Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.app.box.com/s/mx6vhp0m8c1jyc8fh5yvned3nlu6ihec <comment><USER3> > If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and > suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to > the United States.

Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily slanted towards yes in my specific case but... What I am trying to say: it makes absolutely impossible to plan travel, business into the USA if this order stands for everyone because who knows whether you will be targeted next.

I am slightly surprised to not see Boeing here, they are set to lose an enormous amount of money in Iran.

<comment><USER4> The entire "unreasonableness" is based on the idea that this was Trump randomly banning countries.

Obama's administration (not Trump's) compiled the list of countries. It wasn't racial or "because they're Muslim" (most Muslims aren't banned).

What was the common thread between the countries? 6 out of the 7 countries have been on and off the US "State Sponsors of Terror" list for the past 40 years. Somalia (the one that hasn't been on the list) has spent most of the last 25 years in anarchy.

The law also __explicitly __gives the president the right to make the decision (see section f[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182)).

In 1993, SCOTUS ruled that a much longer ban against the poor, non-terrorist, mostly black Haitian immigrants by Bush Sr. and Clinton was legal in an 8-1 ruling ([http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court- high-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/22/us/the-supreme-court-high-court- backs-policy-of-halting-haitian-refugees.html)).

The constitutional claim doesn't hold water (foreign nationals have no right to travel in the US and the countries were selected for terrorist connections). That leaves only interpretation of the law, but the law clearly states POTUS has the authority. A 3 month break to find out what policies to put in place against 7 problematic and terrorist sponsoring countries is hardly something SCOTUS will find unreasonable.

EDIT: for the record, I think the bans are ineffective at stopping terrorists and are just Trump following through on his populist promises. That's different from the legality of the decision. This isn't the only thing Trump is doing While everyone has eyeballs here, they miss everything else that's happening in DC, and he still gets to look good when SCOTUS agrees with him.

<comment><USER5> If this law was really about fighting state-sponsored terrorism why aren't saudi arabia, uae, and egypt, all countries who have carried out terrorist attacks on the united states, on the travel ban list?

<comment><USER6> This argument is FUD.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc weren't "banned" because they share a great deal of information with us about people seeking entry into our country. The 7 "banned" countries do not. It's that simple.

It's about information exchange. We can't get enough info from the 7 "banned" countries to make informed pass/fail decisions about their travelers.

<comment><USER7> Iraq, where US contributed to the establishment of the present regime and where some remaining American soldiers are still there, does not share information with you? Seriously.

If sharing information with you as you said here is the most important yardstick,rather than subtle religion test,why is North Korea is not on the list?

<comment><USER8> Are you suggesting when Obama added Iraq to the list he was lying about what information they share?

North Korea is not on the list because literally nobody is travelling from North Korea to the United States.

<comment><USER9> No, GP is suggesting that "sharing information about people seeking to enter our country" is not the reason any of these countries were in- or excluded from this list.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I did a run at the (amateur) math off Google Finance and Crunchbase. With some companies I couldn't find's numbers outright omitted, and using old valuations, I totaled those corps filing as valued at $2.58 trillion in market cap., at least $131 billion of valuation and another $8 billion in investments in un-valuated companies. Assuming those investments hold value at least equal to the total worth of those companies in sum, we can reasonably assume the companies party to this brief represent value of at least 16% of US GDP.

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHY...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1y0VtAf9OpjwU7Haf4dHYCdw4Wj4UmJedVY3MgkDSBGE)

in case anyone else was wondering

EDIT: indeed it is > 15% even including only the publicly traded companies, for which the numbers of can be considered less speculative

<comment><USER11> It's hard to compare market caps to GDP because GDP is kind of like "aggregate value of everything produced this year" while a market cap is "estimated total profits for a company from now until the end of time." So you might have a company like Walmart with $200b in market cap but ~$500b in annual revenue (3% of GDP by itself!) and $15b in net income. On the other hand there are companies like Adobe with $60b market caps and $6b in annual revenue and $1b in net income. So the GDP vs market cap comparison is somewhat apples to oranges, although there's no disputing the companies in the brief have a large impact on the US economy.

<comment><USER12> To be clear: it's not just hard, it is _explicitly wrong_.

A more correct measure is a much simpler one: the aggregate product of all these companies over the GDP. Note that this aggregate product is of course a component of the GDP, so you can express this neatly as a percentage. I see only one major accounting complication in constructing this metric, and that's the inclusion/exclusion of foreign products and subsidiaries. (See e.g. offshore revenues that are not repatriated, and therefore not part of the domestic product calculations -- I think?)

<comment><USER13> Another way is to estimate the net present value of America's GDP by multiplying it by 20 or so, which implies that it's roughly 1% of American wealth.

Alternatively, percentage of rents at office and industrial zoned land would be a good measure. That'd separate out national vs international activity, at the cost of being significantly more difficult to estimate and calculate. I actually don't know how well rents and imputed rents are tracked at aggregate levels and broken down by company, so this may very well be data that we simply don't have access to.

<comment><USER14> Out of curiosity, why ~20?

<comment><USER15> P/E ratios are around 20 on average I suppose. Meaning earnings are 5% of the market cap of a stock.

GDP doesn't directly correlate to earnings though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.

<comment><USER17> I don't know where you get your information, but at the kind of top-tier tech companies that are being discussed here, H1B employees are not getting inferior benefits.

And as someone that does a lot of hiring I can guarantee you that the interviewing costs, relocation costs, and language barrier trade-offs do not make up for any salary differences that may or may not occur.

We're not talking about some low-tech banks and telcos trying to save a few bux by outsourcing work to india.

These are companies that have a high enough bar for entry that they truly cannot hire by looking only locally and must consider the entire world.

Furthermore, your whole implication that the companies care about this from primarily a financial point of view is deeply cynical. Immigrants are heavily represented amongst the tech sector, and we have a deep faith in the success of western nations being directly tied to absorbing people hungry for a new life in a new world. It's not about screwing over people who are already here, it's about making the whole country better as a result.

CAVEAT: Am Canadian citizen, am first-generation immigrant. As mentioned, work for a multi-national tech company that is on this list, and hire from around the world. But I work with counterparts on the US side dealing with H1B and know they agree with me.

<comment><USER18> > H1B employees are not getting inferior benefits

Yes they are. Even the relatively anti-Trump Huffington Post thinks so - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13579226](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13579226)

<comment><USER19> _At these corporations_. What H1Bs are getting abused at Google or Microsoft?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness > and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United > States for more than fifty years

Can I derive from this that the 97 tech companies accepts the classified Terrorist Watch List (2mil people), Selectee list, and no fly list? The statement would hold more credibility if the companies acknowledged and denounced the previous system and held a bit more consistent view on how travel between nations should work. A good example of this would be ACLU, who in contrast to the 97 companies has shown a consistent view on this kind of government behavior by bringing lawsuits in the past and the present.

<comment><USER21> The outrage expressed by the public is the large driving factor here - <USER2> tech companies are saying 'our potential workforce is outraged so we need to oppose this / be seen opposing this'

<comment><USER22> "potential workforce", or "public"?

Because polls suggest many Americans support the ban.

<comment><USER21> The arguments presented in the brief suggest they care more about the impact on their ability to recruit than negative general PR for not supporting the ban.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Some notable American tech companies that didn't sign:

\- Tesla \- SpaceX \- Amazon \- HP \- IBM \- Dell \- Oracle \- VMware \- Palantir \- Priceline \- Expedia \- Yahoo \- Groupon \- TripAdvisor \- Symantec \- Fiserv \- Intuit

There could be many reasons. Maybe they weren't invited to participate, maybe they choose to stay out of a political discussion, maybe they thought it could hurt their business interests, and maybe they didn't fully or partially agree with the amicus brief.

<comment> alex- Looks like Cisco did not sign either. 9 of the largest 15 IT companies in the world are US owned[1]

Looks like 5 of them did not sign up (HP, Amazon, IBM, Dell and Cisco) and 4 did (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Intel)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_informatio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_information_technology_companies)

<comment><USER24> Amazon, as one of the _plaintiffs_ in the case (the State of Washington is the first named plaintiff; the "et al." on the case title means there are others, which include Amazon and Expedia), can't file (alone or with others) an amicus brief, which is a brief by interested non-parties.

But it's misleading to count them as a company that _choose_ not to sign on to the amicus brief.

<comment><USER23> You are right that they have made separate declarations of support, but are they plaintiffs? I think 'et al' refers to the sole other plaintiff, the state of Minnesota: [http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf](http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/1lori020217.pdf)

<comment><USER24> You may be correct; I've seen a number of articles specifically claiming Amazon and Expedia joined the lawsuit (which has a clear and well accepted meaning), but on review there are also a lot claiming that the relation and there involvement is somewhat different, and I can't immediately find any definitive documentation of their joining as plaintiffs (they clearly weren't initial plaintiffs). Their involvement by any of the reports may still be of a kind to make it inappropriate for them to be _amici_ , and they clearly support Washington (and Minnesota) substantively in the case, at any rate.

<comment><USER23> Yes, they do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Contrary to my jubilation at this progress, a cynical friend of mine does not take any reassurance from the power checks the judicial branch has brought against the administration. He believes the administration will just find subtler and less obviously illegal ways to slowly move things in the direction they want. I hope this is not so. It is true that you only seem to see this kind of massive reaction to huge, broad-stroke actions like the travel ban. The quieter legislation passes by unnoticed and (by comparison) unprotested.

<comment><USER26> The last president asked us if it would be okay to bomb Syria. We said no. Then he did it anyways. He bombed them so much that we literally ran out of bombs. This guy screws up some travel plans and suddenly it's a problem. Bombing these people for 8 years, totes cool. Temporarily not letting them come here!?!?! Monster!!!!

I mean, I don't support Trump, nor do I agree with this dumb temporary travel ban, but all this noise about it is clearly disingenuous.

<comment><USER27> > We said no. Then he did it anyways. ... Bombing these people for 8 years, > totes cool.

That's some quite revisionist history there... The Syrian conflict isnt even that old.

It started in 2011.

In 2013, US starting supplying arms to syrian rebels. This was our first intervention in the conflict.

In Sept 2014, Obama gave his syria speech and Congress authorized action in Syria. Bombing started shortly after w/ other countries participation.

How does 2 years suddenly turn into 8? And doesn't Congressional approval for the action, conflict with this idea that Obama was acting in Syria alone?

<comment><USER26> No, what you believe is the revisionist history. We learned from the wikileaks cables that the US (CIA) has been in Syria funding and training the opposition since as early as 2006.

[http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism- security/2011/0418/...](http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism- security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition)

That means that the civil war and the refugee crisis are at least in part the direct results of actions of the United States.

<comment><USER27> here's the document from wikileaks: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/world/wikileaks...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/special/world/wikileaks-syria/cable1.html)

Your link, nor the actual wikileaks document supports the claim that US sent the CIA into Syria in 2006.

It talks about funding to Freedom House, American University and others for information, conferences, etc.

I think you would have a good point if it were true about CIA involvement.. but I believe people have a right to speech. And that's all that this appears to be.

I'm not ready to agree that the US is the source of the Syrian civil war just because we encouraged speech without the approval of a dictator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't want to dismiss the other, much larger, concerns people have with this executive order, but I want to highlight another aspect.

It further reduces the possibility of tourism to these 7 countries, due to the knowledge that if I want to go to the US, I face a much more invasive immigration check (see Norway PM), and the possibility of denied entry, which carries a lasting stigma.

Clearly tourism in Syria is not an option at the moment, but the more adventurous European could certainly want to visit Iran. And of course it was true that immigration officers could have asked about those trips before this order. Nevertheless, I feel that my choices of holiday have been affected by this order.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle- east-33648096](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33648096)

[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former- norwa...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/03/former-norway-pm- bondevik-held-washington-dulles-airport-2014-visit-iran)

<comment><USER29> As a Canadian, i've actually never thought of Iran as any more 'adventurous' of a place to visit than somewhere like Peru or India or Cambodia. Lots of mainstream adventure tourism companies have tours there (e.g.: G adventures, exodus, etc) It has a reputation of being a very friendly place full of hospitable people. It's always been on my 'bucket list' of places to visit one day.

However, if a visit means i'll get grilled more than usual every time I visit the US, then I'll likely refrain from visiting. So, yes, the order will reduce tourism.

<comment><USER30> The US explicitly allows people to get a second passport to allow them to visit countries without facing this issue. For example, if you want to visit Lebabon, you can get a second passport if you later want to visit Israel.

I don't know if Canada or other countries do the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> If nothing more, this brief is very informative for those wanting to understand the issues at play here - a good jumping off point to case law, historical context, and current news.

</comment><comment><USER32> Interestingly missing: Tesla, SolarCity, and SpaceX

<comment><USER33> Makes sense as Elon is a Trump advisor. Also interestingly missing: Amazon.

<comment><USER34> I believe Elon Musk is playing (once again) the ultra-long game.

He is betting that the court system as well as Congress will limit Donald Trump and his cronies from doing something that is grounds for impeachment - and so Donald Trump will be in office for the entire term. Given this, it makes sense to be in a position that has at least a tiny bit of influence on Trump.

Amazon has a similar position: they need large amounts of (immigrant) labor for their warehouses, but also are extremely dependent on free trade, especially import tariffs. So, they're likely afraid of openly defying Donald Trump, because they fear that Trump could retaliate against them.

The other companies which are on the list (except Apple!) are a hard target for Trump as they do not depend on overseas goods import and thus cannot be hit by import tariffs - the only way to hit them is by deporting the foreign workers they already have, and the courts have shown they won't let pass deportations of legal immigrants. So, for these companies it's relatively easy to sign.

<comment><USER35> Musk might outsmart us all, but by going down to that crossroads in Clarksdale, he does not, and will not, outmoral a slug.

<comment><USER36> Morality is like an ass - everybody has their own.

Musk wants to see a self sustaining, fossil fuel free civilisation, and a backup off site. I'm not saying it's morally right, in fact it might be straight out of Machiavelli ideas, but you are right in that it's a long position.

<comment><USER37> Morality, stripped of religious connotations, is just about what is good and bad. If you think fossil fuel independence and Mars colonization are good things, those are moral statements.

<comment><USER36> I agree completely. I'm just saying that everyone has his own ideas of what is good or bad (or evil for that matter). One person's good may be the other's bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Someone care to (briefly) elaborate what this is about for us not up to speed?

<comment><USER39> Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.

The State of Washington sued to block the EO.

The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed.

Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the appellate court:

> The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness > and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United > States for more than fifty years—and the Order inflicts significant harm on > American business, innovation, and growth as a result. The Order makes it > more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain > some of the world's best employees. It disrupts ongoing business operations. > And it threatens companies' ability to attract talent, business, and > investment to the United States.

<comment><USER40> >Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion

To clarify, this is the leadership of those 97 companies. There is no indication whether or not that this is how the majority of their employees feel.

This is the same virtue signaling that resulted in Trump being elected in the first place. An employee of one of these companies wouldn't dare now to express their agreement with Trump's policy because it's against the company's official stance.

<comment><USER41> That's an obviously nonsense idea. Must every public stance taken by a company be unanimously agreed by every employee? Clearly that's not feasible. Is your opinion then that no company should take public policy stances?

<comment><USER42> >Is your opinion then that no company should take public policy stances?

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Otherwise, by giving these companies a voice, you're giving more weight to the statements by company executives than to anyone else. The employees are all assumed to be in agreement, which is a false assumption. Corporate CEOs shouldn't have any more voice in any political discussion than anyone else, including a janitor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Does anybody know the process for these companies being involved? Did somebody ring around and organise this, or does word just get around and companies request involvement, or something else?

<comment><USER44> Last week Github hosted a meeting of tech industry heads to explore such an action, so this may have fallen out of that. News coverage seems to imply that Github invited chosen companies to participate.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration- tech...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-tech- idUSKBN15F08H)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad.

I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do.

It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anything of their own accord and instead just do what their crooked lobbyist friends tell them.

All that said, I've had a few Iranian friends/colleagues (fellow engineers) and it's really strange to think that they're not allowed to go to the US now because they're such decent, balanced people - Also, I can't help but think about those people who left Iran 40 years ago before it was under Islamic rule but still have Citizenship.

<comment><USER43> He says a lot of words. Many are false, some are true.

I don't understand how everybody (well, many people at least) ignore the obvious pathological lying and conclude he's doing what he said he would.

<comment><USER46> What "pathological lying"? He is no more lying than the average politician, and maybe less.

<comment><USER47> What about his statements on the crowd sizes? He also said Mexico was going to pay for the wall and that doesn't look like it will happen at all.

<comment><USER45> He said he will impose a tax on Mexican imports and use the proceeds to pay for the wall - That sounds on track.

<comment><USER47> You understand that the tax will be passed on to US consumers via higher prices right?

<comment><USER46> You understand that this is no rule of nature, right?

It's not like Mexico is the only source of some goods. Or that they can't make concessions (and assume the extra hit on their own margins) if their sales drop. Or tens of other factors and outcomes.

<comment><USER47> I do understand that, however it seems unlikely at the moment that they will choose that option.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> It's interesting that while we all accept it's ok for businesses, corporates and others to form groups to protect their interests any attempts by individuals to group together is instantly labeled as 'un-american' and socialism.

It's odd anytime individuals try to organize hysterical scares about communism are raised in the media and by businesses and it's dismissed as 'anti- american' socialism with ultra aggressive reactions even in places like HN.

Individuals are effectively disempowered in society, without groups there is no way to articulate or protect your interests especially when others are organizing and lobbying aggresively to protect their interests.

</comment><comment><USER49> Contrary to what many people think, I will predict that the original Trump order will be upheld.

It is absolutely an Executive branch function to handle visas and immigration, and the actual law appears to be very clear.

I am not making a statement about Trump or his opponents, otherwise.

<comment><USER28> Which "actual law appears to be very clear"?

<comment><USER49> I think Section 1182f: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate"

( Note that green card holders are still a class of aliens.)

<comment><USER50> It's not the only law and in addition, there is case law. Reading that one section is a very incomplete and likely inaccurate way to reason about the EO.

[http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his- plenary-...](http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/trump-exceeds-his-plenary- immigration-authority/15790)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> It is pretty interesting to see how a couple of years ago it would be extremely bad PR for companies to get involved in politics and user their corporate power to tip the scales in their favor, but now it is completely the opposite.

</comment><comment><USER52> The New York Times take on the ruling: "Judge Robart's brisk ruling contained almost no reasoning."

</comment><comment><USER53> Reading this interpretation of the immigrant history of the US, and how this means corporations should be able to dictate public policy now, just shows how arrogant and entitled these companies are, and how necessary it is that this means of hiring needs to be rejuvenated.

</comment><comment><USER54> minor edit: 96 companies. Turn Inc is listed twice

</comment><comment><USER55> 1\. AdRoll, Inc.

2\. Aeris Communications, Inc.

3\. Airbnb, Inc.

4\. AltSchool, PBC

5\. Ancestry.com, LLC

6\. Appboy, Inc.

7\. Apple Inc.

8\. AppNexus Inc.

9\. Asana, Inc.

10\. Atlassian Corp Plc

11\. Autodesk, Inc.

12\. Automattic Inc.

13\. Box, Inc.

14\. Brightcove Inc.

15\. Brit + Co

16\. CareZone Inc.

17\. Castlight Health

18\. Checkr, Inc.

19\. Chobani, LLC

20\. Citrix Systems, Inc.

21\. Cloudera, Inc.

22\. Cloudflare, Inc.

23\. Copia Institute

24\. DocuSign, Inc.

25\. DoorDash, Inc.

26\. Dropbox, Inc.

27\. Dynatrace LLC

28\. eBay Inc.

29\. Engine Advocacy

30\. Etsy Inc.

31\. Facebook, Inc.

32\. Fastly, Inc.

33\. Flipboard, Inc.

34\. Foursquare Labs, Inc.

35\. Fuze, Inc.

36\. General Assembly

37\. GitHub

38\. Glassdoor, Inc.

39\. Google Inc.

40\. GoPro, Inc.

41\. Harmonic Inc.

42\. Hipmunk, Inc.

43\. Indiegogo, Inc.

44\. Intel Corporation

45\. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker

46\. Kargo Global, Inc.

47\. Kickstarter, PBC

48\. KIND, LLC

49\. Knotel

50\. Levi Strauss & Co.

51\. LinkedIn Corporation

52\. Lithium Technologies, Inc.

53\. Lyft, Inc.

54\. Mapbox, Inc.

55\. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart

56\. Marin Software Incorporated

57\. Medallia, Inc.

58\. A Medium Corporation

59\. Meetup, Inc.

60\. Microsoft Corporation

61\. Motivate International Inc.

62\. Mozilla Corporation

63\. Netflix, Inc.

64\. NETGEAR, Inc.

65\. NewsCred, Inc.

66\. Patreon, Inc.

67\. PayPal Holdings, Inc.

68\. Pinterest, Inc.

69\. Quora, Inc.

70\. Reddit, Inc.

71\. Rocket Fuel Inc.

72\. SaaStr Inc.

73\. Salesforce.com, Inc.

74\. Scopely, Inc.

75\. Shutterstock, Inc.

76\. Snap Inc.

77\. Spokeo, Inc.

78\. Spotify USA Inc.

79\. Square, Inc.

80\. Squarespace, Inc.

81\. Strava, Inc.

82\. Stripe, Inc.

83\. SurveyMonkey Inc.

84\. TaskRabbit, Inc

85\. Tech:NYC

86\. Thumbtack, Inc.

87\. Turn Inc.

88\. Twilio Inc.

89\. Twitter Inc.

90\. Turn Inc.

91\. Uber Technologies, Inc.

92\. Via

93\. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

94\. Workday

95\. Y Combinator

96\. Yelp Inc.

97\. Zynga Inc.

</comment><comment><USER56> Goodguy YCombinator close to bottom of the list.

<comment><USER57> I would imagine YC is at bottom of most alphabetically sorted lists.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Hacking on a VR desktop inside of a VR desktop [video] - <AUTHOR> https://spacepub.space/videos/watch/f60bee0e-31d3-4aca-9e49-6fcdc87ad40d <comment><USER2> Hah, this is pretty cool. Perhaps having a VR headset on would finally allow me to concentrate in an open office environment.</comment>


Voting Asia Top 50 apps - help us with your vote. - <AUTHOR> http://asiatop50apps.com/buuuk/

<comment><USER2> Help us too: <http://asiatop50apps.com/pic-collage/></comment>


Re-Ask HN: Engineer contractor rates and full-time salaries in Israel? - <AUTHOR>

Hello,<p>Any ideas about engineer/dev contractor hourly rates and full-time salaries for Israel? <comment><USER2> No idea about Israel. Senior rails consultant in Munchen, Germany 700-800 EUR/day. Senior Front-End/Javascript (AngularJS) consultant in Paris, France 750-900 EUR/day.</comment>


Founder to CEO: How to build a great company from the ground up - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJZbv4J6FZ8Dnb0JuMhJxTnwl-dwqx5xl0s65DE3wO8/edit#heading=h.pdmqf3646hgt <comment><USER3> I feel like there's an 'all or nothing' attitude recently around starting a business which doesn't make sense to me. Either you're making millions and have 100 employees or nothing.

I work in a company that has 5-10 employees, nobody is working their ass off and there's steady income and gradual growth. Our CEO is not a millionaire, but he enjoys his work and the company he works for. There is no plans for fast growth or VC funding.

Can anyone explain to me where does this obsession with VC funding and huge growth come from? I feel like if you grow your company by more then 50% YOY you will end up with a totally different company culture, and you might end up hating your own company.

<comment><USER4> >> Can anyone explain to me where does this obsession with VC funding and huge growth come from? I feel like if you grow your company by more then 50% YOY you will end up with a totally different company culture, and you might end up hating your own company.

Startups need an exit strategy.

Employees want to work 5-10 years max and end up with millions to retire peacefully while working in an intense environment which serves as the story of their accomplishment for the lifetime.

Then they plan to follow their other life goals like going on a world tour with the family or watch their kids growing up or creating their own small lifestyle business. It can be anything.

The key realization is that most employees do not want to work for you just because they have found themselves in such place.

When I was new in the industry, I put a lot of blood/sweat into building a company. Today, I can't force myself to put the same amount of efforts even if I want to.

The idea is to raise money fast, hire experienced people for ancillary services and develop the application in a way so that it is able to hold up till IPO. Defer all costs (application maintenance, vendor lockins, IP infringement risks) for post IPO. Create the Hype around the product which gets you eyeballs, subscriptions, MAU and other metrics which translates into the valuation. Once you've caught market attention, the solution can always get more love post IPO.

The market pressure to produce returns post IPO results in the broad application of the company's IP, resources, and talent. This might spin up new industries.

Once the employees have cashed their equity, it's up to them to stay (if they are enjoying the position) or leave (if they've other life goals).

A lifestyle business, won't be able to achieve this for each of their employees. Even very few startups achieve this for most of their employees.

<comment><USER5> >> Employees want to work 5-10 years max and end up with millions to retire peacefully while working in an intense environment

This sounds like either it is an extremely unrealistic expectation or it's extremely unfair.

I know lots of smart people who worked for at least 10 years in very intense startup environments and got essentially nothing out of it. Often, they have to fallback on a life of contract work for huge boring corporations.

<comment><USER4> > I know lots of smart people who worked for at least 10 years in very intense > startup environments and got essentially nothing out of it. Often, they have > to fallback on a life of contract work for huge boring corporations.

Yes, it's not guaranteed by anything.

I also know of cases where founder alone ended up with billions and early employees got nothing.

I just see those startups as poorly executed who decided to kill their army after victory way home.

We should strive for execution where at least your comrades also win.

<comment><USER6> "We should strive for execution where at least your comrades also win." \--> this won my heart!

It is not a zero-sum game. You win when your comrades win. The glory is not in taking it all but taking pride in what you have created and can potentially create and expand on over and over again. :)

<comment><USER7> From the perspective of all VC's and some founders, this is in fact the very definition of a zero sum game.

Every dollar of an exit given to an employee is a dollar that the VC or founder can't have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I read the comments before clicking the link, and found myself agreeing with commenters who complained about this line:

> _In addition, if people are working less than 8-10 productive hours per day, > then they are clearly not being as productive as they could be._

I almost dismissed the book as a "yet another VC-driven, work-your-people-to- burnout story" but really, there's more to that. I've found it an excellent read so far and it's very concise, it wastes zero space on nonsense. I realized that I don't have to agree with everything an author writes to be able to get value out of a book. Warmly recommend you check it out.

<comment><USER9> Why is everyone disliking this statement about 8-10 hours a day? Excluding weekends, this is 40-50 hours a week, nothing outrageous.

You're not that special folks, you have to work to get paid like everyone else.

<comment><USER10> It's almost impossible to be productive 100% of the time. Even with just 2h for lunch and all other crap, to get 9h of productive time you're taking about entering at 9AM and leaving at 8PM. No, thanks.

<comment><USER11> Being a founder isn't about writing code all day - you don't have to be operating at full mental capacity to be getting stuff done. You spend a ton of time talking to people, recruiting, writing emails, etc. IMO the notion that you can be more effective as a founder in < 8 hrs/day as if you work 8 hrs/day is a pleasant sounding falsehood.

I'm sure there are diminishing returns at some point, but I don't think it's before 8 hrs/day.

<comment><USER10> Being a founder is irrelevant, he's talking about pushing his workers to work those hours, not about his personal schedule.

<comment><USER11> Ok fair, but are you aware of any position that is devoid of administrative tasks or meetings?

The hardest part of being in a company is almost always coordination and communication.

<comment><USER10> That's exactly my point; he shouldn't expect 8-9h of productive time from his workers, because there are always administrative tasks and meetings (not to mention more lowly vital necessities), and so that implies they're basically living in the company.

<comment><USER11> The problem is that HN doesn't consider "vital necessities" productive when the author does

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> An interesting article; i was reading the replies to this. So here is my take. A UK 40++ entrepreneur.

I have been there and done that - made good £££ from the first boom in 2000. Since then tried a couple of startups all of which failed, for one reason or another. Sadly we did burn through quite a lot of investor £££ in the process and gained no personal value other than experience.

What I think I have learned is that building a small business with around 5-10 people and making a regular salary of £200k a year is a much more enjoyable existence than trying for the millions and never quite getting there.

Working for a large corp, contracting etc is depressing (other than doing it abroad which was fun for a few years and allowed me to travel in my 30's).

We now have a funky office, a very tight team of devs. I guess in some ways I modelled on what Joel did.

After everything, I have learned "bootstrap" \+ "lifestyle business" is the best route to have a happy and productive life. Our business is a digital agency - mostly wordpress sites for SME market, a few apps etc. Its regular and good money. it is no way as interesting as some of the "startup" ideas we tried over the years, but no VC still on my shoulder anymore :)

<comment><USER11> > What I think I have learned is that building a small business with around > 5-10 people and making a regular salary of £200k a year is a much more > enjoyable existence than trying for the millions and never quite getting > there.

But what if you get there?

<comment><USER13> Would you rather have a 1% chance of $100M/year or a 99% chance of $200k/year?

If all one thinks about is the math, they'd take the chance at 100M, because it is a higher number when multipled by the probability. But you can't pay a mortgage with a probability, and some folks want a mortgage (or other lifestyle features).

<comment><USER12> But I think the point is - would you be up for earning £200k a year when it's still your company doing what you want to do. I am not suggesting comparing a £200k a year with having a job - that's very very different and I would never want that. To me that really is a failure. I often ask the question - <USER2> would I do if I had £100m++. maybe I would go travel for a few years, but as I am still in my early 40s I would end up having a small company doing some cool stuff in the latest tech. Its what I enjoy doing. You can only sit on so many beaches!

What is the end game? having £100M+ in the bank account is only the start :) i wondering if anyone who has made some big money reads hacker news - or is that all now do :)

<comment><USER13> That's fair. I remember talking to a co-founder of a successful company and he said if he ever left, he'd love to run a small engineering team at a company, take a salary, and leave some of the aspects of running a business to others.

It takes all kinds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Requiring proposals and updates written down is a good idea. If you allow people to bring up an issue or proposal that they have not already written up in the meeting, someone always comes up with idea on the spot, and tries argue it as something well thought. If they are clever people they can throw the whole meeting off.

For the loudest voice in the room problem, speaking order that starts from the most junior and ends with the most senior member is the best (I think it's sometimes used in military). When junior members speak first it's easier for them when the boss has not given his opinion.

<comment><USER15> The Jewish Sanhedrin used it 2000-3000 years ago, starting from the most junior people.

<comment><USER16> Some good psychology in that. If you start with the most senior people, then the couple of people who are clearly officially leaders will talk and then everyone else thinks they're next in the pecking order and will trainwreck it.

If the only way to talk is to admit that you're more junior than everyone else who hasn't spoken, then you won't stick your two bob in unless you actually have something important to say.

<comment><USER17> Or the most senior people will put an idea forward and all the juniors will spend their time kissing ass and saying what a great idea it is.

<comment><USER18> It's the seniors' job to seek out criticism and lead the way to criticizing their own ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > In addition, if people are working less than 8-10 productive hours per day, > then they are clearly not being as productive as they could be.

So, are people expected to be in the office for 12+ hours a day? Nobody is 100% productive from the moment they step in the door, every day. The fact that the author even wrote the number 10 here makes me a bit angry.

I'm only about 1/4 of the way through, does he have a section on employee burnout?

<comment><USER20> You definitely should read the whole thing with more attention to this aspect - getting productive hours out of employees is an extremely difficult task, but it does pay off big time. This can be achieved with the "fun" environment at work, with meals at the office, with very clear goals and alignment on those goals, with a bigger ambition in mind, with creative compensation schemes, flexible hours, remote work schemes, and with a lot of other things. That's why there are "managers" (not necessarily) CEOs who can get this productivity out of people, and those who cannot.

<comment><USER19> I'm all for it if an employer wants to make it more attractive to stay at the office. I have fun at work, I eat with my coworkers most days, and I'm not out the door at the 8-hour marker. However, as it's worded, there's an implied "problem" with an employee if they're not actively engaged with work for 10 hours a day.

Between meetings, chatty coworkers, meals, coffee breaks, and just periodic mental fatigue, I think 5-6 hours of productivity is a much more feasible goal for an 8-hour work day.

<comment><USER21> > meetings

If the meetings are productive meetings and not hour-long Facebook-browsing snoozefests, then yes, meeting attendance is a form of productivity

> chatty coworkers

Get rid of the open floor plan, allow for remote work, other strategies to promote the proverbial butts-in-seats instead of milling about the water cooler

> meals

Delivered to the office

> Coffee breaks

Why coffee machines of whichever kind (Keurig, Nespresso, superautomatic espresso machines) pay for themselves.

The point is that OP's point is that good management reduces (not eliminate, that's impossible) distractions, to promote higher productivity.

<comment><USER22> I work a place where there is no interaction between employees. No coffee breaks, no paid lunch, no meetings. It is hell. Enjoy.

<comment><USER21> Look, different places have different workers and cultures and management. If you work in a place where everyone suffers from the lack of socialization, then management should make things more sociable somehow. If you work in a place where you're the only person who suffers from the lack of socialization, then perhaps you should find another job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Author namechecks _Thirteen Days_ , the harrowing account of the Cuban Missile Crisis and a world on the brink of annihilation. There is also a terrific movie adaptation. In it, Secdef McNamara talks about how the positioning of submarines and aircraft carriers about the open seas is actually a coded language. And by making moves and counter-moves, what the US and USSR are actually doing is communicating intent.

Another classic is Ron Howard's _Apollo 13_. One of the few movies that depict the engineers as heroes. An inspiring watch for the whole team. And Damien Chazelle's upcoming Neil Armstrong biopic might make for a similar outing.

Crisis management, perhaps more so than innate technological superiority, can yield distinct competitive advantage. And this is where actually learning from precisely the type of case study found in the YC network makes sense. Knowing that you can stay calm, slow time, take deep breaths, and react rationally because others have dealt with far more on their plate than you ever will.

I'll share an anecdote. A small independent media outlet once got wind of a redesign I was working on and reported the story. The client was incensed as they were planning a full marketing rollout and had "lost the narrative". We were still months from launch. But rather than get into a blame game and lose more time. I suggested a soft, beta launch with media blitz immediately. After a week of jamming to polish our working prototypes for general availability, we were public facing, with laudatory feedback and the client appearing on CNBC ;)

Weeks later, as it turns out, it was revealed I was in fact the source of the leak. An unscrupulous reporter had called my office posing as a contract employee of the client and asked about a meeting time and place. In replying that it would be at my office that afternoon, they had confirmation that in fact the redesign was in progress!

<comment><USER24> Sir did u have tldr for this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm about a quarter way through this book and I'm enjoying it so far. This line, however, didn't resonate with me:

> To encourage 8-10 productive hours, serve dinner 8-10 hours after morning > stand-up.

As a person who enjoys life outside of work, the idea of having a job where they were serving me dinner every day is baffling. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

<comment><USER26> You don't have to eat it.

They serve dinner every day where I work. I simply go home earlier than that. Nothing happens. It's quite simple really.

On days where I happen to need to stay late, it's a really nice convenience. For people who go to the gym after work and come back to eat, they save money by grabbing a quick dinner meal at work.

<comment><USER27> "You don't have to eat it."

Yes, but there's an inherent, almost clear expectation in this treatise that you do in fact, 'eat it' or at least stay those hours.

If you're staying >10 hours at the office the least they can do is get you dinner, but when it starts to be a cultural expectation it's going to be a long term problem.

The way most equity is shared - if you are working 10-12 hours a day and the company is not growing wildly, i.e. looking like a Unicorn - it's probably not worth it, and you've drunk too much koolaid.

Koolaid and hard work are good, but I think the goal is kind of 'self aware Koolaid' ...

<comment><USER26> Speaking from personal experience, no there simply isn't this weird expectation you seem to want to impose.

Every place I've worked at has had free food. People take it when it's convenient for them. They leave it when they want to do something else.

Most parents never stay for dinner. And guess what, everything is fine. There's no cultural crisis...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Agenda > > Spouse > > Connect- listen to each other's day for 5 minutes each

I had to laugh at this. Setting aside only 5-10 minutes a day for your closest confidant and life-partner? Good luck with that marriage.

One of the ironies for me of people who slave away with the hope of scoring the jackpot, is that they often justify it by telling themselves and others what they'll do once they're financially independent, when in reality you can probably do most of those things now already.

Want to travel the world? You can travel worldwide for a year for about $10k to $20k.

If you have a wife and family, they're alive now. There's no guarantee they'll be alive even tomorrow, or that you'll be.

Delayed gratification and sacrificing some of the present for the future are both definitely good and necessary, but should be done within due measure.

<comment><USER29> "One of the ironies for me of people who slave away with the hope of scoring the jackpot,"

There are other reasons as well to work hard. Some people enjoy the prospect of potentially denting the universe a bit. But yes, if financial gratification and financial gratification alone is the goal it's a tad silly.

<comment><USER30> Is a "dented universe" an admirable goal? Seems vague, and selfish. I get people want to make some sort of impact while they are here, but let's also admit that that is driven by the ego.

<comment><USER31> Yes? Isn't making a dent in the universe what everyone is trying to do? What else is there in life? Just surviving until you die?

<comment><USER32> The purpose of life is to enjoy your time alive in this world. Typically one does this by connecting with other living beings and balancing a life in service of self with a life in service of others.

Will the founders of Snapchat be revered by humanity in the future? Highly doubtful. The way to be remembered is to live a life worth remembering after all.

<comment><USER31> >The purpose of life is to enjoy your time alive in this world.

You don't get to decide what the purpose of life is. And wanting to leave your mark on the world is just as validation a purpose of life.

>The way to be remembered is to live a life worth remembering after all.

Yeah that doesn't actually mean anything. There are plenty of people forgotten by time and their ancestors who lived perfectly fulfilling lives with their friends and family. They never got remembered in history books. Not that I'm saying their choices were worse but if you want to be remembered in history books, you don't just sit around making friends and family.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Download as .doc: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJZbv4J6FZ8Dnb0JuMhJxTnw...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJZbv4J6FZ8Dnb0JuMhJxTnwl- dwqx5xl0s65DE3wO8/export?format=doc)

<comment><USER34> Thank you, works as .epub as well: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJZbv4J6FZ8Dnb0JuMhJxTnw...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJZbv4J6FZ8Dnb0JuMhJxTnwl- dwqx5xl0s65DE3wO8/export?format=epub)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> > the data shows that solo founders rarely succeed

Where is the data on this?

The only public exit / ipo yc has had to date was a solo founder.

<comment><USER27> A crude look at Crunchbase apparently indicates that 'one founder is best' and 'four founders is worst'. [1] Though it's not exactly a scientific assessment, the numbers do paint a rough picture.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/26/co-founders- optional/](https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/26/co-founders-optional/)

<comment><USER36> Applied (and was interviewed) to YC with 3 co-founders. It was a total disaster. If I ever do it again I will be a solo founder and I'll hire those I need.

<comment><USER37> Can you give more detail please?

<comment><USER36> Sure. TLDR People have different motivations. You don't need to "find a co- founder" in order to check some box in your application process. If you do feel the need to apply with a team, don't split the equity evenly and define a very clear leader. Also, Plan on most of your team just giving up if you are rejected (despite what they say today). I applied with friends who who I knew for a year AND had worked with on a few apps. I was surprised when they quit after we were rejected.

Your biggest problem is finding a product market fit and defining a customer. If you can do this you can certainly hire all the help you need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is a fantastic resource.

>> ...the data shows that solo founders rarely succeed. The emotional burden is just too high.

I am a solo founder and yeah, I completely agree with this. I severely underestimated the emotional burden of going it alone. I am in a much better state now, but it was definitely a struggle. If I had to do it over again this is the main thing I would change - be more open towards and work harder towards finding a co-founder.

<comment><USER39> I am a solo founder and I have been a non-solo founder in the past and being a solo-founder is 100x better. I think it depends on the type of person you are and what is important to you.

<comment><USER40> I think it boils down to something like

A solo founder who ticks all the boxes will beat an equally skilled team every time

Most people don't tick all the boxes, so generally speaking you are better off starting with a co-founder

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you study coaching, or organizational development techniques, you'll find that most practices are consultative -- defining goals, as well as how the coach/consultant will work with an individual or organization. You then evaluate where the person/org is at, where they want to go, and develop various plans and interventions to get there.

I point this out because this document skips all that. It says so in the first page - this is written by someone who targets young founders in SV. Quite a narrow niche. This document is one specific playbook, for that specific niche.

Sure, young founders in SV may want this. And if you do, too, the info is good for you. But there is more than one way to run a company, more than one desired outcome, and more than one set of answers in what you should be doing.

</comment><comment><USER42> Try this link to copy it to your drive so you can read or format it any way you like:

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJZbv4J6FZ8Dnb0JuMhJxTnw...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJZbv4J6FZ8Dnb0JuMhJxTnwl- dwqx5xl0s65DE3wO8/copy)

</comment><comment><USER43> Does anyone have a PDF of this? Google docs has disabled most functionality due to traffic volume.

<comment><USER25> You should be able to print it as a PDF via Chrome.

<comment><USER44> Chrome's PDF printing function gives you an image PDF, even if the content is entirely text. So it's not searchable and is larger than a text PDF (which Firefox will give you). I've uploaded a version here, which I don't think requires cookies or block incognito: [https://app.box.com/s/6mbbf3x1625uhcrm6t7tbld4jy1tnkjv](https://app.box.com/s/6mbbf3x1625uhcrm6t7tbld4jy1tnkjv)

<comment><USER45> Yesterday Internet Explorer is today's Chrome. I moved to firefox few months ago and never looked back at Chrome.

<comment><USER46> Amen.

I've been converting folks back to Firefox and helping them setup containers for Facebook and LinkedIn.

I hope Firefox integrates social media containers in by default in future releases.

<comment><USER47> Any good tutorials on that "setup containers for Facebook and LinkedIn." part you can recommend? Am a Firefox User myself and very interested in getting this to work.

<comment><USER46> Install this and it contains Facebook: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/facebook-cont...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/facebook-container/)

Install this and it contains LinkedIn: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/linkedin-cont...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/linkedin-container/)

It'd be great if Firefox were to integrate this into their out of the box build of Firefox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > YCombinator has a near-blanket policy of only accepting co-founder teams > (ie- no solo founders), because the data shows that solo founders rarely > succeed. The emotional burden is just too high.

But YC application FAQ states that this is not true. Although practically speaking from speaking to other startups, I have noticed that only startups with co-founders made it to the final round. This is just based off my experience and talking to other startups

<comment><USER48> Very, very few solo founders get into YC. I heard somewhere each batch of companies has about 2 solo founder companies total.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Side tangent, if you're looking to share a draft book like this with a bunch of people, [https://betabooks.co](https://betabooks.co) is a good option. Specifically designed to handle heavy load of readers and look great on mobile, etc.

<comment><USER50> Wow, that sound super useful. Now I just need to write a book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is incredibly insightful and well-written.

<comment><USER52> > In addition, if people are working less than 8-10 productive hours per day, > then they are clearly not being as productive as they could be.

Yep, very insightful. I hope I never work for this guy

<comment><USER53> 8 productive hours per day is normal and expected. Are you working part-time or getting paid to browse Reddit?

<comment><USER52> > 8-10

Not sure why you bring up Reddit

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I just want to say that I really love that they're using the pronoun "she" in the beginning. It is refreshing to hear when most business books are directed using male pronouns.

<comment><USER55> "They" would be the proper term.

<comment><USER56> Yeah, I find it annoying when people presume to refer to an unknown person as 'He" or "She". It's especially annoying when a writer randomly alternates genders throughout their document. Pandering much?

The solution is the firmly established use of the singular "They": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they)

The singular "They" has literally been used in the English language since the 14th century, and its usage is well-understood. Any English teacher who dissuades you from its use should be stripped of their credentials, because "they" are an idiot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Amazing write up. I have been through it (now in a second startup) and can relate to most of it. This is like the book I can read as summary of my journey through startup world.

</comment><comment><USER58> > "If we were to make you the following offer (state the offer in full detail, > including cash, equity, benefits, etc), would you accept?" If they say yes, > then make them offer.

This is most effectively done on a paper note, passed between classmates, so that there is plausible deniability if they say no /s

<comment><USER27> This is a funny tactic because it should not work with a thoughtful negotiator.

"If we were to make the offer" is de-facto an offer, it's just not official, and though there might be a legal difference between an 'if we made it' and 'actual offer' ... for all intents and purposes, it's the same. It's the start of the negotiation.

A half-smart negotiator would simply say: "Yes, if you included moving expenses" or whatever they would say otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> The book mentions "Percentage of tickets closed" as a metric by which engineering should be evaluated, which IMO is incredibly short-sighted.

The Google Doc has all editing disabled at the moment, but does anyone know if the author would welcome improvements to the text?

<comment><USER60> THey mention a more nuanced metric further down --- do you still feel it's a poor metric?

<comment><USER59> Would you mind quoting the relevant bit? I'm on mobile at the moment.

My problem with including it at all is that, as he said in a preceding chapter, he is in a unique position to shoot down myths that technical founders believe about VCs and the converse, so the book presents a great opportunity to do the same about the myth of closed tickets as an engineering metric, particularly since it is largely well-written and will reach a much wider audience than his coaching may permit.

<comment><USER61> I believe this is the relevant bit:

" As we learn from Andy Grove, former Intel CEO and author of the book High Output Management, it is also important to define and track counter-metrics to provide necessary context, because metrics are sometimes optimized to a fault.

For example, engineering tickets will vary in importance, so if your engineers have closed the critical tickets, they're doing better than if they close most tickets but only the easiest ones. Similarly, if the half of candidates that accept your job offers are less skilled than the half that decline, then you're doing worse than the raw percentage indicates. "

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Parts of this book feel like a secret playbook that has been shared. Thanks for that.

</comment><comment><USER63> Is this book available as a printed book? Would love to buy a copy. I have read disparate parts over the years, but this one is concise and covers a gamut of topics. It might even help in running a research group!

</comment><comment><USER64> > In addition, if people are working less than 8-10 productive hours per day, > then they are clearly not being as productive as they could be.

Am I the only one that immediately thought about employees as the Clueless on the Gervais Principle[1]?

It looks to me like they need to sell this dream of exiting big for people to sacrifice everything for the company. However everyone forgets how absurdly low the chances of winning the lottery is.

It's essentially the carrot on the stick.

Maybe I'm wrong and it's easy to win on this "game"? I'd love to see some data on how many actually become millionaires after killing themselves on the startup grinder.

[1]: [https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais- principle/](https://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/)

</comment><comment><USER65> _While there are many books out there with excellent and relevant knowledge for the founding CEO..._

I'd love to know some of your's book suggestions for aspiring Tech Founder- CEO.

<comment><USER66> Recommended: "Before The Startup" by Paul Graham - [http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/before.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> > 3\. Someday/Maybe: This is the list of things that you one day want to do, > but don't need to get done now (e.g. read a book).

Someday/Maybe

Schedule a guitar lesson

Order the book Getting Things Done by David Allen

\---

Man, this guy really gets me.

</comment><comment><USER68> Thanks for the book! The succinct and direct style of writing makes it easier for me to read. And for some reason, I like reading it from Google Docs.

</comment><comment><USER69> Great insights. This should have probably been posted on Medium though. Google Docs have horrible reading experience.

<comment><USER70> I just got a copy to my Drive, and I saved as epub where I can read as an ebook.

<comment><USER71> Nice! Will do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> > Hire an x-CEO to come in as a "1 day a week CEO" to implement this system. > _She_ should be able to do so in 6-8 weeks. Have _her_ then watch you run > the system for 2 weeks to ensure that you are doing it correctly.

I was under the impression that the accepted gender-neutral pronoun to use in this case would be "they". Any idea why "she"/"her" is used? Is this a new phenomenon?

</comment><comment><USER73> Who is the author, Matt Mochary? Why should I care what he thinks?

<comment><USER74> ...this is literally the first topic covered....

> Who am I? Why am I writing this book?

I coach tech startup CEOs (and tech investors) in Silicon Valley, most of whom are young technical founders. They include the CEOs of Coinbase, AngelList, CoinList, TrustToken, Bolt, Shogun, Speechify, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Printed it, will read it on the next flights, thanks!

</comment><comment><USER76> obsolete since GDPR

<comment><USER77> why?</comment></comment>


Go Hard Early - <AUTHOR> http://icelab.com.au/articles/go-hard-early/ "You're not a teenager leaving your homework until the last minute. Professionals go hard early." <comment><USER2> It is decent advice but to be taken with a grain of salt - I've worked with developers who just dive in to the project, no plan in their head and just figuring out as they go along. What you're left with is a mess of code, hacks and workarounds - it works, definitely does, but maintaining or extending it is a nightmare.

On the other hand you have projects with incredibly detailed architectures all mapped out, way too much time discussing / planning / envisioning what to build, when to build it and how best to go about it. Not a single one I can think of actually followed the plan (you will always get kinks in the road), and as such these things are always over due and over budget.

I guess it's more about finding a balance with what works - perhaps keep an end goal in sight; with a simplistic high level overview of the project/feature, thus giving you the freedom to move around any problems that may arise, but also not tying you down to a detailed plan / architecture that almost certainly will need changing. Iterate fast, stay flexible(?)

But one thing I definitely agree with - and that's to get started immediately; whether that's to plan or to code - just start. It will always take longer than you think, and that last 10% is equivalent to first 90%, if not more.

<comment><USER3> I think you're right, but I 100% reject this article. Maybe it is good advice for small- or middle-scale products, apps., etc., but it will never hold for a project whose goal is to make a global impact.

I'm actually thinking about Fabrice Bellard, who was featured in a article that was met with success here two months ago[1].

> Bellard made it seem natural to pull together his mathematical insight, > broad experience at instruction-level coding, and _careful engineering_ to > advance the field this way

When you look at his achievements[2], I have trouble finding one that would have succeeded with OP's "advice". Between an app for coffee-lovers and QEMU, I think the careful thinking and engineering crushes the hype of "let's do it". Sure it sounds good, but that is not the way you will achieve something meaningful.

I may sound like an ass while it is not my goal, but

\- I'm kind of surprised to see the success of this article (50 votes for 2 hours) given the low level and amount of content it offers

\- I distrust analogies, and this gamma-correction one is definitely unsound (not to say dumb)

1: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5187585>

2: <http://bellard.org/>

<comment><USER4> > _When you look at his achievements[2], I have trouble finding one that would > have succeeded with OP's "advice". Between an app for coffee-lovers and > QEMU, I think the careful thinking and engineering crushes the hype of > "let's do it". Sure it sounds good, but that is not the way you will achieve > something meaningful._

I think both you and the parent got the wrong impression.

The article is not saying "just start coding -- and skip planning and engineering".

He says "just start working hard on the problem from day one, INCLUDING the planning and engineering parts -- instead of leaving it for later, or doing only low hanging fruits in the beginning".

"Start working hard early on != just start with coding immediately".

> _\- I distrust analogies, and this gamma-correction one is definitely > unsound (not to say dumb)_

Nothing unsound or dumb about it. It's just that he could reduce it to the curve shown --taken to mean project completion--, without mentioning gamma at all.

The curve is the important part of the analogy, not gamma.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the comments, a lot of people are taking the wrong message from this article.

It's not "get stuck in and don't think about it", it's actually: "think about what needs to be done, then start with the hardest".

It's actually something I learned during a group project during university. The process is something like:

* Group all your main features

* Plot them on a graph of importance (y-axis) vs difficulty (x-axis)

* The features in the top-right (high importance/high difficulty) are the first things you do

* The features in the bottom-right (low importance/high difficulty) are the last things you do

This is something you have to keep evaluating over time, using a process/method of your preference (that works, of course).

The reason you do the hard/important things first is because it lets you know whether the project can go ahead for the minimal cost.

To take the group project I did as an example: we had to do a mapping application on a mobile device. Most groups went and wrote some code in Java, and wrote a routing algorithm. A few of us realised that getting something running on a device was the "hard" part, so set about getting that working. Afterwards, we went and drew some graphics, and handled some simple I/O with pre-programmed behaviour. When it came to writing the routing, we again tried everything against the device ASAP, so we knew what its real-world performance was.

Those who started writing Java without the device realised they had to convert it to J2ME before they could make it run, wasting a bunch of time. A good percentage had nearly nothing running by the end of the year demo because of this.

<comment><USER6> No, this is not the message from the article. Perhaps, it is what the message _should_ be, or what the author _wanted_ it to be, but it is not what was said. Just reread the first sentences. I quote:

 _You have a nice big project you're about to get started on. Delivery is in a few months, so you have time to plan, sketch out some initial ideas, to let it germinate in your head._

 _Right?_

 _No. Start now._

He is saying that you don't plan. You don't have time to let it "germinate in your head". Don't look for the hard parts of the problem and tackle them first because, if the problem is nontrivial, you probably don't know what the hard parts are, anyway. The hard parts are the ones you don't expect from the start.

The author's thesis is that you should start early so that you can encounter the hard parts as soon as possible. It is about the fact that you will encounter unexpected challenges that will force you to reassess your strategy. I'm not taking a stand one way or another. I think your strategy has its place (and in fact, is closer to the way I tend to do things) as well as the author's.

<comment><USER5> I completely glossed over that part, thanks for pointing it out.

I don't think he's completely wrong in his assertion. My feeling is that he is aiming that sentence at developers who have a tendency to over-think. I've seen developers (including myself) sit and think and research and think and research and not really do anything.

In those situations, just putting your fingers on the keyboard and writing anything will be an improvement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I winced at the last sentence -- "You're not a teenager leaving your homework until the last minute. Professionals go hard early."

I'm a graduate student who still leaves homework for the last moment sometimes. This mantra of going hard early can also be applied to a few of my assignments and academic projects.

<comment><USER8> I think the entire psychological structure of academia leads to a tendency of procrastination. I don't procrastinate at work much at all, I procrastinated way too much in academia.

Properly designed academia would probably remove procrastination from K to PhD.

<comment><USER9> Can you elaborate a bit on said psychological structure?

<comment><USER10> To add to the other response(s), there's a sense of artificialness to homework and the way it's drip fed.

The deadline is just so the setter has a schedule to assess it, and the next one will be coming at some point in the future.

With work it's usually all coming now. If you're not doing task a, you could be doing task b, c, d or e instead. Of course good planning and management will mean time is organised between all the tasks to get them done one at a time (or as close to) and it's not a daunting pressure, but I find there's always a sense that there's lots to do.

In the cases I've had where there doesn't seem like a lot to do, that's when I tend to procrastinate with what I'm meant to be doing, looking at this and that other interesting thing we could be doing.

[Edit] Also, money always helps ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It sounds like he just restated the idea of POCs and unknown-unknowns. You should consider yourself lucky if you have few enough tasks that you can "go hard early" on without destroying your work/life balance.

</comment><comment><USER12> Great advice.

I always fall for the trap of expecting the last 20% to take 20% of the time. Not sure why I don't learn my lesson.

</comment><comment><USER13> This reminds me of an obvious-yet-not-that-obvious trick when it comes to quoting for new features using an unknown technology:

Be honest, ask to sacrifice a couple of hours to throw at a proof-of-concept, and then you should have a better idea of how long the full feature will take to implement.

<comment><USER14> In my experience this applies to every feature. Doing a small chunk tends to improve estimates - somehow they tend to go up rather than down, go figure :-)

This creates a sort of an impedance mismatch if you do your work in sprints - it's good to do the initial chunk in one sprint and the actual body of work in the next one. Unfortunately this means that features' implementation latency goes up.

<comment><USER13> _In my experience this applies to every feature._

Heh, I think it depends on the feature ;)

Past the first few projects, you should have a pretty good feel for how long standard CRUD, user auth, email fun and other such things should take.

Basically, the more experience you have, the fewer times you should need to sacrifice time for proof-of-concepts - but there'll always be a need for them :)

<comment><USER14> Well yes, I meant "every feature" for some values of "every", obviously :-) For some features the gain is not noticeable enough to justify doing the initial spike.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I would explain this concept as two kinds of life philosophy and ways to approach the future.

1) "exponential" - which gets everybody happy at the beginning and then crushing them with hard reality after things start getting more and more complex. There are a lot of real life examples of doing this and I can rarely find the one which has brought the value at the end. In software development experience I have found this very wrong.

2) "logarithmic" - when you do a lot of investments into solving the hard structural/strategic problems at beginning and then riding much more far on the benefits they provide. This approach works pretty good in real life as well like investment into fundamental understanding, saving early so accumulated benefits get higher.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is what I see: <http://i.imm.io/12ieb.jpeg>

...

</comment><comment><USER17> I don't think it is as much about "early" as it is about "intense and constrained batches of work". The "early" part of things is just a sound advice to avoid missing deadlines, but doesn't really help increase the quality of your work or reduce waste.

Early discovery to outline a draft strategy in small committee (one person is sometimes enough) helps the team with reaching velocity quickly once it gets started. The hard part is sustaining it until delivery of whatever it is you've set up as the target.

That's why sprints can be handy, reducing the amount that needs to be delivered so that the team doesn't get slowed down on a big block of work.

</comment><comment><USER18> You aren't a teenager putting off homework till the last minute

Such a common teenage response we all know it - yet it makes part of out formative years and so as professionals we need to unlearn our teenage years

</comment><comment><USER19> Seems to tackle the Pareto principle: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle>

</comment><comment><USER20> This only works if you are committed to trying out the idea and then JUNKING YOUR CRAP CODE. By the nature of coding problems, the bigger the codebase gets the worse bad decisions fester, so if you approach the early rounds as "trial and error time" and then commit to a big refactor once you DO plan out the bulk of the project, this can work. Otherwise it is easy to end up with a patchy mess.

</comment><comment><USER21> The problem I see is that this is really just your perspective of the project. It could very well be that the 0.5 gamma curve is really a hyperbolic sine (<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperbolicSine.html>). If it is, are you going to have energy at the end to take that next mountain?

</comment><comment><USER22> Perhaps more importantly, getting feedback early on your progress is incredibly important. These curves are all in 2 dimensional space, but you could very well be flying off into oblivion and not to your intended destination.

Check in with mission control (customers / clients) regularly to make sure you're on the right path.

</comment><comment><USER23> All very interesting, but where's the evidence that this actually works?

As they say - fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

</comment><comment> T-zex The relevant concept is a Parkinson's law [1]

      Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_law>

</comment><comment><USER24> This applies on broader timescales as well. Get the hard problems out of the way not just on a project, but with the harder decisions in life too (what you're learning, what you invest in, what career to pursue, who to spend time with, etc).

</comment><comment><USER25> Good idea for doing new stuff. If you do some stuff 1000 of people have done before, and hundrets of books are written about it, a good planing yields better results...

</comment><comment><USER26> In my experience, those parts aren't necessarily hard; they are hard to estimate, e.g. getting your interface pixel-perfect or interoperating with a legacy system.

</comment><comment><USER27> Or you could apply proper, professional project management methods to make sure the last 20% doesn't take half the time of the entire project.

<comment><USER4> Yes, because those methods have worked wonders so far in IT projects, including multi-hundred million dollar ones...

<comment><USER27> If you consistently have the "last 20% takes 50% of the project" situation, then your scheduling is based on wishful thinking rather than past performance.

No method guarantees project success, as can be seen from plenty of failed high-profile projects. But basic project management and estimation methods applied not only at project start, will definitely get you out of the very basic problem of "90% complete, forever".

<comment><USER4> > _If you consistently have the "last 20% takes 50% of the project" situation, > then your scheduling is based on wishful thinking rather than past > performance._

There is no "past performance" for most projects, because they are different enough to prohibit extrapolations.

The above holds for large IT projects and software construction of course.

For a small shop making indie games or for a web shop churning websites what you say is perfectly possible.

<comment><USER27> Past performance before a project start is the average of an organizations output in whatever estimation measurement is used (story points, function points, etc). Some of the most reliable up-front estimates are based on such past performance data. That the projects differ, does not prohibit extrapolation.

As a project gets underway, you get the best possible indicator, namely past performance for the specific project. If you do regular re-estimation, progress monitoring and risk management (and you should, if you are a professional PM), you might not know if you are 52 or 53% done, but you will definitely know if you are ~80% done or ~50% done.

If you want sources, read McConnell's "Software estimation" and references, or if you are in a hurry, take the bite-sized blog post about "Yesterdays weather" from Fowler: <http://martinfowler.com/bliki/YesterdaysWeather.html> which is based on the same experience and literature.

<comment><USER28> It really depends very much on the project or organisation. If you're doing anything that involves risk, creativity, innovation, or research, it's almost impossible to predict. And even projects which contain little or none of these aspects often seem to go way beyond their initial budgets.

<comment><USER27> Agreed. R&D is notoriously hard to estimate and high-risk projects require tight risk management to allow proper progress monitoring. And yes it also depend on the organization as most organizations don't even keep records of initial vs actual estimates, making estimation based on historical data hard to impossible.

As for projects going over initial budgets, that's a different problem from progress monitoring, though they often go hand in hand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's important to mention that "start now" doesn't mean "start coding now", but rather "start working now". Don't omit the planning phase.

</comment><comment><USER30> Well, but there IS something to be said for letting the idea simmer. Isn't that where ideas come from?

<comment><USER4> No, they come from thinking about problems and gaining experience with a domain.

<comment><USER30> Define "thinking".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I think there is something to be said for not dithering over how to do it too much.

It's a balance.

</comment><comment><USER32> Try this in a coding interview and you will go home early.

</comment><comment><USER33> As much as I agree to what title says, i am against to what the context explains.

</comment><comment><USER34> That's what she said?</comment>


Homeopathic HTML Solutions - <AUTHOR> http://christianheilmann.com/2013/09/03/homeopathic-html-solutions/

<comment><USER2> Is there a particular menaing to "homeopathic" in this context, or is the author just using it as a bizarre synonym for "bullshit"? If you're trying to encourage clarity, why would your post a deliberately obfuscated title?

<comment><USER3> Well according to another post in the front page, being on that front page is worth about $3K + some intangibles if you play your cards right, so there is the answer right there...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It wasn't quite clear to me what he was arguing, but if it was that people should write semantic html and not abuse div and p, I suggest he start with looking at his own website. Or try to make a modern design without said abuse. There's something ironic about a post that says "Think if what you did in HTML really gives the content meaning or if you just painted with tags." and then has this right after its body open tag:

<comment><USER4> He wasn't arguing against
 elements. He was arguing against using wrong elements.

 is fine for layouts. It's not fine for labels.

<comment><USER3> OK let's say that he's saying that, but then what does that mean? Don't use
, but use
 ? That's about it, then. He rages against 'painting with tags', but then what is 5 nested divs? It certainly doesn't add any semantic meaning, not in the way they are being used in the website.

My passive-aggressive point is that 'semantic html' is an academic concept with a peak in popularity amongst the web dev plebs around 2000 and an occasional flare-up of interest from new-ish developers who re-discover the fundamentals. CSS has failed to make add the 'presentation layer' on top of semantic html as we once thought it would. It's simply not powerful enough. For the dream of real semantic html to come true, CSS should be able to 'implicitly' add elements to the content to apply styling to, so that we can 'add' a div around the body content in order to center it on the page, to name one use case. The cold reality is that _nobody cares_ enough. Just toss in a few divs, use simple tech like html and css to make it look good, send the invoice, go home. Let the Googles of the world care about machine-readable semantics (because that's what we're talking about here - 'semantic html' is BS from a human's point of view, a human wants to have semantics _through_ styling, not separate from it!).

The continual references to 'assistive techology' in the post are especially laughable. Yes yes it's nice that blind people can use the web. Just as it is nice that people in a wheelchair can access buildings. I'm all for that, and I'd love to see more tech that allows people with bodies that function differently from those of the majority of people lead better lives. But arguing for 'semantic html' in that context is fighting wind mills and displays a gross lack of pragmatism. Let's spend our time on things that make the world better, rather than on talking about ways that would make the world better _if only_ everybody in the world changed their behavior.

<comment><USER5> > The continual references to 'assistive techology' in the post are especially > laughable. Yes yes it's nice that blind people can use the web. Just as it > is nice that people in a wheelchair can access buildings.

It's also a legal requirement in the UK for both of those things.

> Just toss in a few divs, use simple tech like html and css to make it look > good, send the invoice, go home.

Just whack in some stairs, nobody cares about the person in a wheelchair stuck at the bottom because it'd have taken longer to do things properly. Accessibility is hard, let's go shopping!

> The continual references to 'assistive techology' in the post are especially > laughable.

Would you say that to someone struggling to read your site because you didn't take the time to use the right tags?

> rather than on talking about ways that would make the world better if only > everybody in the world changed their behavior.

Screenreaders already exist, making your website accessible improves things even if nobody else does it.

I suppose I'm just confused at your anger over the suggestion that you use p for paragraphs, actually add labels to forms, use em for emphasis, section for sections and h1-h6 for headings. Is it really that hard?

<comment><USER3> "I suppose I'm just confused at your anger"

Oh I'm not angry, that's just my way of talking. You should meet me in person some time, it's fun, really ;)

"over the suggestion that you use p for paragraphs, actually add labels to forms, use em for emphasis, section for sections and h1-h6 for headings. Is it really that hard?"

Oh no it's not, and everybody should do it. That's not what the 'semantic web' or 'semantic html' is though. But if he's going to talk about grandiose subjects like 'semantic html', then the discussion is about that, and 'semantic html' is dead and buried. If he just wants to say 'use p/label/em/hx appropriately', then just say so, don't bury it under pseudo-philosophical waxing (but then again, his post wouldn't have made HN, so as it is, mission accomplished, right?)

<comment><USER5> > That's not what the 'semantic web' or 'semantic html' is though

Semantic web != semantic html. Maybe that's the source of the problem here. The article says absolutely nothing about the semantic web.

Semantic html is _absolutely_ about using tags correctly.

<comment><USER3> "Semantic web != semantic html"

True, in the sense that "sustainability != solar power". They're different concepts that cannot be compared "by equality", to speak in those terms; but semantic html certainly is part of the semantic web.

Of course we can go around and redefine "semantic html" to mean "use
 instead of
, a heavily diluted interpretation of "semantic html" as it was conceived in the context of "the semantic web". And I cannot argue with the point that "semantic html" is being used that way sometimes, maybe even increasingly so. Now I have no interest in letting this discussion degenerate into linguistics, semiotics and descriptivism vs prescriptivism, but if we _are_ to use that watered down definition, the whole article loses what could potentially have made it interesting and descends into 'duh' territory.

<comment><USER5> > Of course we can go around and redefine "semantic html" to mean "use
 > instead of
,

Redefine? I'm pretty sure it hasn't meant anything different. It's about semantically marking up a document.

> but if we are to use that watered down definition, the whole article loses > what could potentially have made it interesting and descends into 'duh' > territory.

But you assumed it was around that, then said that was dead. The other definition (the one wikipedia and everyone else seems to use) is something that lots of people still don't follow. Did you see the "new way of writing" last week? That had an article structure but didn't mark it up properly, screwing with the order when you removed CSS and made a big block of json invisible on the page.

In fact you yourself said:

> Just toss in a few divs, use simple tech like html and css to make it look > good, send the invoice, go home

Can you see why that sounds exactly like the people who don't use things like
, , etc? The same people that won't bother putting in alt tags because 'nobody reads them'? In fact, XKCD is an example of buggering this simple thing up. HN is built out of tables, where replies are indented with a spacing gif. Basic semantic HTML is _not_ commonplace.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> After spending the weekend playing with the new web component stuff, I have a feeling that HTML is going to be written for humans again. Layout and Interactive 'sugar' can be hidden away leaving the content and hierarchy that we want to read or write.

On the down side, it's adding a fractal dimension to an already complex system, and things will probably get 'weird' until developers come up with new working patterns.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is really bad advice.

He's suggesting that we make our CSS selectors more complex while simplifying our HTML to make it more semantic.

While semantic HTML is a nice idea, it's not worth doing at the expense of well, basically anything else. It doesn't affect search engine ranking and there are easier ways to support assistive technologies (ARIA).

Making your selectors more complex comes with a great cost. Suddenly changes that would normally be simple cause cascading changes throughout your stylesheet and document because CSS is not very modular and complex selectors tightly couple multiple rules to your document structure.

This isn't an opinion or a matter of style. It is a simple, fundamental fact of computer science: that increasing coupling tends to make maintainability harder due to the number of cascading changes since multiple components depend on one another. And advocating Heydon Pickering's technique tightly couples your selectors to your particular document structure. Worse, it does so implicitly -- if you at least use class selectors this coupling is explicit and easier to reason about.

If he instead advocated something like SMACSS you'd have much more maintainable code.

<comment><USER8> I'm new to web development, so I haven't dealt with a truly hairy stylesheet yet (though I've had plenty of experience with overcoupled and hard to maintain code). Do you think tools like Sass can help alleviate some of these CSS problems? I've heard that some people who go crazy with Sass end up with a couple thousand selectors, yet the organization and logic helps them manage the complexity.

<comment><USER7> Variables are certainly awesome, but it's easy to get stuck in a situation where you generate giant stylesheets. It also doesn't really solve the selector modularity problem :/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not bad points about HTML/CSS maintainability...but I'm disappointed that the homeopathy analogy wasn't actually used. Now I'm racking my head trying to think of amusing homeopathic-like coding practices...because even coding has its share of superstitious rituals.

I guess the closest might be, programming by coincidence/accidental implementation: [http://pragprog.com/the-pragmatic- programmer/extracts/coinci...](http://pragprog.com/the-pragmatic- programmer/extracts/coincidence)

<comment><USER10> I read the first few sentences of the post, saw what it was about (okay, fine), and then searched the page for "homeopath" to see if he actually referred to homeopathy at all.

How do you apply homeopathic concepts to web development?

Superstitious coding is one thing, programming by "random changes until it works" is another, but none of them approach the illogic of homeopathy (find a poison that mimics the symptoms you want to cure, then dilute it in water so much that there's very likely no actual poison molecules left in your sample, then consume that).

I'm unable to conceive of a development equivalent. That's the main reason I clicked on the article.

<comment><USER11> _My code was broken. So I fixed it. Then, after testing, I removed the fix, because the surrounding code will remember the fix even in its absence._

It's actually telling that the development equivalent of homeopathy is so obviously nonsense that no one would actually do it.

<comment><USER10> It's worse than that, because you're forgetting the principal of "like cures like" (you "treat" the person with water that's remembering the _poison_ that would cause similar symptoms to their disease).

But you have a good start. Here's real homeopathic coding, then:

 _My code was performing poorly. So I created a new module that would run several time-wasting loops... then I gradually removed all of the code from my new module (so it does nothing). Then I linked it with my existing codebase - now my code should perform much better!_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Glad to see that semantic HTML is being promoted here. There are a lot of programmers who think doing everything in
's and
's is "just fine".

</comment><comment><USER13> so, plain text then?</comment>