USER53> But that does not matter - YC will always be assumed to know something extra than other investors. They will have seen something at the weekly dinner, whatever.

So YC's decisions will impact meaningfully on the ability to raise subsequent rounds.

That probably was true for series B anyway, but now its true at the priced seed round.

I get it - its silly to throw gobs of money at companies that will fold next week, especially if you know they will. But ...

<comment><USER33> It does matter because you misunderstood (like your first sentence in your first comment said). Every company that gets into a YC batch is still invested in by YC. You cannot be in YC without being invested in by YC.

What's changing is the follow-on investments are not automatic. It used to be they would automatically exercise their right to maintain their 7% stake by investing more. Now they're going to maintain a smaller stake, and it's not going to be for every company. Only about 1/3rd of them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: SSL Certificate with TLS 1.0 Support - <AUTHOR> I know TLS 1.0 is totally deprecated, but I have a costumer with an ancient SAP version, that only supports TLS 1.0.
I need to buy a SSL cert so that SAP can call a SOAP Webservice on my side. Every provider I see, no longer supports TLS 1.0.
Does anyone know a provider that will give me a TLS 1.0 SSL cert?
And before you recommend upgrading it on the costumer side, this is a division of a 600K workers multinational. Asking to upgrade the HR system on their side is completely out of the question.
Thanks a lot, ladies and gents. <comment><USER2> You seem to be confused about the difference between a protocol and an object (digital certificate). SSL/TLS is a protocol and both can use the same certificates. See this link for further explanation: [https://www.sslsupportdesk.com/clearing-confusion-tls-ssl- ce...](https://www.sslsupportdesk.com/clearing-confusion-tls-ssl-certificates- are-the-same-thing/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Head meet desk!!

Yes of course, got confused by several articles by cert re sellers claiming to have disabled TLS 1.0 & 1.1.

Forced the protocol on Nginx seems to be working fine now.

Thank you very much for pointing me in the right direction!</comment></comment>


Tear It Down - <AUTHOR> http://randsinrepose.com/archives/tear-it-down/

<comment><USER2> This was seriously inspiring. Thank you for posting it.

We are running a completely flat organisation, but with the full awareness that just saying there's no bosses in no way removes the power dynamics from human interaction. Breaking down power hierarchies and reconcieving leadership in the way Rand eloquently describes here requires constant conscious effort and innovation in information flows, communication, delegation, and decision- making.

Through practice, we've come to the very same conclusion that the fallacy at work in traditional hierarchical organisations that fail by many humanistic measures (happiness, creativity, autonomy) is not that management and leadership are important - they absolutely are - but that the people who perform those functions should be placed higher on some sort of pyramid and paid more, and that the work of management should be necessarily embodied in specific _people_ as opposed to a function that can be spread amongst many, according to their specific abilities and capacity.

We're still working out the specific mechanics and processes, but we're making headway. It's great to see others thought leading in this space.

</comment><comment><USER3> 'They furiously and passionately wave their hands, but as you and your team stream back to your desks, you wonder "How does all the hand-waving apply to me? It sounded great, but, well, so what?"'

Worth mentioning is that it's possible to understand _exactly_ how all the hand-waving applies to you and your team even if you're not a Lead or Lead of Leads. That may be a sign you're qualified to be one of those (whether you want to be is a different matter).

As such, the only thing I'd say is that the roles stated here are the things you expect from those people, but they aren't exclusive. It's possible for a "mere" engineer to have some strategic understanding of the playing field, but not want to take a lead role. It means their picture probably won't be as complete, but that additional understanding will probably help them do their job better—and possibly help them to help their lead do _their_ job better in turn.

<comment><USER4> After reading the article, I don't think a great director is someone who makes the minions think "so what?", and if they do they generally either are:

1\. Not looking to their leads for guidance on this crazy inspired person. 2\. Completely right and the guy is full of shit.

Worst case for a good director is people say something like "Wow, I am inspired, but I don't understand HOW to accomplish that lofty goal." and that is where the leads come in.

<comment><USER5> The single most helpful thing directors and leads of leads can do is to ensure the right people in a vertical organization know the right facts and strategies. Organizations that compartmentalize, play favorites, introduce political wrangling (over things like budget, popular projects, etc) are going to suffer. This is indisputable and also unavoidable, but by forcing information dissemination across the board the damages are easily mitigated. People are more flexible and resilient than most realize, and generally speaking the hive mind self-organizes to support the larger vision. Assuming there is a clear mission and vision, which is by no means guaranteed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The irony of this is that I've seen Rands in action in management. And he really should listen to his own advice.

Rands's article sounds all nice and dandy, but he can't even apply it effectively in practice.

<comment><USER7> Just like with engineering, there are many other factors that come into play when actually applying what you know to be right in practice.

Rands wouldn't be a good manager if he hadn't failed a lot as well. Just like the rest of us.

One vague anecdote of failure doesn't disqualify his advice.

<comment><USER8> You're right, but I'd go farther. I work at a large enterprise (~5000 staff, about 2/3 technical) and his synopsis rings true to me.

I used to scoff at (to use his terms) some Leads, and especially Leads of Leads. But then I saw a few good versions of Leads of Leads, and I don't scoff in a generalized fashion any more. Having a good appreciation of what other teams across the org are doing, and being able to make the right connections, is a real talent. It's also a talent to not be parochial about the collaborations you encourage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've seen claims from organizations that have "equal but separate management/director & eng tracks." Usually, one starts out as an engineer, and then after getting a few promotions, becomes eligible to switch to the management track. I wonder if you could do a similar thing with middle- managers and directors: you don't become eligible for a director position until you've been promoted to a certain level on the eng or management tracks, but if you so desired, you could climb the same pay scale as a director, even if you choose to stay a manager, just like the very top engineers supposedly have the same pay scale as directors.

<comment><USER10> Thing is, and most engineers don't like to hear this, to climb in payscale, you have to take on more responsibility and risks. And just staying a pure engineer (no management / leading people / deciding company strategy / client and contractual responsibility), you don't take on much risk or responsibility.

<comment><USER11> You are, of course, right.

The reason why this seems so counter-intuitive for Engineers is that Management obviously doesn't take any more personal risk than an individual contributor does. If they screw it up badly enough? they get fired, just like we do.

The risk and responsibility that management takes? it is not personal risk. It is risking other people's money. It's a responsibility to those other people. In a real way, management is acting as the agent of the investor who actually owns the place.

It's not about fair. It's about who is closest to and has the most control over the actual cash, and who is in a stronger position because of that control to negotiate a higher rate. (or in a more ideologically pure world, the investor thinks that her interests are served by paying her agent well.)

It's sort of how sysadmins payscales are often not based on the difficulty of the task, but instead are based on how expensive the thing they are supporting is.

<comment><USER10> >>The risk and responsibility that management takes? it is not personal risk

I am not so sure. Usually it isn't the entire team that gets fired, it's the project manager. The company still acknowledges the knowledge and value locked up in the engineer, and if he did his job, but the project manager / whomever made the wrong choices, the engineer is pretty safe.

Unless of course the entire company goes down, but when you have management tiers, the company is large so usually some project managers gets fired first before everybody else.

>>It's not about fair. It's about who is closest to and has the most control over the actual cash, and who is in a stronger position because of that control to negotiate a higher rate.

That is absolutely true, and is why the CFO is usually one of the best paid employees in a company, even though his value to the company might be lower than other key employees.

<comment><USER11> >I am not so sure. Usually it isn't the entire team that gets fired, it's the project manager. The company still acknowledges the knowledge and value locked up in the engineer, and if he did his job, but the project manager / whomever made the wrong choices, the engineer is pretty safe.

If the _project_ fails, well, seeing to it that the project doesn't fail is the manager's job, so yeah, if the _project_ fails, the manager is more likely to get fired than an Engineer, especially if other managers think that the project failed due to poor management.

However, if the _engineer_ fails, it is the manager's job to fire the Engineer in question, before the Engineer's failure turns into a project failure.

So either way, yeah, if you are perceived to have failed at your job, you are likely to get fired. The manager has a different job than the engineer, and thus is likely to get fired in different situations.

But I don't think that managers have less job security than Engineers. In fact, I think Managers face rather less systemic risk in terms of technology changes than Engineers do. For instance, when UNIX beat mainframes? There were a lot of SysAdmins who had to scramble for serious retraining or to make the jump to management.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >force multiplier as a Lead

I'm glad he mentions this because it's what most people don't understand about management and their paychecks.

People who gripe about CEO pay don't understand that they're really paid based on their value to the company. Being the top, a good CEO's force multiplier is huge, even at mid-size companies. Same thing with the best athletes and actors. They're worth the money because they make everyone around them better and draw more external interest.

<comment><USER13> > People who gripe about CEO pay don't understand that they're really paid > based on their value to the company.

Or they have a more sophisticated understanding of economics and know that the theory you're advancing is only one of the possible explanations and that it doesn't explain all of the behaviour seen in the market (i.e. the continued trend towards across-the-board increases irrespective of job performance). There's a ton of work looking at the degree to which the trend is partially explained by other factors like the interconnected nature of boards and the ability of senior executives to suggest comparisons which favorably support compensation increases.</comment></comment>


The fight against cancer: The promise of HIF-1 inhibitors - <AUTHOR> https://www.editage.com/insights/the-fight-against-cancer-the-promise-of-hif-1-inhibitors <comment><USER2> Whenever I read something like this I dread how much we are still lacking in medical research. An observation like this should, in an ideal world, be subject to intense simulations in sophisticated models. The results should then immediately apply to a large percentage of patients. Consequently, an individual treatment option should be on the table in weeks and its application should result in an immediate refinement of said models.

As of today, this whole iterative cycle takes years, if it is ever closed at all.

<comment><USER3> I assume you mean computer models?

The problem here is that, although it might be possible to figure out a drug's efficacy by modeling just it's primary mode of action, in order to find it's side effects you have to model every other interaction it might have.

In other words - we can tell whether a drug will kill cancer cells just by looking at how it interacts with cancer cells. But to figure out how it interacts with the rest of the body, you have to be able to model the entire body with nearly perfect fidelity. And this is not just a problem of having insufficient knowledge - although it is that - we just don't understand all of body's systems anywhere near well enough to write such a model) but it's also a compduting power - recall that the protein folding problem is NP-Hard with an enormous number of degrees of freedom. In some cases it can have several hundred degrees of freedom, and the number of cases you have to check scales as the factorial of that.

Maybe someday we'll have numerical techniques that can solve the protein folding problem and other organic chemistry problems using achievable computing power. But we can't today. Even if we had a perfect atom-for-atom model of the human body we couldn't run it.

<comment><USER4> Or, to put it another way, why would drug companies be spending billions of dollars on animal model trials if they could simulate drugs in silicon?

A teaspoon of humility when talking about why another discipline doesn't 'Just do X?' is well served.

<comment><USER2> You might have misread my comment. I find it sad that we do not have these models. I am well aware that right now it is not possible. I do blame on pharma however for not putting massive amounts of money into this fundamental research. I did a lot of modeling and simulation and I know that chemistry and molecular biology simulation tools exist. But I never encountered a call for academic contributions to increase performance or supply general numerical or computational techniques. from my pov the civil engineering simulators (using odes,dates, and pdes) where completely separate from the chemistry world (often using odes and daes).

<comment><USER3> I can tell you that there is a not inconsiderable amount of effort going into the computational protein folding problem. I do not know where this funding comes from though. It's just a fundamentally hard problem, and it isn't clear (to me, at least) that it can really be solved. Quantum computing, maybe, but I'm not knowledgeable in that. Short of that, though, it might always turn out to be computationally more efficient to just "build" an analog body. There's no guarantee that we can simulate every physical process at faster than realtime speeds with CPUs.

I don't think you're going to find a single line of accounting that says "improve biochemical knowledge of the body for modeling purposes". Essentially, all fundamental research in medicine falls into this bucket.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to make sure developers do not change public API? - <AUTHOR> How do you make sure developers in your team or in the company do not change the public API of the application when it is not planned? Yes you can write unit-tests, but they can also change/fix the unit-tests to have a green build. <comment><USER2> In addition to normal unit tests, you can write tests whose job is a warning to a human being "you are about to do something dangerous, are you sure?" With a way to say "yes I meant to do that" when necessary.

Whereas unit tests test the product, these tests are oriented towards the development process.

[https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/03/01/process- reminders/](https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/03/01/process-reminders/) has an example.

</comment><comment><USER3> So basically, you don't trust your developers to do their job properly. Do I understand that correctly?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is not a question of trust. I include myself in the "developers". I am talking about removing human errors and putting automation.</comment></comment>


Homelessness Rises More Quickly Where Rent Exceeds a Third of Income - <AUTHOR> https://www.zillow.com/research/homelessness-rent-affordability-22247/ <comment><USER2> Correlation/causation? Seems safe to me to assume that insufficient housing supply causes both.</comment>


IdleRPG: an IRC RPG in which the players idle - <AUTHOR> http://idlerpg.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> How the game looks like:

        <idlerpg> Mag, the level 87 shmurrr, is #2! Next level in 203 days, 17:18:33.
        <idlerpg> SgtKeroro, the level 85 Frog, is #3! Next level in 193 days, 22:17:56.
        <idlerpg> Diamond [431/475] has challenged Tjololo [469/567] in combat and lost! 0 days, 19:10:12 is added to Diamond's clock.
        <idlerpg> Diamond reaches next level in 10 days, 18:47:47.</comment>


The Secret and Frustrating Life of a Google Contract Worker - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-07/google-contract-worker-kevin-kiprovski-describes-frustrating-job <comment><USER2> Google is NOT the only one that accepts this behavior and abuse. Corps hide behind staffing agencies because they don't have the head-count($$) for a full time employee, but they do for a CW. So they hire the CW to do the work a full time employee should be doing. The CW gets less pay, and less benefits all around. This is a complete abuse of the CW system that runs rampant.

How do I know? I've been a CW for the same Fortune 500 company for the last 8 years in 4 different positions.</comment>


AWS Elastic Load Balancer still has RC4 enabled by default in all configurations - <AUTHOR> http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb-security-policy-table.html

<comment><USER2> This is a problem because you can get sued by one of the worst parent trolls out there, the guys that defeated newegg. [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/02321120982/meet-...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121109/02321120982/meet- patent-troll-suing-hundreds-companies-encrypting-web-traffic.shtml)</comment>


Ask HN: SublimeText vs. WebStorm - <AUTHOR> Which one are you using? Why IDE or editor for web development (node)? Would you recommend any other IDEs, like Visual Studio for example? <comment><USER2> I personally use Sublime Text for smaller code tasks, like simple webpages, smaller edits etc.

While I use WebStorm for larger projects such as building a website for someone or collaborating on projects at school.

Sublime Text, to me, is still just a text editor (a really good one at that), while WebStorm is a fully-fledged IDE.

</comment><comment><USER3> I own php storm and it's OK, but since I do such a mix of file work, small maintenance and web/phpstorm is really project driven. I think for me, ultraedit is the way to go. I guess I just don't really like phpstorm's menus, kb shortcuts and just some other things aren't as logical or easy to find as they could be. Even setting up a project from existing files, it's easy enough to do but just not logical. I would still recommend jetbrains stuff definitely, but I don't know I'm looking for something that matches my personality more and ultraedit / ultrastudio may be better for my workflow. They've also stepped to it lately with multi-cursor, git integration and also ultraedit has dealt much better with large files than some of my other text editors, like notepad plus plus or brackets, would choke on.

</comment><comment><USER4> Text Editors VS IDEs it's more of a question of what tools do you use to accomplish specific tasks. Although most of my day is spent in a feature rich IDE, I do spend a descent about of time in a text editor for small things.

I prefer SublimeText as a TextEditor. I've been trying to use Atom, but haven't made the complete switch.

I've been playing with WebStorm because I think JetBrains products are #KickAss.

I would recommend to using the best tool for the job/task you're working on. If you're doing .NET Development, then Visual Studio would be your tool of choice.

If you're doing web development for MEAN or LAMP or anything else, you're probably use a combination of SublimeText/Atom and something like WebStorm.

I suggest trying to use as many tools as you can and see which ones work best for you and your workflow. It's always a good thing to know how to use more than one tool.

</comment><comment><USER5> I agree with the poster on the size of the codebase and the complexity of the code. Quick and dirty is manageable in vim and the like. For anything bigger than a handful of files and build scripts, it's a different story.

About 2 or 3 years ago I was introduced to Rubymine (also by Jetbrains), and from there have fallen in love with their products. I have personal licenses for Rubymine, PHPStorm (of which WebStorm is a subset) and use IntelliJ and PyCharm regularly. Their products 'just work' (Linux, OS X and Windows), and the similarities/consistencies between the different editors make subsequent learning curves much less steep. I've been using the CLion EAP a bit, and will likely be paying for a license when it's released (simply because it works that well out of the box).

</comment><comment><USER6> I use WebStorm for all my web development. I suppose in theory it's possible to replicate most things it does with a bunch of SublimeText add-ons and additional tools, but why bother. For me the intelligent code completion and refactoring tools are worth the price of admission.

</comment><comment><USER7> I use Webstorm for all the node development because it is a great integrated environment that really doesn't get in the way. It also lets me use sftp to do quick file deploys to a test box for experimenting etc all in one place. And while I won't say the debugging is perfect, it is pretty damn good and works well.

That said, I will still use vi to do small text edits or JSON file changes etc if I don't need the entire IDE. So I think it is a pick the best tool at the time. I also will use notepad++ if in Windows the same way I would vi on my Mac or a server.

I personally haven't used SublimeText but I know a lot of people swear by it for its flexibility.

<comment><USER2> There's little reason to switch to Sublime Text if you're already competent with vi/vim

<comment><USER7> Good to know. I hadn't tried Sublime so I was somewhat curious if there was some compelling reason. But I have been working with vi since the early 90's so its just been comfortable. Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I haven't used Webstorm, and one of my colleagues uses SublimeText. I use NetBeans IDE because it integrates well with Git, and even without Git it keeps a history of your changes so you can diff against previous versions. Also has intelligent code completion, multiple views of the same file in a split screen. And the inbuilt FTP makes it easy to code directly on a remote server. It's really convenient for me because of these and so I haven't felt the need to use the others.

</comment><comment><USER9> I use Visual Studio all the time, but the node integration isn't quite there yet (especially when building node_modules using vc++ compiler )

I'd use SublimeText otherwhise :)

</comment><comment><USER10> I use webstorm for both Angular and Node because the integrated debugger doesn't require a context switch when debugging code. In fact, most development workflows can happen within the editor (and a browser) because of the great tooling.

For everything else (mainly Go/Python these days), I use vim.

</comment><comment><USER11> I use WebStorm for projects and SublimeText for one-off scripts and tiny prototypes.

WebStorm is great if you need to manage a project as it grows, but if you just want to bang out 200 lines in a few hours, SublimeText is much more lightweight.

</comment><comment><USER12> I use Vim and Atom. It's enjoyable and does everything I need, especially since I've started moving towards xctool as my builder over Xcode's GUI.

</comment><comment><USER13> I use VIM + Tmux for the most part. That being said, editors like Sublime, WebStorm, Atom etc are great and are a part of my tools collections.

</comment><comment><USER14> Visual Studio + Resharper for the win.

</comment><comment><USER15> I use both (actually IntelliJ IDEA and not Webstorm).

I choose the tool depending on the size of the code base.

</comment><comment><USER16> Intellij all the way :O)</comment>


New TLDs start going on sale tommorow - <AUTHOR>

.plumber, .bike, .holdings, .singles, .ventures, .guru and .clothing<p>A bunch of others through out February (NZ times):<p>.BIKE	6 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.CLOTHING	6 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.GURU	6 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.HOLDINGS	6 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.PLUMBING	6 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.SINGLES	6 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.VENTURES	6 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.CAMERA	13 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.EQUIPMENT	13 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.ESTATE	13 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.GRAPHICS	13 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.LIGHTING	13 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.PHOTOGRAPHY	13 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.CONSTRUCTION	20 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.CONTRACTORS	20 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.DIRECTORY	20 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.KITCHEN	20 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.LAND	20 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.TECHNOLOGY	20 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.TODAY	20 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.DIAMONDS	27 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.ENTERPRISES	27 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.TIPS	27 Feb 2014 5AM<p>.VOYAGE	27 Feb 2014 5AM <comment><USER2> More to the point has anyone bought or going to buy a new gtld in the coming week?

<comment><USER3> I might do a quick search when I wake up for some obvious ones like bird.land, tech.tips, code.guru, things like that. Then again, I'm not sure how expensive they'll be or how fast the obvious ones will be snatched up.

<comment><USER4> Most of the obvious guru addresses are already gone, and GoDaddy is still doing preorders (5am NZ is still another hour from now).

I've seen a couple, but nothing that makes me want to spend $40 on.

Basically all generics are taken already (code, software, IT, devops, etc). Most languages are gone, except for Golang and Erlang. I checked a few frameworks, and RubyOnRails is still available, but stuff like Django is out.

I didn't do an exhaustive search though.

<comment><USER3> Oh, interesting. I assumed that since they had a specific date and time they went on sale..... that's when you could start claiming them. Kind of doesn't make sense to me. I'm no domain mogul though, I just think they're fun to have.

<comment><USER4> You can preorder for $39.99, or priority preorder for $189.99. If you simply pre-order and multiple people pre-order, then it goes to auction. I assume everything it's telling me is "available" is available as a pre-order, and the ones that aren't are priority pre-orders.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Wurfel Engine – isometric game engine with Open world, block based - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/BSVogler/WurfelEngineSDK <comment><AUTHOR> Today I want to present you my game engine. I have worked on it for almost five years. I also wrote my bachelor thesis on the rendering. I am planning on releasing a short book based on my work but before I finish said I want to get some feedback. I want to share what I learned and the huge amount of work with the world. It would be sad if this would be lost on my hard-drive therefore I publish this under BSD license.

In its current state some major things are missing to compete with other game engines. As a single developer it is hard to compete with engines like unity. There are some things which could be improved to make this more accessible for further development. For example someone already gave me the advice to add unit tests. Also there is a need for small game demos.

As I am switching my career directions to AI development and AI safety I rarely find the time to work on the engine any more.</comment>


UKI: Simple UI Kit for complex web apps - <AUTHOR> http://ukijs.org/

<comment><USER2> That Google Wave demo is pretty impressive in its slickness (link to the GitHub repos is broken).

One suggestion: we're all so exhausted by the constant barrage of new frameworks and libraries that a comparison chart is becoming mandatory content.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks pretty good but the widgets have a really crappy experience on mobile. Tested on an iPad.

You can't release stuff like this without proper mobile support. This is 2012.

<comment><AUTHOR> I submitted this. The author is Vladimir Kolesnikov: <https://github.com/voloko>

His version has not changed in 8 months[1] (even though this guy seems to be doing some progress[2]).

I just wanted to see what HN members think of it.

[1] <https://github.com/voloko/uki>

[2] <https://github.com/Nathanaela/uki></comment></comment>


Should You Get a Second MBA? - <AUTHOR> https://www.sageadmit.com/getting-a-second-mba/ <comment><USER2> What are usually the goals for getting an MBA in the first place? Until now I only heard bad things about MBA. But HN is also a start-up related site. I'm curious about other points of views.</comment>


Dimon Warns 'Something Is Wrong' with the U.S - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-04/dimon-still-optimistic-warns-something-is-wrong-with-u-s <comment><AUTHOR> Summary: "Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students, forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules."

<comment><USER2> Sounds about right.</comment></comment>