Tell HN: Rejected from Y Combinator? Don't be upset or quit - <AUTHOR> I've spoken to a few people who got rejected by YC and they take it too personally.
In this business, you're going to be rejected a lot! If you received the famous YC rejection email, keep pressing forward.
Honestly, if this slows you down, then you're most likely doing something wrong anyhow. <comment><USER2> Would love to see the anti portfolio list of YC.[1]

FWIW - We have been rejected 3 times from YC over the last 3 years. We did not take it personally as OP said, put our heads down and got working on our startup.

After lot of hard work, setbacks and near death experiences, we are now currently growing ~10% MoM and generating millions in ARR. YC or any other investor/accelerator should never be the make or break thing for a startup - it should be your own judgement call on whether you want to continue or not based on market feedback.

[1] - [https://www.bvp.com/portfolio/anti- portfolio](https://www.bvp.com/portfolio/anti-portfolio)

<comment><USER3> BVP's anti-portfolio is absolutely beautiful. It's so difficult to tell a success from a failure.

Sequoia, on the other hand . . .

<comment><USER4> What do you mean? Those companies were all successes

<comment><USER3> Exactly! They failed to see the value in any of them.

<comment> m-p-3 To be fair it's almost like gambling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's something that was in the original rejection letter from the Summer Founders Program that should ring true in the mind of everyone rejected:

'It's quite likely, in fact, practically certain, that groups we rejected will go on to create successful startups. _If you do, we 'd appreciate it if you'd send us an email making fun of us;_ we want to learn from our mistakes.'

Granted, this year it's been replaced with the less fun/personal:

'It's practically certain that groups we rejected will go on to create successful startups. If you do, we'd sincerely appreciate it if you'd send us an email telling us about it; we very much want to learn from our mistakes.'

Don't take your rejection letter as "You aren't good enough," take it as a challenge to get to the point where you can make fun of them honestly and with a grin.

<comment><USER3> It's worth noting that both 500Startups and Techstars exist, and are probably the closest things to YC that aren't YC, if you're looking for something like it.

<comment><USER5> angelpad [0] too!

[0] [https://angelpad.org/](https://angelpad.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some introspection from someone who did take it personally at first:

We applied to YC last winter and got an interview, but ultimately we weren't accepted.

As a founder you're obviously incredibly enthusiastic about your idea and think it's brilliant, and YC is usually an early stop in a company's life. So, to hear a 'no' from a well-respected source before you even really get started is definitely an ego blow.

What mostly sucks about getting rejected is that YC says repeatedly that they accept teams, not products. So when we were rejected, I immediately took it as a personal affront: Clearly they didn't like me, my co-founder, or our dynamic, all of which inspired that (admittedly immature) defense mechanism of "We're great people, so you're dumb and wrong!"

However.

Once we had gotten over it and gone through the ringer of raising funding, you start taking it significantly less personally. Some VCs don't believe in entire sectors of businesses, so it's an automatic 'no' if you're in one of them. People can and will say 'no' because they're having a bad day, or you remind them of someone they don't like, or they had a bad experience with a similar company. Not that there aren't nuggets of wisdom to be gained from the 'no's, because obviously there are, but not every failure is a lesson necessarily.

All that to say, I think it's ok to take it a little personally. Maybe you should, even. But then you have to get back on the horse and get back to it.

</comment><comment><USER7> We applied to YC once and were rejected. Didn't take it personally but since we were in a very early stage, we dropped the idea.

I've personally found the YC application extremely gratifying to write. It does help you answer those key difficult questions that you'd have otherwise glossed over because of complacency or over confidence. What I've thought of doing is to fill the YC application for the next idea that I get and keep refining it as I build upon the idea. Kinda use the application as a good idea refining template. If at any stage you feel that you are confident in all the questions, you can either apply - literally no cost or just keep building. Having solid answers to all the questions - means that your idea has some potential of turning into something big. Of course, your idea could turn out to be a better business even without having all the answers. What I've experienced is that as you write the answers, you'll feel really confident if you are doing the right thing.

Another aspect in the application that I had a conflict with my co-founder at the time was the amount of time to spend on the application. He was anal about getting every aspect of the application right. We shot the video like a 100 times. I contented that was unnecessary but eventually agreed to disagree. I feel that if you are on the right track, you shouldn't spend more than a couple of hours on the final application, regardless of the stage you are applying at.

It takes some practice to get the video right. This again depends on the co- founder dynamics. I would use the video prep as a proxy to estimate the efficacy of the co-founder dynamics. If you took really long to nail the video - I'd spend some time introspecting. All said and done, if you take a really long time just to nail a video, how would you fare in dealing with more complicated company decisions.

So IMHO there is a lot of value in writing the YC app, regardless of whether you make it or not.

<comment><USER8> I was initially quite frustrated with the amount of time that my cofounder spent on honing pitches.

I came to really appreciate it, having someone who can maintain that obsessive focus on pitch decks usually translates quite well into an obsessive focus on product. If a person is obsessive and has had a lot of past success, they're probably obsessive about the right things.

<comment><USER7> Yep, I agree but such an obsessive focus comes at a cost of execution speed. In the early stages I'd rather be fast and a bit sloppy than be slow and perfect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Don't be upset or quit, but I think it's also good to wonder why. Perhaps it's just not a VC opportunity; are you okay with growing a more organic company with smaller revenue? Maybe you're not a clear communicator; do you need to work at it or is your idea hard to communicate? Is that indicative of a problem?

We got a rejection letter this morning. Definitely not going to quit. We hit a quarter million in our first year, cracked a tough technical problem, and are significantly growing end-user usage every week. We got one video view, so it's prompted to me to dial back the confidence and write a list of all the reasons our application was thrown out and that process has been very helpful.

Also, remember YC has open sourced a ton of its knowledge (Startup School, Stanford Course, PG essays, Sam Altman Playbook), so if you read a bit every week you have their guidance for free. And maybe you'll be better prepared for a Series A 9 months from now after getting into the next batch. Life's about good timing.

</comment><comment><USER10> Or maybe quit and re seed the DNA of your founding team. People get into YC all the time without an idea. It's about the people.

I know someone who literally spent a year finding roommates and living with them in advance in order to cultivate a better YC application.

It's competitive, and 99.9% of the rejected will end up failing.

It's hard to listen and put in the effort but it's worthwhile, having a chip on your shoulder doesn't really make you more productive often it slows you down because you're working in circles to address your emotional needs rather than really listening to the business feedback.

OK, just some ranting from someone who has been rejected by YC for over 10 years now (not really something I want to brag about) but has been fortunate enough to receive investment and grooming from other fine people in the business community.

Keep at it (I kept at it and I'm honestly loving the results) but maybe really change and listen.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's now overrated anyway. You can hear it from many people unaffiliated with YC, but even some recent YC founders.

It's now mostly "YC stamp of approval" that increases your brand and access to good investors on demo day.

Everything else (e.g. educational value, sense of community) gets degraded due to huge batch sizes (294 founders in S17) and most of the things YC teaches becoming public knowledge.

<comment><USER12> > It's now mostly "YC stamp of approval" that increases your brand and access > to good investors on demo day.

I have experience with small business, although not with YC. Those benefits are MASSIVE and should not be underestimated.

<comment><USER11> > Good investors on demo day

IMO investors ability to invest in startups have improved. If top investors are not able to find you on your own, you are not likely to get the check from them anyway. I speak it from position of not going to YC, but doing in-person pitches with half of "top 10" VCs, and some of those with partners.

The only exception may be if you are not outside of current investment trends, but you are making lots of revenue. In such case you probably shouldn't get VC money anyway.

> YC stamp of approval

That would indeed have helped in some situations. It's case by case call whether it's worth the equity. Just be sure you don't do it for vanity to show off your friends that you got into YC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> We applied I think in 2010, got rejected. This was when YC was still fairly young. so arguably competition was even less than it is today.

Our company now does over $100M ARR and still growing. We learned a lot along the way, to be fair, I don't think I would have accepted us either at the time. Just take it as a learning experience and get better, don't let rejection stop you. I couldn't tell you how many "NOs" we've gotten in our company's lifespan.

</comment><comment><USER14> Pieter Levels(pieterhg) is the creator of: \- [https://nomadlist.com/](https://nomadlist.com/) \- [https://remoteok.io/](https://remoteok.io/) \- [https://hoodmaps.com/](https://hoodmaps.com/) Was apparently YC reject too and posted this on his twitter today for some inspiration; [https://mobile.twitter.com/levelsio/status/98653081431266099...](https://mobile.twitter.com/levelsio/status/986530814312660993) He is super nice guy too.!!!

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a bit of a tangent, but if you don't get in, don't read into it too much. The rejection could be due to many factors. It could very well be that you were rejected by the stage of your company. You may not have built out enough, or haven't had enough validation yet. I know a solo founder who didn't get in, but went on to raise 20m plus for his company (tuition.io). The fact that he was a solo founder and that he was still developing the product could have been the issue of why he was rejected. He went along to create a company that has 50+ employees. This is all to say you really have to develop the idea and see where your traction is to validate your idea. YC is a great organization to have backing you, but it's not always perfect in selecting great companies. Learn from the rejection, and apply those lessons, but commit to building a company.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've been rejected from YC at every stage, but I still think there is a lot of value in building relationships with the community. There are tons of people from all sides of the spectrum that you can learn from and apply again. Also YC gives away so many of their secrets if you just pay attention and know where to look.

<comment><AUTHOR> I feel the same way. I'm moving to Mountain View and wouldn't have an issue helping companies that need it.

It's emotionally hard even with YC Family supporting you.

</comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands I've always felt more people should spend some time in sales to harden their skin a little bit. Anything, including running a startup and being successful is a numbers game.

If you change your mindset from, "Oh we got rejected, we must be doing something wrong." to "Oh we got rejected, it just means we're now closer to getting accepted by some other incubator, VC, angle investor, etc."

The guys I worked with in several startups took rejection as a badge of honor. It just meant you were getting closer, not further away from your goal.

<comment><USER17> This is how I view the rejection. I was mildly disappointed and I mean _super_ mild. I look forward to getting my product better and reapplying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My plan is to print and frame the rejection and use it as a motivator. For me it was an accomplishment to reach a point where I felt I had a solid submission. I know a few things (at least) I can improve for the next time I submit. So, time to get to work.

</comment><comment><USER19> I have a related question. I had an idea many years ago and I've poked at it irregularly since. I have kids and I've already had one startup fail, so I just kind of slow-rolled this one.

I still believe the idea has merit, so I keep poking at it here and there. I spent money on design work and it's incorporated, but I don't have a partner or support mechanism.

I had a BizSpark account, but I "graduated" in February, so I can't host the API for free anymore. I was considering redeveloping the API in serverless AWS, but that will take time. I have a working API in .NET Web API.

So I'm I'm missing a place to deploy my API (and an Identity Server implementation for OAuth2) and an iOS developer to implement the designs.

Looking for advice...and sure, it may sound like I don't care enough and that's the death of many a startup, but I do care. I want to see the app completed and get a chance to work on the business model (and since it's a social networking app, that's no small thing).

[http://wizely.net](http://wizely.net)

All the good and bad advice is welcome.

<comment><USER20> How does this beat the results you would get from Google search?

<comment><USER19> If you use Google to search "I need clothes for college", what do you get? Is it actually helpful? Google doesn't know what school you go to, who you like to hang out with, what you do for fun, if you're male or female (well it does, but it's not used in search results that I can tell).

It's all about context. A system of advice and recommendations curated from a social network, heavily moderated and limited to short Twitter-sized pieces of text could help people solve problems in under a minute.

As it is now, you often have to "manage" your search process because you have to wade through all of the subjective material or you really don't know the right question to ask or what your root need is.

How about this? "I need SSL on my stage website."

Good luck finding the answer on google if you can't get SSL to work and you didn't know there was a load balancer stripping it out.

Quora and Yahoo Answers are a bastion of redirected content, incoherent answers, and they're really just entertainment. They provide a largely hit or miss solution.

With Wizely, for each Topic, the network gets to continually add context they see relevant.

The proposed business model is that there could be ads found contextually. "I need to replace a patio door" could lead to ads from Home Depot, Lowe's, and Menard's. There would be an opt-in click-through to advertisers websites with hard warnings about being tracked. All ads would be heavily moderated (no 100% self-serve advertising).

<comment><USER19> Also, your external searches will have no impact on what you do within the Wizely network and vice versa. So if you look "I need to buy a car" and traverse the Q&A tree, you won't later see car ads all over your browser (for those not using adblock). One of the core ideas is to flip the ad model so it disproportionally benefits the user, not the advertisers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It is also worth noting that the difference between bootstrapping and getting into an incubator is about speed of execution, not long-term success. YC is an option, not a requirement, to start your own thing.

</comment><comment><USER22> There are many stages for a nascent startup to fail. Getting into the incubator is only the first step, and perhaps the easiest to give up at. I would encourage all people who got rejected to fail-fast and _keep trying_.

I have a friend who got into an incubator with a crypto idea and very positive feedback on the idea. Six months after funding, the whole thing imploded due to personal conflict. At the time, my friend had recently up with his girlfriend of five years and the venture ran out of steam. They ended up returning the money to investors. When the crypto bubble hit he was kicking himself having just missed out.

After that, he took a break to go overseas and recuperate. As I write this, my friend has just closed a $1m seed round for his next project and is well on the way to rolling it out. Last night he popped the question to his now fiance. It's important to remember that startups are a marathon, not a sprint. Roll with the punches, learn from your mistakes and keep on hustling :).

<comment><USER23> On the flip side, the toughest thing sometimes with startups is to decide when to draw that line in the sand where you can say "okay, this isn't working, time to move on." You tend to bias yourself and your success. The YC partners are smart and have generally been right every single time when something I was working on wasn't going to work.

<comment><USER24> Your comment echos a conversation I was having with my wife the other day as she was reading me bits from Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance Book by Angela Duckworth.

As you might infer from the title the thesis is that Grit is a very powerful force. My comment in our discussion was that this whole body of social science research and life/career advice comes into conflict with other bodies of advice about cutting one's losses, the value of killing 'failing' projects early, avoiding the trap of sunk costs.

How do we personally know or offer advice to others about whether current difficulties are likely to be overcome by renewed effort and persistence and when do we say it isn't working, try something very different?

<comment><USER25> There are some examples of people plugging away on a 'failed' project for _decades_ and eventually striking it rich.

<comment><USER24> Indeed, and that is the lure. And, when we read stories like that we get motivated to press on and never give up. But who writes the stories of someone who worked on a failed project for 20 years and never got anywhere? If we persist what are the odds that we will be the one for whom it works out?

The question of when to persist, how long to persist and how to pay the bills while you persist are very personal to me.

In 2000 I and a friend did research and the very beginnings of development on a semantic analysis technique that was notably better than anything we could find at the time including from Google and other search engines. But we couldn't find money fast enough and we both had families to support so we went our separate ways and did other things that were more commercial.

About 7 years later VCs started funding similar technologies. And, somewhere around 2010 to 2013 technology seemed to have caught up to where we were at in 2000.

So should we have persisted? It kind of seems like we should have. But, I have seen enough of life to know that sometimes a group of people have a lot going for them, winning awards, raising funding, rolling out product and still end up running into a roadblock on the way to commercial success that sinks them.

<comment><USER23> Timing sometimes matters a whole lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Participate in the Startup School is something that any rejected startup should do, imho. It is true many rejected people will do great companies, so invest time in knowledge is better that be down for a simple rejection.

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

<comment><USER17> Nice, thanks for this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Been rejected twice, now on pace to do 5 million+ in revenue for 2018 without giving up any equity. My business was never really a fit for VC anyway.

</comment><comment><USER28> Rejection is part of life. You lick your wounds and move on.

My cofounder and I don't regret applying. We did it mostly for publicity. We already have pretty good traction and funding so the rejection doesn't really slow us down. I never thought we had much of a shot getting accepted anyway just because our team and product are really out of the norm.

Let your haters be your motivators.

</comment><comment><USER29> Rejected twice, now. I second this. It's annoying to be rejected, but it's important not to be dispirited.

Keep pushing on and don't let a YC rejection bother you too much. As mrburton said, if it slows you down, you're probably doing something wrong.

Honestly, bootstrapping can be very advantageous to your startup because it keeps you on your toes.

</comment><comment><USER30> We were rejected this past winter. It was a little disappointing, but not surprising. A lot of amazing companies apply to YC and we weren't really ready. We learned a lot by getting rejected and might try again later, especially since we got a "you were in the top 10%, try again" email.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm very interested to see statistics on "% of people from the US who were accepted" vs. "% of people from other countries who were accepted", divided by country. YC's general statement "29% of the companies were from outside the US" is not equal to my question. I feel the bias somewhere here. Non-native speakers have much harder times because of different basic things like the language barrier, but something tells me that the US-based people are in priority.

<comment><USER31> That's much more upsetting than rejection itself. You can make some garbage like Juicero, and, being located in the US, still get investments and some knowledge. And for outsider countries, as there are no adequate investors, YC can provide much more impact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> There are tons of incubators and VC around the country. Surely these people didn't apply to just one? or does YC have exclusivity requirements?

<comment><USER33> Because the distance between YC and the next best incubator is measured in light years (imo)

<comment><USER34> I suspect YC has become similar to the Ivy League schools, in that its primary value is in signaling and networking, rather than the education itself.

<comment><USER20> Ironically this makes the whole thing very un-entrepreneurial. People 'studying for the test' to compete to get in. Almost employee/herd like. You cannot be upset about not getting in, or at least minimise the time you're upset, give it 5 minutes and get back to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I highly recommend anyone doubting themselves to watch the g-eazy episode from Netflix's documentary series Rapture.

If you quit, you'll never make it ( and that's ok ) but if you keep working, keep honing your craft, you might just make it big. Take every failure as a lesson that something needs tweaking. When you play a game, you only get better by dying lots and lots and lots of times.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is ridiculous. Rejection sucks, and it will likely slow you down a little bit for some time. That's okay, and it is okay to feel bad. Over time, however, you will get over it and become better because of it. But if you are slowed down you aren't doing anything wrong, you are human.

</comment><comment><USER37> I agree. They're so swamped with applications they don't even look at demos sometimes - they didn't look at mine, which hurt, but I understand why they rejected us (no growth even though we have a LOT of positive feedback, but we really need money to make it grow).

</comment><comment><USER38> Do we have to refill founder info section while reapplying to YC or just startup info and progress ? Didn't keep backup of founder info.

<comment><USER39> My recollection is that some of the founder info fields got blanked. Save it if you think you'll want it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> If YC is good at what it does, and I think it is, then being rejected by YC should cause you to lower your estimated probability that your start-up will succeed, at least a little. The question is how much.

<comment><USER41> "Attrition is a group statistic. It doesn't apply to me"

[https://josephwalla.com/attrition-is-a-group-statistic-it- do...](https://josephwalla.com/attrition-is-a-group-statistic-it-dont-apply- to-me)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> YC is legacy, don't apply. ICOs are technically better and you don't have to uproot your life to go to SF. Additionally it doesn't have to gate out 99% of the public with the accredited investor scam.

The connections seem nice and everyone is talented obviously.</comment>


Old computer ads - <AUTHOR> http://www.dvq.com/oldcomp/oldads.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> Pure gold! I would spend as much time needed to go through all of them.

Few clicks in I found this one: [http://www.dvq.com/ads/ncr_321_sa_12_64.jpg](http://www.dvq.com/ads/ncr_321_sa_12_64.jpg)

And this is the one that got me searching on the topic (April 1970 commercial of a plotter connecting to a teletype and other sort of terminals): [http://www.dvq.com/ads/tsp_dm_4_70.jpg](http://www.dvq.com/ads/tsp_dm_4_70.jpg)</comment>


Show HN: RemindMe – A PWA Showcasing Notification Triggers - <AUTHOR> https://remindme.lamplightdev.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> RemindMe is an experimental app to showcase background notifications in the browser.

It makes use of Notification Triggers, an experimental API to schedule local notifications that don't require a network connection. Currently Chrome is the only browser that has an implementation of Notification Triggers.</comment>


Can a robot write books? Yes, and they're absolutely terrible. - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/10/books-by-a-robot-an-investigation-into-an-amazoncom-mystery/246996/#.TqA25rGnoUU.hackernews <comment><USER2> I think you look into too much the word "book".

The books you're thinking is a type of content. But if you look at book as a delivery technology (a stack of paper together) then its perfectly reasonable to have generated books, just like you have generated pdf reports with generated charts and graphs.

To make the kind of book you and I think of as content (novels, investigative journalism, etc...) using a pure AI/machine approach is still a bit away.

Personally, I'm experimenting AI + human solution to create the kind of books most people would want to read.

You are probably referring to this man.

"Philip M. Parker (born June 20, 1960) holds the INSEAD Chair Professorship of Management Science at INSEAD (Fontainebleau, France). He has patented a method to automatically produce a set of similar books from a template which is filled with data from database and internet searches.[1] At Amazon.com, Parker is listed as the author of 107,000 books that his program created and overall he claims to have produced 200,000 different titles.[2][3] This would make him one of the most prolific authors in the world. Parker publishes the automated books through ICON Group International, using several ICON group subheadings. Via EdgeMaven Media, he also provides applications for firms from different business domains to create their own computer-authored content material.[4][5]"

See: * [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/business/media/14link.html...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/business/media/14link.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1319130153-hklXOkF7+spMHNqafbUt8w) * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_M._Parker>

</comment><comment><USER3> The New York Times ran a more detailed story a few years ago about a computer programmer somewhere in Southern California who had thousands of titles on Amazon written by a Perl script. As that article explained, certain large libraries buy just about any title published. It was effectively a scam to get these institutions to pony up a couple hundred dollars each for bound copies of Wikipedia copypasta.

</comment><comment><USER4> I, too, was hoping this article would be about _The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed_.

It has, however, filled me with a desire to write a script that writes novels (which I could then sell on Amazon). Perhaps I'll do that for this year's NaNoWriMo.

</comment><comment><USER5> These are relatively simple programs, which should be easy to stop. More concerning is the usage of computer programs that compose original material. Using learning techniques, researchers have written programs capable of creating original cs papers from a given corpus (ie SCIgen, and other techniques). How long until we see junk books created by these more intelligent (and much harder to detect) algorithms?

<comment><USER6> <http://xkcd.com/810/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A much more interesting story (that you can also buy on amazon) is The Policeman's beard is half constructed. A book of short form literature and poems written by AI in the 80s. <http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0446380512/>

<comment><USER8> RACTER was a hoax. It was basically a fill-in-the-blanks program using templates that the author, William Chamberlain, fed it. <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/RACTER>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I worked on a natural language processing project as my required directed study in college. We focused on language generation and took an extremely naïve approach to the problem since it turns out that literature on alternative types of language generation (as opposed to simple generation from _n_ -grams) is not well-proliferated.

Needless to say, it was very hard. Semantic representation by itself is very difficult to tackle; AI in general far off from simulating the wit and ingenuity of a human being's writing, though I don't believe it will be like that forever.

For the curious: we didn't get very far into the project, but our next move was going to be trying to combine WordNet, FrameNet, and VerbNet to create stories that sounded like they described something plausible. We only got a bit past "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously," though.

It's something that I say I want to hack on again someday, but I don't know if I will. The two of us have other code projects right now.

<comment><USER10> Not that your comment is wrong in any manner but I must admit that I cannot understand its relationship with the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> 1) old news.

2) give it time...</comment>


Best Resume Ever: How to Woo a Startup - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ridejoy.com/how-to-woo-a-startup-the-best-resume-ever/ <comment><USER2> Killjoy, I know, but you'd probably want to have permission from Spoon (or, more likely, Merge Records) before repurposing their most popular track commercially.

Similarly, annoying as it probably sounds, virtually anything a startup would ever want to do with a piece of music anyone has heard of before† is probably not kosher. On the flip side, there's thousands of amazingly talented musicians willing to record tracks for tiny amounts of money, so maybe investigate that instead of just grabbing random tracks from iTunes.

The obvious and (please presume) prolific apologies apply if rights to You Got Yr Cherry Bomb were secured for this. Totally possible.

† _Including but not limited to putting it center stage on a cheerful and uplifting branded company blog post about resumes._

<comment><USER3> Good point! My understanding, from speaking with the SlideRocket team, is that it's kosher to use another artist's song as your presentation soundtrack as long as you attribute the song in your presentation somewhere. But if I were doing a similar project in the future, I'd absolutely love to work with a musician to record something - that's a terrific suggestion.

EDIT: Just spoke directly with a representative at SlideRocket, Sogol Motiey, who says, "Nope! No copyright issues."

<comment><USER2> Pretty sure that's totally not true, but, boy would I ever like to be proven wrong about this. As I understand it, and excuse the language, but attribution has fuck-all to do with the rights to music.

There's a whole market for "royalty-free music" (all of which costs money, but at least doesn't cost money _per view_ ) that exists entirely --- again, as I understand it --- because you can't just use random copyrighted songs in presentations, on websites, &c.

Sliderocket even links to some of these sites on an article about adding audio to presentations:

[http://www.sliderocket.com/blog/2010/07/incredible- presentat...](http://www.sliderocket.com/blog/2010/07/incredible- presentations-5-amazing-audio-resources/)

Note conspicuous lack of "and if you like Apples In Stereo, just drag an MP3 into this window and make sure to say thank you in your presentation". :)

In any case, so I don't sound too much like a message-board-crazy, let me at least commend you on your taste in music. At least it wasn't Ke$ha.

<comment><USER4> This might be a good place to get started: <http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Copyright>

Here's some more on "Fair Use": <http://www.benedict.com/Info/FairUse/FairUse.aspx>

<comment><USER2> A very good source on fair use:

[http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...](http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/)

Note the "four factors" in fair use:

* The extent to which the use _transforms_ the original work

* The _nature_ of the work being used

* The _amount and substantiality_ of the use

* The _effect_ of the use on the market

I'm pretty sure soundtracking your resume with almost the entirety of a signed band's most popular track flunks all these tests --- charming though that resume is.

I'm actually not at all concerned about musical resumes --- seriously, does Britt Daniel care about resumes? Of course he doesn't --- so much as the mentality at startups that this stuff is always going to be kosher. Not so. HN just got finished shellacking a different YC company over this exact issue.

Be careful about music, is all I'm really saying.

<comment><USER5> You're correct that this would fail a fair-use test. Once it went up on a blog it's akin to a public performance, and use of the master recording should be licensed.

It is improbable that someone is going to issue a DMCA letter because of this, but it does (to your point) outline a couple of problems in S.V., one of which is the misconception that "It's not stealing if you attribute the artist" is widespread. And incorrect, at least for anything (c)All Rights Reserved.

If in doubt, it's a good idea for startups to consult their attorney (and not the PM, or lead engineer, or friend-in-a-band) when in doubt when using music, art, or what-have-you in public fora.

<comment><USER2> Everything is "(c) All Rights Reserved" unless it specifically says otherwise, just to clarify a superficial point.

So am I crazy or did whoever this person talk to at Sliderocket give her ludicrously bad advice?

<comment><USER6> tonecluser responded to the wrong person, but you're both right - that was very bad advice. There are definite copyright problems here.

Even if they could win this in court (which they probably couldn't), it's certainly not so cut and dry that anyone would just say 'nope, no problems, carry on' and be done with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not trying to be a buzz-kill. It's a neat idea, sure...

1\. It's too slow. I want to know about you, now. I'm a fast reader and want to get on with reading at my own pace, not the pace you've decided to have fancy transitions slide in.

2\. I don't have a ton of time to sit through this.

3\. There is no detail. You show logos of some impressive places you've (presumably) worked... but... what did you do there? What did you learn? How will that experience make you a good fit at company x?

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree that if this was the only thing Margot sent, it would not be as compelling. But she also sent a resume and an exceptionally well-written cover letter with a lot of great ideas about how she'd engage the Ridejoy community (we ask for 5 ideas from all job applicants).

I think we would have at least phone screened her without this video slideshow, but it took us from "interested" to "wow, this girl looks super legit and really wants this job". If you're a job applicant, that might be worth a lot.

<comment><USER8> I now see what I was competing with. Great choice!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not sure if this is too adorable (adorkable?) for Hacker News, but it's certainly relevant!

It's a bit irrational to put this much effort into a job app-- but it's also an incredibly strong positive signal.

For early-stage startups, passion for the space, the people, makes a huge difference. You don't just want the right skills and talent (which Margot also had in abundance), you want people who care.

(And of course, we're hiring a lead designer and engineer: <http://www.ridejoy.com/jobs/>. Don't worry, preparing a slideshow is not actually necessary.)

<comment><USER10> _It's a bit irrational to put this much effort into a job app_

It's perfectly rational if you're being savvy about how you approach your job search. If you're playing a numbers game and sending out 200 resumes a day to jobs you're poorly qualified to work at, this is very irrational, since it will not meaningfully increase your hit rate but will severely decrease the amount of resume spam you're capable of. Don't do that.

If, on the other hand, you've done your research and know that there are three positions out there you'd be perfect for, spending two hours (or ten hours) on a sales presentation is a pretty good use of your time. The NPV of a job upgrade, particularly from unemployed or student to "first gainful employment in a meanginful role", is _staggering_. Heck, I'd do this just to close consulting sales if I thought it would meaningfully affect outcomes -- it's a LOT less work than often goes into getting five figure engagements on the calendar.

Now is it the best possible job search tactic ever? No. Major points for creativity, and "do the job before you have the job" is one of the most effective things you can do in sales, but you'd probably do even better to get a warm intro to the hiring manager and convince them in person that you're the perfect candidate for the position. The resume is optional at that point, but if you've already met them, you're essentially guaranteed that they'll actually review it. (The likelihood of falling out of the funnel before your content is even seen is a major reason why I would suggest not just e.g. throwing one of these into someone's inbox and praying.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm a big proponent of resumes that show personality and break the mold. Do a search for examples of designer resumes and you'll see how much of a person can be expressed through just the design choices, while still expressing all of the relevant content that you expect.

I've heard from resume screeners that a lot of them are told to throw out anything that doesn't match one of the standard formats, or that has color. But do you want to work for a company that imposes such arbitrary, or at the very least stale, rules from the get-go? I think the corporations (generally larger ones) that have these kinds of restrictions could be missing out on the most creative and self-driven employees.

<comment><USER12> Thinking about it, I am absolutely certain that I'm not interested in working for a company that would throw out resumes with color.

In fact, I'm going to have to add color to my resume now just so that I don't accidentally get an offer from a company like that. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Too long, didn't watch.

Seriously though, she could learn a thing or two about brevity and efficiently communicating a message. I lost interest quickly.

<comment><USER2> Your patience apparently didn't carry you to the part of the post where she got the job because of this presentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Unrelated but something that irritates me with company blogs is no easy link to view to product/go to homepage. I keep clicking logos on the page trying to reach their homepage and see what their company is about, but it's all in vain, I get frustrated and leave. I know I could manually type it in but I'm too stubborn.

<comment><USER15> I've noticed this more and more too. Blogs often have the same design/layout as the actual site, but when you click on the company logo in the top left, it links to the blog home page, not the company site home page.

Hate that!

<comment><AUTHOR> Great feedback! We just edited the blog layout to make our logo go to ridejoy.com!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Wow now that's a great use of an awesome piece of software. I wasn't expecting that.

Putting myself in the shoes of an employer, this would be an instant win. It shows she took the time to put something together that's more than just a resume. However, I don't know how well this will fly with a large multi- national company (think IBM, Alcatel, etc). That's why I like startups, they're usually filled with happy people and good ideas.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is awesome. I love her initiative and even more I love how the guys at ridejoy responded in kind. Really shows they love what they do and are having a great time.

<comment><USER3> Aw, thanks so much! I was absolutely blown away by how Ridejoy reciprocated; I honestly wasn't expecting that at all. (I may even have teared up slightly, but I'll never tell!) They're an incredible team and I am so lucky to be working here.

<comment><USER18> Congrats, Margot. Have a great time working with Jason & Crew!

<comment><USER3> Thanks, Zachary! Looking forward to an awesome, if crazy ride with an exceptional bunch. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but what does it mean to "Mainline RSS Feeds"? (slide 12 from the link)

<comment><USER20> To consume them intravenously, as one would cocaine or heroin.

<comment> steve-howard I did that once, but a typographical error landed me in the hospital for months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Looking at all this incredible talent makes my mind boggle with amazement. It's more than just the skill, it's being able to reach out to people in innovative ways that make the best impression. Pumping up a resume seems to be less and less relevant than showing what kind of person you are.

</comment><comment><USER22> yeah, I'm too old for this.

<comment><USER23> That's a lot of work to go through just for an _application_... How to _"woo"_ a startup? What was that about a shortage of tech talent?

<comment><USER24> I'm curious how many other startups she sent basically the same template to...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is one of the few times I've disagreed with hacker news. Sorry. Not a fan. :(

</comment><comment><USER26> This is a sort of weird criterion, but I'm partial to the CVs done in LaTeX...

<comment><USER27> That not weird once you pick it apart. Chances are that you're not actually partial to LaTeX CVs, you're partial to someone who shares your willingness to invest the effort in learning the right tool for the job (and, boy, is LaTeX ever the right tool for many jobs?), rather than shying away at the first sign of difficulty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> What happens when this "best resume" becomes "best practice" and people really take it seriously that this is "How to woo a startup"?

Do companies really want to sift through video slideshows for, say, engineering jobs?

</comment><comment><USER29> As a way to separate oneself from other candidates, this cannot be beat. Amazing job, Margot, and RJ for the great reply.

I am so sick of that song.

</comment><comment><USER30> It's not the best resume ever but a terrific example of using some creativity to make a connection. I'm surprised more people didn't take that away from this slide show. It's about hustle, creativity, putting yourself out there. The essence of this is doing something to set yourself apart from the 10 other people looking for the same job.

</comment><comment><USER31> I was more impressed by the content than the presentation.

I guess that's why I and my local marketing organisation don't always see eye- to-eye.

</comment><comment><USER32> This was absolutely brilliant. Great work @margotleong!! ... and great work RideJoy too!

</comment><comment><USER33> Great resume, seriously.

Pictures are worth 1000 words, as they say

</comment><comment><USER34> My firewall blocked your slides because all the requests were sent with null content-type headers.

</comment><comment><USER35> this reminded me of <http://web.me.com/agueniot/Data/Flash/cven.html>

</comment><comment><USER36> We've found that candidates who submit a dynamic resume are good because

1) it shows personality

2) it shows initiative

and 3) a willing to think outside the box, all of which we value.

Obviously the content of the resume has to be great and everything else has to line up too, but this gets you a lot of facetime that not everyone gets. We were looking for a UI guy and got a ton of interest from folks (thanks HN!), but one applicant stood out to us because he went through the effort of making a site focused on getting the job with us (<http://jaredhardy.com/fee- fighter/>). We hired him.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is she the author of all the power point emails my mom forwards me?

</comment><comment><USER38> Didn't like the resume (too slow). Very boring, imo.

Changed my mind after seeing her photo.</comment>


The Psychopath - The Mask of Sanity - <AUTHOR> http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/psychopath.htm <comment><USER2> I was agreeing with the essay until I got to about the 75% mark, and it went off-tangent about how religion helps enable psychopathology, despite explicitly avoiding the topic for most of the paper. (I should have taken the mention of "Indigo children" as a warning sign, despite the paper treating that as more of a kind of fashion rather than a religious concept.)

It turns out that this page appears to be SEO content bait for a constellation of crack-pot sites dating from 2005, most notably "Signs of the Times" and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

<http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm>

<comment><USER3> Why is it off tangent? It makes sense to me that systems like religion or government are easily subverted. I also read the "Indigo Children" part as being critical of the concept, ie. pandering to psychopaths.

Not that they're not crackpots - the conclusion of the article is pretty wacky - but your criticism is a little off.

<comment><USER2> I know this is a late response, but...

My concern is that the article felt like that for cases of institutional corruption, the article reasoned, "A, therefore C" instead of saying "A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C." The article didn't adequately give the reader reasoning or context for an anti-institutional slam out of the blue like that. (For religion, a few paragraphs discussing historical examples like the Inquisition or pedophile priests would have both strengthened the argument and smoothed out the narrative.)

<comment><USER3> An even later response :)

That section comes right on the tail of discussing how pscyhopathy seems to be an inherited trait, and that there seems to be a lot of evidence, at least anecdotally, for children who have much of the same behaviours as psychopaths. So it doesn't seem that out of place to me.

The anti-institutional 'slam' was just them pointing out that a lot of the religious doctrines seem to follow a psychopathic 'rationale', ie. here is the truth, now don't question it. My reading was that it was almost an epidemiological study on psychopaths subverting social organisations (since that's how they seem to work individually).

Of course, the article is mostly anecdotal evidence, so it's hard to tell how seriously to take this, but it's certainly food for thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think sometimes we are a little too eager to attach labels to people. There are a couple of problems with labels:

1\. A label is a heuristic. It's a quick way of getting an approximate picture of a person. If somebody introduces you to Rick as "a former Republican senator from South Dakota" your mind is already filling in lots of blanks about Rick with categories like "male", "senator", "Republican" and "South Dakotan". Our mind gives us a head-start in knowing about Rick. The problem comes when we don't allow ourselves to revise this rough-draft picture of Rick. Perhaps we think all Republicans are like X, so Rick is like X. Therefore, we don't bother looking for information about whether Rick is like X, because we already _know_. Labels can get in the way of actually knowing somebody.

2\. A label often carries the implicit assumption that the aspects of the person in question are immutable. In other words, people don't change. It's different to say someone is a "psychopath" instead of "going through a psychopathic phase".

"In other words, psychopathy is being recognized as a more or less a different type of human."

This quote really bothered me. This completely dehumanizes "psychopaths." They are officially "the other". <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other>

</comment><comment><USER5> Sheesh, this is simplistic. The world is a complex place, and there are niches for all sorts of personality types. People can be cold-blooded about killing but care about their family (Tony Soprano?)

A good show about all this is "Damages". Mad Men gets it too -- simple morality narratives, where everyone is binary good/evil, do not reflect the richness of human character.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Cheating skills seem to have an adaptive value in our society. The fact is: psychopaths often end up on the top of the heap, John Forbes Nash, for example." John Nash is schizophrenic, not psycopath.

</comment><comment><USER7> You know what another word for psychopath is? Asshole. It's easy to spot them and it's easy to avoid them so calm down. It's not a full blown epidemic and these people have been around since the beginning of time.

<comment><USER8> Not always, or at least they're not so obvious, some pretend to be your friend and to console you all the while they are the ones causing you harm.

A better word may be "manager".

<comment><USER7> My point was that this article takes a long and winding road to reach the simple conclusion that some people are simply assholes and there is nothing to be done about it because they are built differently and the article makes it all sound really menacing. There is nothing menacing here. Most assholes have the same profile so it's really easy to figure them out after you've come into contact with a few of them. Turning it into a research program is in my opinion a waste of money which is the other thing the article seems to advocate.

<comment><USER9> The authors argue that people in general (unlike you) are not good at spotting psychopaths, that psychopathy is an increasingly successful evolutionary strategy, that psychos are controlling society to help nurture their psycho offspring, whom certain in-denial hippies have dubbed 'indigo children'.

I thought the whole thing was immensely entertaining (but I'm just saying that to stave off the terror).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Restoring RAM: Fixing memory inside a 50-year-old IBM mainframe - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/217148-restoring-ram-fixing-memory-inside-a-50-year-old-ibm-mainframe <comment><AUTHOR> I saw something similar about the apollo capsule where they used seamstresses to actually sew the ram for the computers.</comment>


Tesla is working on new battery that lasts 1M miles to come out next year - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/04/23/tesla-battery-million-miles-elon-musk/ <comment><USER2> Now if only they offered replacement parts for their cars to local mechanics. Then it could be a car you drive for the rest of your life =)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't believe it. 1) Next year. 2) 1M miles. Proof? Show me.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps you could explain why you find this unbelievable? Do you have some insight into the chemistry as discussed in the patent? Or ... ?</comment></comment>


Our Unlimited Vacation Policy - <AUTHOR> http://www.hiringthing.com/2013/01/14/template-for-an-unlimited-vacation-policy.html

<comment><USER2> Those in CA thinking about implementing such a policy will need to be careful. IANAL, but having been CFO of two CA start ups now, you will need to give CA employees at least 1 day per month worked that will need to be paid upon termination. You can cap the amount of accrued vacation a 10 or more days, but once they've earned a day they can never loose it.

</comment><comment><USER3> We just switched to this kind of unlimited PTO policy here at VMware. It remains to be seen how it works out but I'm optimistic.</comment>


Dropbox Anywhere - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/anywhere

<comment><USER2> Been using Dropbox forever, got in on the Android beta the first night. This truly makes me realize how game changing this service is-now, without hacks or anything, I can have access to my whole filesystem from anywhere.

The app itself is excellent-it is simple, makes sense, and allows you to do what you expect-view and edit files, from anywhere, and in-sync in all locations. It also lets you access media stored on the DB, and you can upload right to it.

<comment><USER3> Same.

I just switched from an iPhone to a Nexus One last week.

This week, with the release of Dropbox for Android, my transition is complete (with the exception of the lack of support for audiobooks on Android itself).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very glad to see a blackberry app coming out.

Anyone know if it will have a built-in pdf reader? It really should, as BB doesn't natively open them, and other readers aren't great.

<comment><USER5> My BB has native PDF opening. It's "ok". Lots of zooming and scrolling. It may be the OS version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Only wish you could select more than one image to upload at once - Then I would never need a silly cable to upload images to my computer. In all, a welcomed application to an awesome service. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER7> Dropbox for Nokia...?

<comment><USER8> Dropbox for WebOS...?

<comment><USER7> Yes probably a much better idea :)</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A MaxDiff Card Game - <AUTHOR> https://imdev.insightsmeta.com:8443//games/maxdiff/v2/hosted.htm?language=english&uuid=6df17948-36df-11e5-8b94-000d3a901623

<comment><AUTHOR> Results page of the game: [https://imdev.insightsmeta.com:8443//results/maxdiff?uuid=6d...](https://imdev.insightsmeta.com:8443//results/maxdiff?uuid=6df17948-36df-11e5-8b94-000d3a901623&rid=109)

Main site: [http://www.dataga.me](http://www.dataga.me)

We built Dataga.me as an alternative to traditional and complicated research methodologies. With dataga.me, you no longer need to use complicated or expensive survey software to use advanced methodologies in your research. Just plug the javascript code into your existing survey. It's also an attempt at gamifying these (traditionally) boring survey methodologies. The link in the title takes you to a MaxDiff card game. We're also currently working on a Conjoint game.

Before building this into a self-serve product, we've run name tests, message tests, feature tests and quite a few fun studies like the link in the title.</comment>


Navy to Name Ship After Gay Rights Activist Harvey Milk - <AUTHOR> https://news.usni.org/2016/07/28/navy-name-ship-gay-rights-activist-harvey-milk <comment><USER2> I have to say as a gay man that this is a huge step for any part of the US Armed Forces.

<comment><USER3> As a straight man I say good on them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He also served four years in the Navy

<comment><USER5> As is apparent by the screen-high photo of him in uniform directly beneath the headline. The ship is actually named after him due to his civil rights record, however.

<comment><USER6> it is being named after him due to his civil rights work but it is the navy choosing to name something after him because he was a navy man. Robert Kennedy also served in the navy. Had they served in the army the navy would be less likely to want to name ships after them. Which is why it is surprising they are naming a ship after Warren because he served in the army in ww1

<comment><USER7> It isn't really that unusual. Military Sealift Command ships are named after notable Americans with little to no connection to the military all the time. This is the first time a class as been specifically designated to honor civil rights pioneers, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This report provides relevant background on US navy ship naming: [https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22478.pdf](https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22478.pdf)

For ship types now being procured for the Navy, or recently procured for the Navy, naming rules can be summarized as follows:  Aircraft carriers are generally named for past U.S. Presidents. Of the last 14, 10 were named for past U.S. Presidents, and 2 for Members of Congress.  Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines are being named for states.  Destroyers are named for deceased members of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, including Secretaries of the Navy.  Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) are being named for regionally important U.S. cities and communities.  Amphibious assault ships are being named for important battles in which U.S. Marines played a prominent part, and for famous earlier U.S. Navy ships that were not named for battles.  San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ships are being named for major U.S. cities and communities, and cities and communities attacked on September 11, 2001\.  John Lewis (TAO-205) class oilers, previously known as TAO(X)s, are being named for people who fought for civil rights and human rights.  Lewis and Clark (TAKE-1) class cargo and ammunition ships were named for famous American explorers, trailblazers, and pioneers.  Expeditionary Fast Transports (EPFs), previously called Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSVs), are being named for small U.S. cities.  Expeditionary Transport Docks (ESDs) and Expeditionary Sea Bases (ESBs), which were previously called Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) ships and Afloat Forward Staging Bases (AFSBs), respectively, are being named for famous names or places of historical significance to U.S. Marines.

So basically there has been reserved a class of ships (oilers) that are all going to be named after Civil Rights activists.

</comment><comment><USER9> I can already imagine the shit storm that will come from republicans and conservative media.

<comment><USER10> Good. Let it. That fuse can only burn so long before there's nothing left and it fizzles out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's surprising, given Milk's support for Jim Jones and his People's Temple[1,2], whose followers murdered a U.S. congressman and committed mass suicide.

[1] [http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16566](http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=16566) [2] [http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/02/in-defence-of-jim- jones...](http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/02/in-defence-of-jim-jones.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Milky McMilkface?</comment>


A Crash Course in the Neuroscience of Human Motivation (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://lesswrong.com/lw/71x/a_crash_course_in_the_neuroscience_of_human/ <comment><USER2> Thank you.

The piece is a bit too long to keep the attention of most, but it's one of the most important things someone can and should understand about themselves: how they get things done, how they make decisions to get things done.

I wish this is how the brains behind Asana, Wunderlist, Calendars, etc really thought about the end-user-human.

<comment><USER3> If only I could motivate myself to read the lengthy article about motivation maybe I could understand how to better motivate myself in other aspects of my life. But it really is a long article and I have other things to do, so... chicken, meet egg. Egg, meet chicken.

<comment><USER4> Here's an article about procrastination which is so long many people put off reading it until they have more motivation and time.

[http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/procrastination/](http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/procrastination/)

<comment><USER5> I like the thought that Wikipedia the result of massive collaborative procrastination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A lot of "neuropsychology" and related approaches are questionable. The combination of some current machine-learning methods and some neuroscience results doesn't add up to anything like a global theory of how the brain works - such a global theory is just not yet in [1]. It's simpler to stick with established psychological theory if you want a theory of what makes people do thing on average.[2] But oppositely, if you're interested in how naive utility functions and the neoclassical economic view of human behavior, "homo economicus", fails to account for much of human behavior, take a lot at evolutionary game theory. [3]

[1] Learning How Little We Know About the Brain [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/learning-how- littl...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/science/learning-how-little-we- know-about-the-brain.html?_r=0)

[2] Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, Revised Edition Revised Edition by Robert B. Cialdini, Harper Business

[3] Game theory Evolving, Herbert Gintis, Princeton

<comment><USER7> agreed. interesting read, yet far from complete, and certainly questionable.

a couple that jumped out to me as questionable:

the "discounting" section reminds me of the stanford marshmallow experiment (itself questionable iirc). i'm not convinced a marshmallow is worth an additional 5 minutes of delayed gratification, and i'm even less convinced an additional 0.07ml of juice (or a whole 0.002oz) is worth waiting at all.

the "Relative and Absolute Utility" section, and particularly the quoted section of Glimcher's example, fail to acknowledge a fundamental component of human motivation: context.

for example, strand someone on a remote, uninhabited, desert island (with no way to escape, etc.), and offer her a choice of $1,000,000 worth of goods or $1,000 worth of goods. her choice at this point is uninteresting because currency is arguably worthless in the absence of trade; she assigns value based on what these goods can _do_ for her rather than what they would fetch at auction back home.

for example, let's say the $1,000,000 worth of goods is a lifetime supply of jello, and the $1,000 is a safe ride home on a fishing vessel. the safe ride home is arguably the better choice despite its lower monetary value. this is why i believe it's silly to blindly apply the transitive property of inequality (in terms of monetary value) as a predictor of human motivation while ignoring context.</comment></comment>


Don't let being the CEO get in your way of working on the product - <AUTHOR> http://sachin.posterous.com/dont-let-being-ceo-get-in-the-way-of-working

<comment><USER2> The best reason to continue working on the product as CEO is that you can make far better management decisions that way. Even if that 10-20% time you spend coding isn't as productive as doing sales or business development, it's essential to keep that one foot in product development so that you can prioritize correctly.

<comment><USER3> Maybe. From experience though if you don't spend that much time working on the product, you have a skewed view of the work. I think it's better to have someone who spends 90-100% of their time coding advise you on such priorities. It also shows your engineers that you know they can do the job and you trust them.

Of course, this assumes you have engineers that you know can do the job and you trust.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd be interested to hear of examples of successful companies (other than Posterous) where a founder is CEO and continues to develop. I would think that would be a very challenging balancing act.

<comment><USER5> Shopify for one.</comment></comment>


Yale university found on slave trade money? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhxcYnJHFaA <comment><USER2> yes it is? [0]

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/nyregion/yale-in- debate-o...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/nyregion/yale-in-debate-over- calhoun-college-grapples-with-ties-to-slavery.html)</comment>


Tupper's self-referential formula - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupper%27s_self-referential_formula <comment><USER2> It was really cool as a 'magicial thing'. Once I realized it was a bitmap graphic I was a little less woo-ed. Not a lot, just a little.</comment>


A Gentle Introduction to Machine Fundamentals - <AUTHOR> http://marijnhaverbeke.nl/turtle/ <comment><USER2> Always a great one from Marijn!

As a side note, would it be possible to add a simple 'X' (close) button to the interpreter/console. Clicking on the reading area didn't seem all too intuitive, especially if your screen isn't that big, and the console ends up taking up much of the view =).

<comment><USER3> There's no space!

Actually, I tried to make this an exercise in minimal, button-poor, intuitive UI design. I'm quite pleased with how simple the thing is, but I guess it's not intuitive to everybody.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The title should include this: "with turtles!"

<comment><USER4> We had one of those pen holding robots in infants school (5-10yrs)

I vaguely remember telling it to leave the classroom and run off down the corridor.</comment></comment>


Companies to face criminal offence if they tip off U.K. users about snooping - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12051443/Twitter-and-others-to-face-criminal-offence-if-they-tip-off-users-about-snooping-requests.html <comment><USER2> There are many who not only remain unconcerned but often seek to diminish or dismiss concern as hyperbole or exaggerated, often by pointing to the current status quo.

No one is interested in you the individual, but they are certainly interested in building the capability to track all individuals and preempt anything that threatens any entrenched status quo.

We are not currently a police state but we are certainly building the capability and the cultural language to justify it. The moral high ground and the entire framework of values that powered it have shown to be near meaningless by the alarming ease with which they have been discarded in favour of the language of security and paranoia. Everyone is safe in a cage. It will be naive to believe in the context of how modern states operate that a cluster of extreme right wing medievalists in the ME are bringing on this state of affairs, the bulk and most powerful of whom are paradoxically our best friends in the region.

Surveillance states are not a on/off thing, you don't suddenly wake one day to a surveillance state. These capabilities take time to build, but once the infrastructure is in place it will inevitably get used.

In this case we can see all the pieces being put in place methodically with language that makes George Orwell look astonishingly prescient. And its the self absorption of this generation who have inherited and enjoyed a relatively 'free' and equal state with 'hope for improvement' but are going to willfully pass on something more ominous.

<comment><USER3> Im in the pessimistic group. What can an average person do?

\- blow a whistle and be on the run like snowden?

\- put their name on a petition which also acts as a watch list?

\- publicly protest and hoping to be covered by mainstream media which basically means quitting their job abd taking a < 10% risk of success

\- start a viral shame campaign which both google abd facebook have attempted multiple times only to have cisa pass and this sort pf thing to become the "status quot"

Really, what is there to do but watch the future unfold into dystopia? Really, tell me? In reality we are tools turning the coorperate machine. Individuals freedom is not more important the economic evolution. Online communities are unaminously against evil but in reality, they are made up of fattened happy pigs that do very little but talk to one another and hope to get their oen lives a little more perfect.

Governments have been corrupt for more than a mellenia. Recent attempts at being humane should be taken with a grain of salt

<comment><USER4> The simple answer is stop being concerned with your own lifestyle and do what's right, consequences be damned. Edward Snowden at least had the guts to throw his entire life away to bring attention to something he thought was morally wrong.

The lack of that sort of courage is why the world is going to hell. Today's attitudes of prioritising personal 'comfort' over what's right is why this sort of crap is being allowed to happen.

The best solution for a company in this situation (especially a large one) is to blow the whistle to the media and watch the fallout. Oh sure, you might not come out alright, but the media and internet reaction would certainly be fierce, and the reputation of any government involved would go to hell extremely quickly.

More the reputation goes, the harder it is to stay 'legitimate' and keep in power. Same thing goes for companies trying to shut down smaller ones and individuals through threats.

<comment><USER2> Given the extreme zeal for liberty and freedom espoused by the tech crowd in the early 90's its more than sad, no a complete tragedy that there is just one Snowden today and hundreds of thousands of others who 'toil' away silently actively building this.

Here was your turn to do your bit, something meaningful and what we get instead is a complete co-option into the system. No activism, no protest, very few whistle blowers, especially since you of all other groups would be alert to the possibilities, where is the movement? There has been real sacrifice and sustained, persistent struggle to get here, values have a cost to the individual, if one balks if there is a cost then its just empty words and mass delusion.

And thus there is no shame, no movement, no activism, no code of conduct, no moral pressure to dissociate with these kind of activities or to call out all these people in any technology fora, even today when its out in the open.

And it's just not their failing. Modern populations seem to be completely unequal to any kind of meaningful activism and change. There is such a debilitating focus on individualism, and the completely irrelevance of wider community and other interests that the only real thing left is self interest and self interest has no 'values' or value, beyond expediency and survival.

<comment><USER5> People who call out such get banned in places like HN.

An open discussion of government corruption and oppression is essentially impossible here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is absolutely retarded.. If I were apple, google, and facebook, and twitter - companies that ARE nations unto themselves in terms of user reach, I would start some sort of embargo, countries that enforce these kind of rules, simply ban all traffic from the country. Imagine the social upheaval and political capital the UK would lose if facebook, google, twitter, apple, bing, etc...all were no longer accessible. No more funny cat videos on youtube or facebook? Brits would go crazy, and get angry, and the politicians who made the rules, would get outted pretty darn fast and never be elected again.

<comment><USER7> Multiple replacements for each company would appear within 24 hours. One would spread virally and gain an initial base of users, then press, and within a few months it would be in a dominant market position filling the void left by the American company it replaced.

This is exactly what happened in China when Google left - Baidu exploded in popularity and now dominates the market so completely that it would be nearly impossible for Google to unseat it.

The Chinese government does this on purpose to facilitate the growth of its own domestic companies. The Great Firewall serves as much of an economic purpose as a political one. By degrading service quality of foreign companies, it opens space in the market for domestic companies to establish themselves and gain market share. It would be impossible for any one of those companies to bootstrap its initial userbase if a giant American corporation already cornered its market.

<comment><USER8> I don't think you'll be replacing Apple or Google overnight, Twitter and Facebook only work because of the network effects, a 'facebook or twitter for the UK' would fly just about as good as a lead balloon.

<comment><USER7> Tell that to tencent, weibo, baidu, youku...

<comment><USER8> They did not spring up 'overnight'.

<comment><USER9> They are also forced upon the population by the state and China speaks a different language than English.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's some of this present already in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act from the early 2000s. And the all-pervasive Official Secrets Act. Those of us who are old enough to remember the bizarre half-censorship of Gerry Adams on TV know that free speech has never had an overriding legal status in the UK.

</comment><comment><USER11> So the security services can demand information and order the fact kept secret in perpetuity, with no appeal. How very reassuring.

</comment><comment><USER12> If this goes through Warrant Canaries will become much more popular.

<comment><USER13> I was actually thinking that this proposed law is precisely how you "solve" the warrant canary "problem". No need to order anybody to make false statements - but if you take the canary down, you've broken the law, and you created this problem for yourself.

<comment><USER14> I thought the idea of a warrant canary was that it had to be an explicit statement you make, multiple times, so that when you _cease_ making the statements, it would mean something. I.e. a warrant canary would not be something you would actively "take down", it would be a thing which you _stop_ doing.

<comment><USER15> The warrant canary idea was bullshit from the start.

If _not_ reissuing a warrant canary will let a company's customers know that they are under surveillance, the proposed law will require that company to publish the warrant canary. It's a simple as that. And it is perfectly possible to prosecute someone for "acts of omission". As Wikipedia puts it:

> In the criminal law, an omission, or failure to act, will constitute an > actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and give rise to liability only when the > law imposes a duty to act and the defendant is in breach of that duty.

<comment><USER14> The warrant canary idea assumes that the law can never compel anyone to _make a false statement_. Do you have anything to suggest that this is false?

<comment><USER13> You weren't compelled to set up a warrant canary in the first place, so I'm not sure why this is relevant. You did it to yourself.

Why do you expect a court to experience sympathy about the fact that you set out to break the law (by communicating this information that you are forbidden to communicate) and set yourself up so that you have to choose between making a false statement or going to jail?

<comment><USER14> You seem to be arguing against the very concept of a warrant canary, claiming that it is somehow obviously an unworkable concept, without giving any specific references. Despite this, others seem to be using warrant canaries. What do you know that they don't? Are those using warrant canaries simply delusional? You have to make a more solid argument for your point than simple assertions.

Also, your argument style is very aggressive, adressing me personally, saying " _You did it to yourself._ ", despite the fact that I have not claimed to have published a warrant canary.

<comment><USER13> > What do you know that they don't?

I know that a law has been proposed which would effectively make them illegal.

> Despite this, others seem to be using warrant canaries.

I believe that the source of your confusion is that we are presently discussing a proposed law which may come into effect in the future, while you are examining the past when that law was not in effect.

<comment><USER14> No, you said " _The warrant canary idea was bullshit from the start._ " – i.e. you think that warrant canaries were _never_ viable.

<comment><USER15> No, it was me who said that.

If I understand you correctly, your main points are:

1\. The law can never compel you to make a false statement.

2\. Lots of firms are doing it, and they probably know what they're doing.

For point 1, if you can show me a credible legal authority arguing that British law can never, under any circumstances, compel a person to lie, I'll accept that I was wrong, and I'll thank you for teaching me something new this day.

But rather than do that, you've suggested that I should try to _disprove_ your claim. Well, I admit that I can't offer a rigorous disproof, but that's to be expected: disproof is always hard. (Can you disprove the existence of sasquatches?)

So let's put that aside, at least until a real lawyer gets involved, and move on to point 2.

And for 2, I don't think you'd say that if you'd seen as much legal bullshit in your time as I have.

Do you remember, back in the 90s, envelopes that said, "By opening this envelope, you agree to the Terms & Conditions enclosed." Or more recently, have you seen online services whose Terms & Conditions say something like, "We can change these Terms & Conditions at any time, without telling you." They're both obvious bullshit, and yet in both cases lawyers kept pushing them onto their clients until a court ruled against the practices.

So I believe that the warrant canary is another piece of obvious bullshit, which will die a quick death when a court examines it. In fact, it's possible that a court already HAS ruled against the idea, but we just don't know about it. Or, to put it another way, I think there's every chance that some of the warrant canaries we are seeing published now are lies. That would certainly explain why we've yet to see the non-renewal of a warrant canary!

<comment><USER14> Sorry about the mistaken attribution.

1\. I actually never claimed anything about what the law says, I said the the concept of a warrant canary _assumes_ that the law cannot do a particular thing.

2\. I thought that the types of organizations which would use a warrant canary would be slightly more resistant to legal superstitions and overreach.

I.e. my answer to number 2 above led me to begin with the proposition that warrant canaries were probably legal, and therefore I wanted a disproof. Also, a disproof should in theory be easy; a single example where the law can compel anyone to make a false statement would suffice. It would be wholly impractical for me to try to prove that there are no such rules anywhere in the law, and I am not a lawyer, so I couldn't do that even if I wanted to.

<comment><USER15> I take your point about disproof -- my logic was faulty -- and I can't think of an example where the law compels someone to lie. Google hasn't found me any, either.

I also checked canarywatch.org and noticed that Adobe have a warrant canary and, yes, I'd like to believe that Adobe's lawyers know what they're doing.

And after giving this some thought, I think you've persuaded me, but with one important caveat: it's different in Britain. American warrant canaries might work, but British ones are bullshit.

It's all about freedom of speech. As far as I can tell, all the legal theories about compelled speech come down to this: freedom of speech implies freedom from compelled speech. But in the UK there is no constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech so, while I'm not aware of any law compelling people to lie, neither am I aware of there being anything to prevent such a law from existing.

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I've learned something today. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Imagine how useful a wiretap would be if the phone company immediately notified the target. I'm not sure there's anything unreasonable about this amendment. Something similar is probably already the case for telephone and postal surveillance, and this was just a previous oversight in the law.

I think there's a case for having a time-limit after which the surveillance must be disclosed, unless a judge thinks there's a very good reason not to for a specific case. I believe that's how this works in the US. Unfortunately, the UK's version of surveillance oversight is typically ministerial oversight, which is not very encouraging.

<comment><USER17> _Imagine how useful a wiretap would be if the phone company immediately notified the target._

No one would have a problem with this if there were even the vaguest semblance of due process. There isn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Would a company making an assertion that it wasn't being snooped on before they were actually snooped be guilty of fraud after the fact has changed? Given they can't say they are not being snooped on...

</comment><comment><USER19> Url changed from [http://www.techspot.com/news/63292-tech-companies-face- crimi...](http://www.techspot.com/news/63292-tech-companies-face-criminal- charges-if-they-notify.html)? to what appears to be a more substantive article.

</comment><comment><USER20> The U.K. is a constitutional monarchy. There is no concept of "we the people" bottom up delegation of power to form a government; it's top down, the people are subjects. That members of parliament are elected means the monarch's power is limited, rather than the source of the power of government and its authority coming from the people. So it's a different system than in the U.S., so when talking about traditional values don't assume western democracies are all really pretty much the same thing. There are important differences. And in this case, I expect the vast majority of British will have no problem with this kind of surveillance.

However, the company asserting it's not the surveillance branch of the government where it does business, is legitimate. Whether it'll make any difference is a separate question.

<comment><USER21> No, there are hardly any British subjects any more (if any left at all). They have become citizens. See both Wikipedia and the UK government's website for a history of the changes to laws around British citizenship and nationality.

[https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british- nationality/overview](https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british- nationality/overview)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject)

<comment><USER20> Yes these days legally they are citizens not subjects, but because of history, the connotation of the relationship with the state is one of a subject.

Whereas from the outset there was a concept of citizens in the U.S. under the written constitutions (both of them).

<comment><USER21> I'd say that because of history the connotation of the relationship with the state has become the exact opposite and the rule of law has been established. It started to change with Magna Carta:

[https://www.runnymede.gov.uk/magnacarta](https://www.runnymede.gov.uk/magnacarta)

[https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/medieval/magna...](https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/medieval/magna- carta/)

[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9/contents)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta)</comment></comment></comment></comment>