Y Combinator Interview: Our Experience - <AUTHOR> http://www.yogatrail.com/blog/yogatrail-at-y-combinator/ Our recent experience being invited to a Y Combinator interview. Some insights about our application and our trip to the valley. Have fun :-) <comment><USER3> A lot of commenters here saying the tone of the OP is bitter. I say the tone is _human_.

This team has every good reason to succeed: they spent 2 years of their life working together building something that's now getting significant traction - and making them money.

Every fundamental metric indicating whether the business will work or not were established facts. That should put them head and shoulders over anyone else.

Given all that, it's hard NOT to feel emotionally invested after 2 years. And it's hard not to want to spend time processing the experience the way they did.

At this point, it doesn't matter why they didn't get in. It would be great to know, and yes, it's awesome that they got some actionable feedback -

Actually, I want to say something about that too. Even if the feedback isn't what you wanted, shaolin69, it's all the more valuable because it's coming from someone who _isn 't_ like you. I agree with your priorities - <USER2> your viral loop tricks (way to go on that, by the way). But I hope you'll tuck it away somewhere for the day you scratch your head and wonder "ok, what can I do now to boost traffic?"

But. As I was saying, it doesn't matter why you didn't get in. You still know you have the makings of a successful business. YC's rejection doesn't invalidate your track record. So be encouraged! I'm glad to see you took advantage of your time stateside to look at other accelerators and got some interest. Best of luck, looking forward to hearing your success stories!

<comment><USER4> Moreover, the author is exactly right. With ten minutes all they can do is evaluate the lead person and the team. Sadly the takeaway is closer to "we didn't like you (enough)" and the "feedback" is a best guess as to why.

The assessment is thin slicing straight out of _Blink_ by Gladwell and that approach has been shown to be very influenced by a whole host of pre-existing biases by the judges. Even very smart people are subject to those biases and experts are especially prone.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thanks for the encouraging words :)

<comment><USER5> I'd like to offer an analogy: fast food chain franchise vs boutique restaurants. It seems to me that your startup is a boutique restaurant and so is not a good fit for a McDonalds-style franchise contract. However, at the end of the day, running a boutique restaurant is a lot more satisfying, at least in my opinion, and most of the time, more financially rewarding too. On the other hand, you do need authenticity to be a successful boutique restaurant owner, not the attitude "we are disrupting XXX", "we are changing YYY, one ZZZ at a time".

<comment><USER6> What to make of Chipotle? They basically took the SF burrito joint from a boutique/local food dive to a viable biz franchise. Hugely successful at scale...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting.

On the plus side, I'm very happy to see that YCombinator decides to send, not just a rejection, but actionable feedback that they think the company should follow. I think that's a good thing, and so far samples of these have seemed to usually hit the mark.

On the other hand, the reason they always tell you never to explain why you gave a candidate a "no" is, that it will give them grounds to think you are wrong and discriminated against you. That might (might!) be the case here - the Author seems to give serious weight to the possibility of discrmination, which is of course completely possible. Had YC kept their mouth shut and _not_ offered their valuable advice, maybe there would've been less thoughts of discrimination? I'd just hate to discourage YC from offering advice.

<comment><USER8> Someone with more legal experience can weigh in, but I wasn't under the impression that people applying for investment were given the same protections as people applying for employment. Disclaimer: I have no legal experience and am talking out of my ass.

With employment, companies have learned to shut up. "Sorry, we're not hiring. Best of luck." As you've said, this is due to applicants getting a lot of protections based on race, gender, color, creed, etc. If the employer admits to rejecting a candidate for being in a protected class, (or even anything that can allude to their status) they're opening themselves up to a lawsuit.

In contrast, I don't think that investing any of this. If you choose only to invest in black-owned companies, it's your money. If you choose only to invest in male-owned companies, it's your money. Sure, you'll be crucified by the press, but I don't think that there's a lawsuit in that.

As a result, investment companies can be a little bit more frank with their rejected candidates.

Now, one thing that complicates things in this case is that YC isn't just investing in companies; they're providing guidance and mentoring. Would this mentoring process (teaching someone how to build a business and then taking a share of the profits) be considered hiring?

I'd hate for YC to be sued for this by some asshole who's just looking for a quick payout and then completely stop giving advice to rejected candidates.

<comment><USER7> Legally, you're right.

In terms of public opinion, I'd like to think that the backlash YC/pg sometimes get doesn't bother them, but I'm sure it does to at least some degree.

I'm really not trying to argue against the author or make them feel bad, btw - I just want to point out that I think this specific interperatation of what happened is probably wrong, and to point out that we as a community need to make sure we don't rush to attack anyone, lest we deter YC from providing this service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I agree with the poster that shelling out $1500 for a 10 minute interview, and then basing a significant investment decision on that interview, does seem curious - but, as the poster said, they see hundreds of teams, and have done for a number of years now, so you'd think they would know almost instantly what they're looking for.

I've done a lot of technical interviews myself over the years, and, assuming I'm not pairing with a fellow interviewer who wants to spend 20 minutes outlining the history of the company and describing the role before actually asking any questions, I can usually tell within five minutes, and after really only a couple of carefully chosen questions pertinent to the problem domain, whether the person is likely to be someone I'd want to hire. (And, just like YC, I get it wrong sometimes. That's life.)

The tone of this piece sort of read to me as "I want to make it clear that I'm not complaining about the process, but I'm going to complain now anyway" \- it seems like their observations were quite fair, adding a space to your product's name hardly seems important, and they were courteous and did actually give you feedback, which is probably more than you can hope for from many companies.

<comment><AUTHOR> True - I hope I didn't come across as bitter, overall this was an awesome experience and the people at YC are amazing. I actually do think that they can probably tell if a startup is a good one or not in a matter of minutes.

<comment><USER10> | so you'd think they would know almost instantly what they're looking for.

What they are looking for is probably a subset of good startups, ie. your startup can be good but it's not what they are looking for.

To some extent it must be a statistics game for them. The investment they make flying founders out must have a good return for them in terms of potential investments. Since they have been doing it for a while now the numbers must be close to optimal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I sympathize because I went through almost exactly the same experience with YC - we applied to W14, flew to the interview and did not get in.

Myself and 3 co-founders are all in our early to mid 30's, and have put in about the same amount of time and effort into our startup as OP et al, working on it full time for almost the same period before applying. All of us live half-way around the world from SV (Israel), and got on the plane on mostly our dime to show that we're taking the program, application and interview seriously.

I remember walking into the waiting area and seeing all those fresh-out-of- college-with-a-great-idea founders (not being cynical here), and I immediately felt out of place; very similar to what the OP describes. Not intimidated or phased in any way, just that we were the odd man out. Most of my co-founders and myself are married, have kids, and are in a different place in life than what I'd speculate is the average YC applicant profile. Or perhaps I'm just stereotyping, I don't know - it sure seemed like it from gazing around that room. No offense intended to past/present/future applicants.

The interview was very ordinary and I didn't feel like it went great or terrible. At one point it was mentioned that we're doing something very similar to a recent YC graduate, and that they weren't doing that great [0]. I imagine both were factors in our dismissal. I couldn't say exactly what it was that didn't get us past the interview phase.

Overall I'm not sorry we went - it was an interesting experience, and we managed to arrange other meetings in the valley while there. I'm also not overly upset we didn't qualify - it probably would have helped us move forward, but it's not the only way to succeed and definitely not the end of the world. Take it with a grain of salt and move on.

[0] Don't know if that's true or if I misunderstood the speaker.

</comment><comment><USER12> Being accepted to Ycombinator is not a signal that your business will be successful in the long term. It might help in the short run being accepted as your instantly validated and have a higher chance of getting VC funding.

Entrepreneurs you shouldn't let getting rejected from Y combinator or any other accelerator bother you. You should consider the feedback they give and try to validate it and if what they are saying is true, try to correct what is wrong.

Consider one other point, while Y combinator partners are successful they are really not that successful. They haven't achieved as much as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page,Jack Ma etc. If Y combinator partners were really successful they would be running multi billion dollar companies, but they are using their skills to filter out applicants to Y combinator. So don't take their rejection as the law.

<comment><USER13> > Being accepted to Ycombinator is not a signal that your business will be > successful in the long term. It might help in the short run being accepted > as your instantly validated and have a higher chance of getting VC funding.

If you mean that getting accepted to YC doesn't guarantee that your business will be successful long-term, then I agree completely. Getting into YC is definitely a signal that it will be successful, however. That's why you have a higher chance of getting VC funding.

> Entrepreneurs you shouldn't let getting rejected from Y combinator or any > other accelerator bother you. You should consider the feedback they give and > try to validate it and if what they are saying is true, try to correct what > is wrong.

There's nothing wrong with letting rejection bother you. It's what you do after you get rejected that matters. I think your suggestion to consider any feedback you get, and adjust what you're doing based on that feedback is awesome advice.

> Consider one other point, while Y combinator partners are successful they > are really not that successful. They haven't achieved as much as Elon Musk, > Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page,Jack Ma etc. If Y combinator > partners were really successful they would be running multi billion dollar > companies, but they are using their skills to filter out applicants to Y > combinator. So don't take their rejection as the law.

As we saw in YogaTrail's rejection letter, even YC knows that their rejection isn't the law - "we are often wrong in our decisions". On the other hand, while the YC partners may not be as "successful" as Elon Musk and Bill Gates, YC is a billion dollar company[1]. So, the YC partners are technically running a billion dollar company.

[1] [http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/y-combinator-13-7b-valuatio...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/25/y-combinator-13-7b-valuation/). ~7% of ~$14B is ~$1B.

<comment><USER5> 7% of first round investment is definitely not 7% of current valuation. Also a lot of that 1B is paper money: the later rounds often get preferred shares and preferences in exiting events. YC got common shares as the employees, and if you are around long enough, you'll know how those common shares are worth in most cases.

<comment><USER13> Great point. So maybe not a billion dollar company, but pretty close.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am a potential user of your site. I live (a bit reluctantly) in Columbia, SC, and my yoga studio cut back its advanced 90-minute classes and replaced most of them with hour-long, easier classes. Moreover, the head teacher mostly blew me off when I complained about this -- apparently there is increased competition, and times are rough.

Increased competition, indeed. It is presumably a good time to find out if any yoga studio has taken up the niche that my old studio has mostly abandoned -- and your site claims to offer this information.

So I checked out your site. I'm afraid I didn't find what I was looking for. You got the names and addresses of some local studios, and I'll trust that you found out accurately whether or not they offer free mats or sell bottled water.

But what I really want to know:

(1) Which studios offer the most advanced classes? You list "beginner", "intermediate", and "advanced" on your website, but these seemed a bit arbitrary. I didn't really trust them.

(2) More to the point, I like training that is a little bit more "sink or swim" than is the norm in this town -- not in any bad way, but where the teacher wants to get you to Reverse Bird of Paradise Pose, and if you're not getting there today, that's okay! -- but the teacher is focusing on those who will.

I want to know _that_ from browsing your site. That is more ambiguous, and I think a lot harder to get right... but that kind of information (presented _reliably_ ) is what would drive me to return to your site.

Best of luck to you.

<comment><USER14> p.s. Along the lines of (2), I would recommend trying to get yoga teachers to answer a short multiple choice quiz. For example:

> Although both of these are important, which is the following is the biggest > priority in your yoga teaching?

> (a) Making sure everyone achieves their full potential

> (b) Ensuring that everyone in the class feels comfortable, and no one feels > left out

Etc. Find out from your users which questions best differentiate between studios. But make it multiple choice, so that teachers can't hedge their bets.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi impendia, we're working on a number of things that will make YT better for yogis and yoga pro's alike - stay tuned :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I recently went through the instant interview/rejection process at an up-and- comming SV start-up, and can relate to the OP's confusion. I am also in my 40s and at first wondered how the obviously flawed process could produce reasonable results. The number of false negatives must be staggering. I think the key for them is that incoming volume more than compensates for missed opportunities. This is the luxury of the hyper-successful. I think that for a business owner (or very busy engineer in my case) applying into these types of organizations, you need to expend a lot more effort on applying, researching and preparing for the actual interview than on the specifics of your skills and/or business.

<comment><USER16> They're really trying to minimize false positives. Those tend to be very expensive opportunity cost mistakes. This is true for both hiring employees and business partnerships. Especially business partnerships.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> A number of comments seem to be wondering why YC doesn't provide detailed feedback to each rejected party. Some are assuming it's due to fear of discrimination claims, but I doubt that's the case. I would guess YC doesn't provide detailed feedback for three primary reasons:

1) They interview over 300 companies in a batch, and detailed feedback for each rejection would simply be time prohibitive.

2) They admit to being wrong occasionally, and will often fund companies on subsequent applications. Providing a laundry list of "things they dislike about you" would diminish that probability.

3) In most cases, it's probably less about your deficiencies, and more about the companies ahead of you. There may not be anything inherently wrong with the founders or company, you just got beat out by seemingly better alternatives (see point #2).

In any case, hustle on.

<comment><USER18> They provided pretty detailed feedback to us one year and quite frankly they were right.

<comment><USER19> We interviewed during this recent S14 cycle. We were not funded, but I was very satisfied with the rejection email that we received. It contained personalized feedback and showed that the partner in question gave our team and business a lot of meaningful thought. I thought it was very professional.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you are getting tired of reading all the "our YC interview" stories on HN, this is the only one you'll want to read. It's different from all the others. Bitter? Maybe. But way more interesting and thought-provoking than the average "teenager just met their idol" version.

<comment><USER21> I'm curious what these review posts say about the market. They only really recently started appearing. A bubble signal that ambition is outpacing quality?

<comment><USER22> I think it's a bit of the opposite -- as the economy gets better (or in some cases, "better"), there's more people willing to take the risk rather than keep their heads down, which is going to produce a lot more hopefuls that aren't quite as good vs. those who would rather polish things and wait for the better bet (whether that be an improved economy or a better pitch).

<comment><USER21> _hopefuls that aren 't quite as good_

This is the same thing as "ambition outpacing quality." :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> YC: _Unfortunately, we were unable to get to believing that you had a strategy for supplanting Yelp as the top Google search results — having worked on SEO extensively in the past a better product often times isn't enough. // You clearly have a product that is better than what else is out there. I encourage you to spend more time on figuring out customer acquisition (possibly through non-search channels). In any case, we are often wrong in our decisions, and I hope that you continue to build your business and wish you the best in doing so._

YT: _The feedback about beating Yelp in Google Search results and looking for ways to get customers other than search channels – pretty solid indicators that they hadn't understood what we had told them._

To me this seems like a pretty solid indicator that they (YT) hadn't understand the feedback they were getting, or knew what to do with it. This is a shame since it makes YC less likely to give feedback in the future.

Embrace feedback, don't explain it away. Especially if you are a fragile upstart.

</comment><comment><USER24> nice writeup

"I seemed alien to them somehow, with a weird background that was just too different from their own… so they didn't know what to make of me on a purely emotional level."

Not saying this was the case here, but I feel like this effect, even if it occurs subliminally, plays such a staggering role in business relationships and decisions that it can be discouraging for anyone outside of the "main" group. Aaron Swartz talked about this in some of his blog posts but it wasn't until I was thrown into the corporate workforce that I saw it for myself first hand.

I don't think it's a conscious malicious effort to keep minorities/non- americans out of executive positions, just a consequence of the reality that people are more comfortable dealing with others that share a similar cultural background. This becomes doubly true when dealing with extremely high value contract negotiations and business decisions - you want to know exactly where the other person is mentally and emotionally - and that's much easier to decipher if you share a culture/race with that person.

</comment><comment><USER25> Sorry to hear you did not get in. Must be very disappointing. I'd have a deeper look at the feedback though, and assume good faith in the rejection. From the rejection:

 _Unfortunately, we were unable to get to believing that you had a strategy for supplanting Yelp as the top Google search results — having worked on SEO extensively in the past a better product often times isn't enough._

I read this not bluntly as: You should be able to beat Yelp, else you will fail, I hone in on: 'unable to get to believing that you had a strategy'. From an outsider perspective this is unfortunately what happened: You did not have a solid enough online marketing/acquisition strategy (social, search, advertising, partners, email etc.), or failed to convey it during the interview.

I don't think yCombinator failed to see the market potential, in my view they are actively looking for potential (from SF-based sleeping bag site to world- wide bed and breakfast replacement). I also do not think you were invited to make them seem more outsider-friendly, only to have you be rejected for being an outsider. It is about the online marketing strategy. In their (and my) experience, just having a better site is not enough. For an online directory company, SEO should be in the companies DNA. Preferably a founder has knowledge on SEO and can weave marketing opportunities into the decision making process.

If you think back to the interview part about online marketing, do you remember there being confusion? Or not having a concrete answer at-the-ready? Did your pitch include a slide on marketing strategy?

Also, the questions they asked like: How are you different from competitor X? Were these questions unprovoked? If so, enhance your pitch by listing your competitors, and their differences, pro's and con's compared to your company. This preemptively clears away such doubts.

Take a look at Mint's pitch deck: [http://www.slideshare.net/hnshah/mintcom- prelaunch-pitch-dec...](http://www.slideshare.net/hnshah/mintcom-prelaunch- pitch-deck) They make you believe they've done their market research and have a solid customer acquisition strategy from the get-go. Perhaps you can use it to improve your pitch.

I'll have a deeper look at your website and perhaps will send you over some on-page SEO issues to fix or ignore. But strategy/conversion/campaigns will contribute a lot more.

Also, your site already looks great, you've told us you have decent numbers, a nice community, a great team, so probably: you will get there, wherever 'there' is.

<comment><USER26> Wouldn't the point of YC's investment and share have been to _help_ and _teach_ them how to work out SEO (in addition to other things) so that they could _beat_ Yelp? (if truly Yelp is a competitor)

Isn't the point of YC to pick and help startups that will elucidate a path to rapid, lasting growth?

That reason for rejection doesn't make sense, unless one is to believe that nobody can ever build a successful specialized directory because Yelp is already and will always be king of the world. Did YC invite them because they were somehow going to be the New Yelp?

<comment><USER25> If they got in YC, then sure: The network and possibly external SEO companies and designers will help them.

I find this discussion somewhat tiring. It seems that people want to talk about age discrimination, about like-ability, about luck, about SEO being a dirty thing, about 10 minutes being too short for an interview, about outsiders not making it in, about Yelp not being a competitor to online service directories etc.

If they asked: where do you see yourself in 5 years? What is your long-term strategy to entrench yourself in the rankings? And did not receive a satisfying or believable answer, then no amount of help and teaching will suffice. Else YC could better buy that company, outsource some SEO and design and do it themselves. Then they don't have to do it by proxy with 2-year-old founders.

Crude: It does not matter what the point of YC is. The people at YC decide that, not us. What YC does with companies they accept has no bearing on what YC does not do with companies they rejected.

The reason for rejection does not make sense to you (and probably to Yogatrail, because they do not focus on the feedback). It probably made sense to YC, else why take such a decision? Again crude: Why is it relevant that you can not find reason in the rejection?

>unless one is to believe that nobody can ever build a successful specialized directory because Yelp ...

This is not the reason. The reason was that the company was unable to make YC believe that they had a solid marketing strategy and knew what they were doing, now and in the future. Then it does not even matter if they have the best strategies in the world, the take-away is that they failed to convey these strategies. What is more likely: That YC failed to understand what it takes to build a successful online business? Or that these founders kinda flunked the interview?

You have to be aware of Yelp if you are doing this. You have to discuss where you differ and what your plan is to take over their Yoga-services niche. After the latest search engine updates, thin content directories suffer. You have to be aware of this and make others believe you have the strategy to insert more quality content into your sites, to save that channel, and to open up other channels, so one channel can not break your entire business. Educate yourself, especially if you are an online business. Like design, not everyone is naturally good at it, but it helps to familiarize yourself.

>Did YC invite them because they were somehow going to be the New Yelp

At least a similar potential. If Yelp is totally unrelated, then you should be able to convince them of this. But IMO Yelp is not unrelated to an online services directory. Yelp has unique problems like Google taking their traffic with their own rating system, and they adapted well. If Yogatrail will face similar problems in the future, no one can tell, but if I were to invest money into a company, I'd want to know they have a strategy ready for when this happens, that they are aware that this can happen, that they know the webmaster quality guidelines and don't make million dollar SEO blunders. You can't really help and teach preparedness like this. Help and teach yourself: convince YC you know your stuff. You can't change it if YC does not get it. What you can change is your pitch: You did not get YC to get it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm not sure what your alternative user acquisition strategy is but not able to supplant Yelp in Google search results is a pretty valid observation. How do you respond to this?

<comment><AUTHOR> The bulk of our user growth is due to viral loops we've built into things - we're pretty much getting each new user to successfully invite another at this point. Unlike Yelp, we're very "yoga-centric", and while Yelp is all the rage in San Francisco, that's not the case in the rest of the world... so we don't think that Yelp will be the place people will use to find their yoga, especially their yoga teachers. One persons 5 star is another's 1 star.

That's not to say we're neglecting SEO; we're working on strategies to get more search traffic (and in many places we're doing very well with that) and convert it into registered members. It's just not our main and only strategy.

But the real answer is: we're planning a feature (not there yet) that will solve a big pain point for millions of people (getting the schedule of their yoga teachers at a glance), and which will provide an even better viral loop (yogis inviting their teachers, and teachers using our site for their online presence).

<comment><USER28> In my opinion, you're building a niche product.

Personally I believe that niche products are the way of the future and that general platforms (Facebook, Yelp, etc.) will not last in the long run. But from what you described I don't think you made this (implicit) assumption clear, and it's not clear whether that's the sort of business they want to invest in (in the short term, the general platforms will be where the money is made, and it will be the aggregate of the niche platforms - a much more profitable investment than a niche product).

<comment><USER29> His answers are convincing rebuttals to a superficial criticism. In particular, I can tell you that if this startup can _measure_ that it has a positive viral coefficient, it's already light years ahead of Yelp. And he's right that Yelp has basically no market share outside of a few US cities -- that's why they had to buy a much smaller competitor (Qype) just to get a foothold in Europe.

But to your point, I believe it was a YC partner (or three) who said that big businesses tend to start in a niche where a small number of people love you. If this guy really walked into a room and said _" we've got a small, revenue- generating product with a positive viral coefficient and a growing user base"_, the line _" fine, but you'll never beat Yelp"_ is not a compelling counterargument -- it's a lot like telling early AirBnB that they'll never beat Hilton.

I don't know if that's what actually happened -- there could be any number of reasons why a startup gets rejected after a ten-minute interview that aren't captured in a polite rejection email -- but in general, criticizing small startups for being small is not a winning strategy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's something we didn't share in the blog post. It's some of the print outs we brought along with us to the interview. No reason not to share it I guess. It shows some graphs illustrating virality, connection clusters (just one of them) and revenue growth. [http://www.yogatrail.com/yogatrail- stats.pdf](http://www.yogatrail.com/yogatrail-stats.pdf)

<comment><USER30> Hey, just a quick piece of feedback on this. You define virality as "the percentage of users invited by other users". That's a very non-standard definition.

Usually virality is measured as "the average number of new users invited by any given user". I'd strongly suggest using that as your definition.

<comment><AUTHOR> In that case, we're hitting it out of the park - over 4 invites sent per user, but these invites convert at ~25%. There's also "k factor" (invites sent x conversion rate), and the interval between user #1 bringing on user #2 is also important... guess there are many ways to present virality :)

<comment><USER30> That kind of info (4 invites on average per user, 25% conversion rate) is THE critical information. If you want to talk about virality at all, the fact it's not in your presentation is a serious defect you should correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Has anyone over 40 ever been accepted to ycombinator? What is the percentage?

I'm not saying ageism. In my mind there might be valid reasons why not. I notice the US army doesn't take older people and I assume there are valid reasons. I don't see people crying ageism in that case... I'm just curious.

(For the record: over 40. Not a startup guy. Not interested in applying to ycombinator.)

<comment><USER32> Yes, founders over 40 have been accepted into YC.

<comment><USER33> I'm guessing the median age skews a lot lower though. I don't think that's YCs fault necessarily though; I'm sure the median applicant age is also a lot lower than 40.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I appreciate the honesty and critical views expressed here. You don't see this too often with people discussing the YC interviewing process.

</comment><comment><USER35> From their website: "Not knowing the first thing about building a website, we were lucky to meet Sven Ernst here in Chiang Mai, really by chance. Sven is Managing Director of Buzzwoo!, a German digital agency that does web development, strategy, as well as creative internet design work. After a few short discussions, we all decided to form a partnership, and YogaTrail was officially founded in early 2012."

Perhaps this is outdated. Is Sven full-time on YogaTrail now or still running an agency/doing other work? The only technical team member being a part-timer would be another red flag if that's the case.

<comment><AUTHOR> ... Sven here (sharing this acccount with Alex). I'm full-time on YogaTrail. Besides me there are 2 full-time employees (Drupal Developers) on board, plus we use lots of free development resources from BUZZWOO!, a digital agency I co-founded. I consider this a huge advantage compared with other bootstraped start-ups and it enabled us to actually produce lots of software. Other than the main website YogaTrail has a very successful facebook app (we use for content marketing), several mobile apps and a bunch of very cool tools we use for marketing and growth hacking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> YC is one potential path to success, and they have their criteria, which OP's idea and current business did not meet. That doesn't mean the idea won't be successful. Just keep at it, OP. Don't let rejection from any one investor have an out-sized impact on your attitude. If you believe in the idea just put your head back down and get back to work. Look at it this way: the further along you are when you take on investors, the more you keep.

</comment><comment><USER37> "could it be that my interviewers have worked on SEO so much that it's difficult for them to conceive of non-SEO related strategies for growing a user-base?" ...And from the rejection email "I encourage you to spend more time on figuring out customer acquisition (possibly through non-search channels)." So I don't think that "it's difficult for them to conceive of non- SEO related strategies" is the reason, since they actually suggest the non-SEO strategy in their rejection email. I think that you need to view this from the perspective of ycombinator. The only investments for them that makes sense is a startup with high growth rate. (the very definition of a startup by PG). When you are playing the David against the Goliath of "Yelp" you can not compete on SEO. So you have to have an alternative DEFENSIBLE advantage to allow you to dominate your market. Another thing from what I have read over the years is that ycombinator looks for teams that are not married to their initial idea. In fact they prefer the team to the idea. So if in the interview you come off as very defensive about the validity of your idea that could be a red flag.

</comment><comment><USER38> Thanks for writing that. The first part was interesting, but the last part probably comes across as more bitter than you intended.

About YC's interview policies - it would be very interesting to do some kind of cutoff analysis ([http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2157932](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2157932)) and to see the difference between the companies that do make it in and those that do not. The problem is that making it into YC gives companies that are barely over the cutoff a huge boost (which is why you give them 7% of your company, afterall) so it would be very tricky to take that into account rigorously.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'd imagine that if YC didn't think you and your co-founders would fit in due to your background, they wouldn't have invited you for an interview.

</comment><comment><USER40> It seems to me that in order to get accepted you'll either present something very, very new or unorthodox, where traction and beating competitors is less important, or present a me-to kind of venture that already has very good traction and is already beating competitors. From what I can gather you have to be on either end of those opposite option in order to get funded.

</comment><comment><USER41> I don't know if the OP will read this comment but coming from India, I can very well understand the kind of circumstances you are in. When you talk about the expenditure they make on you and how you can pay your rent for 10 months, I can absolutely relate with it. Moreover, travelling across the globe and then being given only 10 minutes to understand what you actually do. You may actually have a better chance of getting funded in your own country without all this travel and hassles.

Someday, I would also start my own business and I understand that getting traction is of utmost importance. But, there is another aspect to it which is the fact that some people actually start a business or just run a simple idea for the sheer pleasure of solving a problem and to help others. I think you are on those lines and I wish you all the best to continue working in this direction.

I think your post was very well written and you have actually listed some of the possible issues with their selection process.

<comment><USER42> I think both you and the OP are missing the context of the $1500. I suppose it's "non-negligible" as he said, but it's barely enough to cover 2 founders flying from New York, plus a hotel and rental car. In Thailand $1500 may cover the cost of 10 months rent, but in SF or New York, it's closer to the cost of one month's rent. It's not an insignificant amount of money over the 300 teams they invite for interviews per batch, but it's certainly the cost of doing business.

<comment><USER41> I can understand when you say that $1500 x 300+ is a great amount they are investing at the cost of running their firm. While this is very important, we should not overlook the way the entire process is conducted (at least this is what I gather from the OP's post and personally believe too).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm sure you didn't intend this, but the post ends up sounding very whiny and bitter. Instead of taking the opportunity to reflect on ways you could improve your pitch, you criticize the YC process.

Also, during this critical time and considering the importance of YC partners, 10 minutes of partner time is likely worth _more_ than the $1500 to YC.

<comment><USER44> _> Also, during this critical time and considering the importance of YC partners, 10 minutes of partner time is likely worth more than the $1500 to YC._

Yeah, it may be worth more to the _interviewee_ , but I think the OP was pointing out that it may be a waste of _YC 's_ time, considering they invest $1500 in the process for only 10 minutes of time with the candidates.

<comment><USER43> I'm not sure if you agree with me? That's precisely my point: I bet YC values its partners' time at more than $1500. Hence the _to YC_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> If I understand correctly, YC will sometimes ask applicants to return soon afterwards for a second, extended interview. So they don't always make a "yes" decision in 10 minutes, but they can make a "no" decision in 10 minutes, which is quite logical. Think of it as the professional equivalent of a coffee date.

</comment><comment><USER46> Now you made me curious about the stats of different age groups accepted into YC.

</comment><comment><USER47> Thanks for sharing your experiences. I'm sorry to hear it didn't go the way you wanted. I'm going to tell my wife about your site - she actively practices yoga and we're about to move, so I'm sure she'll be happy to know about a way to find new yoga teachers.

I also wonder if what you're working on has the potential to ever be a billion dollar company. In the 10 minutes they spent with you, they might have decided that you are two years in on this idea already and married to it so might not be a good fit for them no matter how talented your team is.

</comment><comment><USER48> I know your passion is Yoga, but it seems that your model would work with many types of fitness and health professionals (pilates instructors, personal trainers, massage therapists, etc.) and maybe even broader with other service professionals.

It may be risky if you feel you have tapped into a very dedicated niche of users, but increasing your scope (and ability to scale) may make you more attractive to investors and other accelerators. Good Luck!

</comment><comment><USER49> Very interesting post! Our team also applied to YC. We didn't even get an interview :/ although we have a user base, paying customers and a product that got 20k sign-ups the first 48 hours. Read more here: [https://medium.com/avocode-stories/ec1a87294204](https://medium.com/avocode- stories/ec1a87294204)

</comment><comment><USER50> > Then imagine restricting yourself to a 10 minute interview before deciding > whether or not you're going to hand someone $120,000 in cash and spend 3 > months coaching them on their business that you'll get a 7% share of.

Well they asked a fair number of startups to participate in a second interview (usually with a different group of interviewers).

</comment><comment><USER51> You state in the post that you're making some money at the moment - how ? Your FAQ page says you'll soon be adding ads and adding premium content - but that implies these strategies are not implemented yet.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi, "YT Premium" has been live for a few months and is the main source of revenue (we've actually doubled revenue nearly every month since January). Ads are there too, but they just started and are making only a small dent in our budget :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> You guys are clearly ฝรั่ง, how have you managed to overcome Thai immigration laws based in Chiang Mai, or are you working there illegally? Did you get a BOI permit, or?

<comment><AUTHOR> We are a BOI company. You're welcome to stop by our office space anytime for a cup of coffee :-)

<comment><USER52> I'd love to; I'll be permanently in Bangkok from October, but happy to head North for a little while. It'd be great to pick your brains about the BOI process too...

<comment><AUTHOR> sounds good. feel free to get in touch via our website.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> > since YC only reimburses founders for travel expenses up to $1500

I thought it was $1100?</comment>


The Evernote Devcup - <AUTHOR> http://blog.evernote.com/2012/04/24/devcup-2012/

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's a link to the actual challenge: <http://devcup.evernote.com/></comment>


How URL Shorteners Should Change - <AUTHOR> http://web.bozho.net/?p=117

<comment><USER2> What's the difference between <http://wshr.eu/techcrunch.com/2012/04/03/facebook/fXd> and [http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/03/facebook-countersues- yahoo/...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/03/facebook-countersues- yahoo/?user=fXd) ?

Reliance on a third party.

<comment><USER3> When I view ~10 year old web sites and forums it's rare enough that external links work at all, with all these link shorteners it's going to be even worse.

I imagine in the not too distant future that link shorteners will no longer be used (for one of many reasons), if/when that day comes most link shortening sites will have no incentive to keep their service available, and it would be hugely tempting for them to modify existing links to display relevant targeted ads, instead of the destination pages. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if many of them exist purely with that intention.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also hate shorteners. But marketers love them, because they give them statistics. So they will be still in use, alas. The point is to improve them a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> URLs should be shortened and expanded in the browser, according to an RFC scheme. No third party and they live as long as the RFC's implementation does.

I would prefer to hover over a link and have my browser tell me where the link goes, not relying on some third party.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm 100% with you here. But it will take time for that to become common. Until then, we can improve the existing situation a bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So what you're basically saying is that url shorteners shouldn't shorten urls anymore?

<comment><USER6> they should simplify them, without single focus on as short as possible

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ticks me off every time Twitter fails to post a tweet and I realize it's because they're _lengthening_ the j.mp URL.

<comment><USER8> Why? Twitters URL shortener is also used to prevent spamming. In addition Twitter tries to detect malicious content and warn the user about it. They have reasons why they lengthen shortened links...

<comment><USER7> bit.ly (j.mp) does all those things, without having to have a longer link. It provides fantastic analytics combined with the shortest URLs.</comment></comment></comment>


Messenger Rooms and More Ways to Connect When You're Apart - <AUTHOR> https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/introducing-messenger-rooms/ <comment><USER2> The privacy and security infographic doesn't address what Facebook does with the video.

</comment><comment><USER3> Finally some reputable competition for Zoom. Will definitely be using these to host my weekly book club discussion meetings once it launches.

If only it was end to end encrypted...

<comment><USER4> BlueJeans has an end to end encryption...and if your concern is end to end encryption, on what planet are you interested in a facebook product?

Or is this Poe's law and I'm tired.

<comment><USER5> Because WhatsApp is not end to end encrypted. /s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Warning: Facebook

(Had it said that in the title of the post, I'd have skipped this story.)

<comment><USER7> HN does show base url fb.com in the title.

<comment><USER6> Doesn't come through in my RSS reader, unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > invite anyone to join your video call, even if they don't have a Facebook > account

Aww, they're finally getting it. But too late, I assume they're going to use some kind of cookie/IP matching to determine any and all Facebook accounts of someone that joins one of these rooms.

It's really annoying, the Facebook Portal device looks genuinely great and something I'd love to use, especially in this quarantine. But I just don't trust Facebook.

<comment><USER9> FB already has shadow profiles, because its Like/Share buttons on sites can track people across the web, I wonder if knowing the person's face/voice is useful.

They probably already know if a shadow user is most likely a teenage male (visits gaming sites) or middle-aged lady (hmm, what sites do they visit?). I guess using facial/voice profiling would be a way to confirm the profile.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which Macbook is best for development? - <AUTHOR>

I need to get a Mac for iOS development (and some ruby on rails). I have limited amount of money, so something below $2000. Should I get a 13 inch Macbook pro with 4gb of ram or is retina something I should get. Is a desktop Mac better than laptop? <comment><USER2> I have a current model Macbook Air 13" w/ 4 Gb of ram. I do a whole variety of development (PHP, golang, python) with MongoDB and MySQL.

Currently, I have a few tabs in the terminal open connected to a few servers, MongoHub (MongoDB client), Sequal Pro (MySQL client), Firefox (2 open tabs), Chrome (15 open tabs), Sublime Text 2, Spotify, Cyberduck (FTP/SSH client), MAMP Pro, iTunes (phone is backing up), Adobe Reader, VLC and Excel open. I usually have those, along with Photoshop and Parallels opened as well and haven't felt any slowdown at all.

I'm using the Microsoft Wireless Keyboard 800 and Microsoft Bluetooth Notebook Mouse 5000, have a 23" AOC monitor hooked up via Displayport to HDMI adapter from Monoprice. This setup was probably around ~$1500 without any warranties. I just picked up a nice SD card that is sized to fit almost flush with the Macbook Air and is 128 GB w/ a fast 90 MB/s read/write which I can use as a file dump, that cost around $50 on Amazon, but worth picking up a few if you want to isolate projects or just use as backup.

Unfortunately, the Macbook family isn't too upgrade friendly so you may buy a laptop and it may be underpowered and until you refresh your hardware, you'll be stuck with that hardware, so it may take you a few years to get the exact setup you need. This is why people recommend maxing out as much as you can with RAM and expand hard drive modularly. I'd honestly recommend not going with an older model laptop or desktop because HD space is going to end up being your bottle neck, not RAM, and the newer lineups have USB 3.0 so you want to be sure you get that, then you can pick up a 1 TB external USB 3.0 HD for $100 and won't suffer with USB 2.0 speeds.

<comment><USER3> Can you provide a link to the SD card you're using? I have the exact same Air and would love to do what you're doing with the card...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you have limited budget don't worry about retina. You're a developer, not a designer so that shouldn't be your priority. Think about getting some used macbook pro, replace the hdd with ssd for system and apps, and super drive with case for hdd and put there some larger hdd for data. The money that you save use to get more ram (and maybe faster ssd) and bigger display to fit simulators.

This setup should work for most cases giving you mobility, speed and space to work, when needed.

<comment><USER5> Can attest to this. You're gonna have to buy an iPhone or iPod touch anyway, so don't bother with retina.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm developing iOS on a mini and am happy, I don't have any issues with it at all. The fan is nearly silent even when it's running. Don't have any performance issues with XCode or so.

If you don't need a laptop, save the money and get a mini. Even though it hasn't been updated for well over a year, it still buys you the most RAM/$ and CPU/$.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is there any way to upgrade to 8gb of ram on a mini by myself?

<comment><USER7> Yes, the RAM is user-serviceable and is very easy to upgrade yourself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have used a Macbook Air 13" (i7 2GHz, 512GB SSD, 8GB RAM) for over a year exclusively for software development. The machine has been great, except I am frequently swapping windows back and forth, because of the screen resolution (1440x900).

I develop using numerous tools including Emacs, Xcode, IntelliJ, WebStorm and Visual Studio (running inside VMWare Windows 8 Pro). I have never noticed any lag whilst coding

Would I buy the same size machine again? Yes. The trade off is weight against screen size, although I think a higher resolution screen might put a strain on my eyes considering how long I use the laptop.

For me desktop was never an option, because I code on the train often. I also do not use either an external monitor nor a keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER9> Try to get as much RAM as possible, that will end up being your bottleneck for upgrading down the line.

Retina vs. non-retina is not a huge deal, especially if you're trying to keep it under budget.

Definitely go laptop!

Good luck.

<comment><USER10> In the current pro line, I'm not sure I would get anything other than the retina ones. Given that the 13 inch non retina has an older cpu, and a fairly low screen resolution. I've had no problems doing rails, sql, and vagrant on my 2012 13 inch MBA with 4gb of ram.

<comment><USER11> YMMV. The rails codebase I work on is over 5 years old, and is pretty ram intensive. Upgrading to 8 gb made everything ridiculously snappier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would get a refurb late 2011 17", upgrade the ram to 16gb and put a SSD in it.

</comment><comment><USER13> 13" Macbook Air w/ 8GB RAM runs $1400.

27" IPS-ZERO-G Slim Monitor WQHD 2560x1440 - Dual Link DVI $390

[http://www.monoprice.com/Product/?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id...](http://www.monoprice.com/Product/?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10509)

Mini DisplayPort + USB to Dual-Link DVI Adapter $70

[http://www.monoprice.com/Product?seq=1&format=2&p_id=6904](http://www.monoprice.com/Product?seq=1&format=2&p_id=6904)

<comment><USER14> any other options for the 27" IPS monitor that has mini-DP or full DisplayPort built in?

<comment><USER15> The next one up does [http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=...](http://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=113&cp_id=11307&cs_id=1130703&p_id=10489&seq=1&format=2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you don't have that much $$, get a Macbook Air. I did all my development on a 13" Macbook Air before my current job (and I still use it in my personal time) - I _love_ how light it is and easy to carry around. If you're doing iOS + Rails you don't need any fancy power to do the majority of your work (and if you do, go buy time on AWS or something).

</comment><comment><USER17> I bought the Macbook Pro Retina for Python+HTML dev, it is overkill and I don't find the retina screen to be a game changer on a regular basis. I'd go with the Air if I had to make the decision again. I do suggest maxing out the ram and such when you do it, though.

</comment><comment><USER18> Do you need a laptop?

Well if you wanted to save your self a whole heap of money get a mac mini.</comment>


'Alien thigh bone' on Mars - <AUTHOR> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Alien-thigh-bone-on-Mars-Excitement-from-alien-hunters-at-evidence-of-extraterrestrial-life/articleshow/40689009.cms

<comment><USER2> The linked article only proves, once again, that not all content labeled "science" is actually science.</comment>


Do elite US colleges choose personality over IQ? - <AUTHOR> http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/05/do-elite-us-colleges-choose-personality.html

<comment><USER2> Gah. The defunct journal Medical Hypotheses is a junk source with a discredited editor, and the sensational claims of the discredited editor's editorials in that "journal" that turned into blog posts in 2009 have no place (having been discussed before) on Hacker News at the end of 2011. See

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3392967>

for more details.</comment>


Comcast Is Threatening to Cut Off Customers Who Use Tor - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/comcast-threatens-to-cut-off-tor-users-2014-9

<comment><USER2> TL;DR: Comcast isn't threatening to cut off customers who use Tor.

"We have no policy against Tor, or any other browser or software. Customers are free to use their Xfinity Internet service to visit any website, use any app, and so forth," said Comcast.

</comment><comment><USER3> The actual title is "Comcast Denies It Will Cut Off Customers Who Use Tor, The Web Browser For Criminals"

The only organization that is moving against Tor is Business Insider, putting "The Web Browser for Criminals" in an otherwise non-story.</comment>


Ask HN: What are you favorite CDN? - <AUTHOR> For scripts, libraries etc. <comment><USER2> Best CDN is no CDN. Keep your list of dependencies small. Serve them yourself. Wikipedia just did a great job on this, see [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/phame/live/7/post/175/wiki...](https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/phame/live/7/post/175/wikipedia_s_javascript_initialisation_on_a_budget/) and corresponding [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21016972](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21016972)

Bonus: You don't get CDN trouble, like having all your visitors tracked.</comment>


Poker is not a "table" game anymore - <AUTHOR> http://www.pokerrrrapp.com/

<comment><USER2> Fun idea - app ux is not very good, though.</comment>


US blocks shipments of semiconductors to Huawei - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/15/us-china-tensions-rise-as-trump-administration-moves-to-cut-huawei-off-from-global-chip-suppliers.html <comment><USER2> This after previous indictments of Huawei for RICO violations and theft of trade secrets from USA companies T-Mobile, Qualcomm, and Cisco. Including theft of 5G technology that is now being used in equipment sold to EU countries.

[0] [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications- co...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-conglomerate- huawei-and-subsidiaries-charged-racketeering)

[1] [https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications- de...](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-telecommunications-device- manufacturer-and-its-us-affiliate-indicted-theft-trade)

Whatever happened to arresting Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Wanzhou Meng? Was she ever extradited from Canada after being captured in Vancouver, BC?

<comment><USER3> I will be very surprised if Huawei would be found guilty of anything. The company plays an important role in actually defining the 5G standard as a member of 3GPP, and holds 3 times the number of 5G patents than Qualcomm.

I mean, look at the number of contributions to the 5G standards by company in this document, and compare the positions of Huawei, Qualcomm and Cisco: [https://www.iplytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Who- Lead...](https://www.iplytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Who-Leads- the-5G-Patent-Race_2019.pdf) (page 9).

What are they supposed to steal there? They literally are defining what 5G is.

<comment><USER4> worked for a main competitor of Huawei building UMTS/LTE base stations which at the time weren't even properly standardized (early systems design). Searched for my own name on github. Found source code I wrote for said vendor which was taken from somebody who worked for our Hangzhou office and had access to the same internal VCS[1] as me. The guy downloaded anything he had access to then moved to Huawei and from there to another Chinese state owned company. He uploaded everything to his own github account (under his real name). Not even an isolated case. They don't even have to plant a mole in your org in the West they can simply just coerce Chinese based employees to extract interesting IP from your sites in China. These guys just don't give a f*ck! (also Nokia, Ericsson management were never held accountable for enabling this by opening up sites in China without thinking this won't bite them. they all did it because of promise of cheap manufacture and they all got rolled. thousands of jobs lost in Europe and the US as a consequence so it's not just the Chinese who are to blame here)

note: I was involved in early tech standardization on 3GPP for many years. yes Huawei contributes a lot. That doesn't mean they also don't steal your shit. They do it because there literally is no way to hold them accountable. You just got to make sure you don't travel to a country that may extradite you to the US. And by the way they are _not_ the leader in 5G. This is constantly parroted propaganda. You can get the same "mature" Tech for 5G from Ericsson, Nokia ... yes Huawei might have more patents but you can only sell what the standard supports in terms of interoperability, and so the constant claim that the only 5G player is Huawei is plain wrong.

[1] obviously we didn't use github to manage our source code.

<comment><USER5> I don't know anything about telecoms, but I work in a different area of software development in China and can confirm it is not uncommon for developers here to bring their whole previous employer's repo with them when they switch jobs. One of my most cringeworthy moments was when I saw the same XyzUtil class pop up in two different companies, and both had been sourced from the same (not open source) third company repo, with the same bug that I ended up fixing twice.

I suspect this happens in other countries too, but I think elsewhere people make an effort to be less obvious about it. I get the impression copy paste programming isn't as looked down upon here as it is in the west.

<comment><USER6> Pretty sure it happened in Europe and UK in early '00s too, from my limited experience. Sure, not in an obvious way, but it happened - mostly kept as a reference to go back when you're sure you've already seen/solved this or that problem before.

I mean, in Europe salespeople routinely take customer contact-lists with them whenever they move, everybody knows it. Developers do the equivalent stuff in their field. Asians are just a bit more blunt about it, because they have less to lose. Plenty of Europeans did the same sort of thing when moving to the US in 18th/19th century - I call it "hungry makes right".

<comment><USER7> Asians don't do it more bluntly. Chinese do. Sorry if I sound pedantic, but this is just insulting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told Fox Business "there has been a very > highly technical loophole through which Huawei has been in able, in effect, > to use U.S. technology with foreign fab producers." Ross called the rule > change a "highly tailored thing to try to correct that loophole."

This is very vague. Does anyone understand what they are talking about?

<comment><USER9> The "loophole" was this:

"Under the new rule, any foreign company that uses American technology to produce microchips would need a license to sell to Huawei. That makes it difficult for major chip contract manufacturers like Taiwan's T.S.M.C. to sell to Huawei, because its supply chains rely heavily on American manufacturing tools. It could also clamp down on sales by makers of semiconductor equipment, like Applied Materials and KLA, and chip design software companies like Cadence."

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/business/economy/commerce...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/business/economy/commerce- department-huawei.html)

<comment><USER8> I don't really understand why they are requiring a license to sell to Huawei in the first place.

That this is all such a string of vagueness makes me suspect it's a bunch of bullshit, more about politics (in the 'optics' sense) or business competitiveness than actual national security.

<comment><USER10> Pure speculation...

All of this is about national security. US & Taiwan's TSMC are in talks to open a TSMC factory in the US. Chairman of TSMC has publicly stated if the US gives them enough money, they'll do it. Appears US (Trump) is telling TSMC if they do not open the factory for free, they're going to have trouble making money at all. Taiwan wants to keep TSMC because it's an insurance policy, China & the US both need TSMC. That or it is a plausible way for TSMC to deny they're cutting off China.

...any thoughts?

<comment><USER8> Hm, I think you and I mean a different thing by 'national security'. I think of, like, spying, or trying to insert malicious vulnerabilities in software (attack), etc.

Like maybe if Huawei were accused of being used by the Chinese government to spy on America, it would make sense to require a license to sell tech to Huawei. (I have sometimes seen it accused of such; I have no idea how credible such accusations are; but this is an example of what 'national security' means to me, particularly in regard to requiring licenses to do business with a particular company).

You seem to be talking about whether TSMC gets a federal subsidy or not to open a factory or not as 'national security'. I mean, I get how the general economic environment has 'national secuirty' implications; how the future access to semiconductor market has 'national security' implications. But if that's "national security" it seems like the _entire_ economy is "national security", and "national security" doesn't actually mean anything. Especially when Huawei is being penalized for concerns about a different company?

With that understanding of national security, is there _any_ aspect of international trade negotiations that isn't "national security", or _any_ international trade measure that can't be said to be "justified by national security"? Do you have an example of any international trade measure (a tariff, an embargo, a subsidy, a penalty, a ban, any method of one nation trying to get an economic/trade advantage over another) that you do not think would be "national security" related under this understanding? Is there such a thing?

Among other things, it's another reminder that the era of legal-norms-based international trade has been brought to an end...

<comment><USER10> All national security has a cost, access to TSMC is obviously national security issue, and appears US is positioning itself to reduce the cost of access to TSMC and increase it for China.

National security is an ends, not a means; its ultimate form is shapelessness, not a strict definition.

<comment><USER8> I'll ask again, is there any example of international trade dispute/conflict that would not be about 'national security' with this understanding? Can you give one? Or does this intentionally and consciously reconceptualize all attempts to get advantage in international trade, or a business advantage for domestic corporations over foreign ones, as 'national security'?

<comment><USER10> Here's a recent example:

[https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national- sec...](https://www.csis.org/analysis/wtos-first-ruling-national-security- what-does-it-mean-united-states)

<comment><USER8> Can you explain that example in your own words, and what you think makes it not an issue of national security? Or is your position just, hard to say, whatever the WTO says?

What the WTO determines has changed over time, and can depend on the balance of power. The WTO knows that if it keeps making rulings that countries just ignore, it loses power and legitmacy, it has to try not to push too hard.

But your opinion is whatever the WTO decides is correct?

To me, if the penalties against Huawei are really about negotiations over a government subsidy for a TSMC plant, I'd expect the WTO to rule against the US, if it was playing 'fair'. Which doesn't mean it will.

Here's an example of the WTO ruling against the US in a trade dispute with China, and the US retaliating to try to weaken the WTO.

[https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aa...](https://www.ft.com/content/131a55ea-a84a-11e9-984c-fac8325aaa04)

Here's an expert writing on "Why Limiting U.S. Tech Exports to Chinese Companies Like Huawei Is a Risky Strategy",

[https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us- tec...](https://itif.org/publications/2019/05/23/why-limiting-us-tech-exports- chinese-companies-huawei-risky-strategy)

China has been working on challenging actions against Huawei specifically at the WTO; although it has to be careful because they know the WTO's rulings can be effected by politics, and the US (especially current administration) may not abide by the WTO ruling anyway, they need to try to remain on good terms to avoid escalating trade war, regardless of what the WTO might ultimately rule (which can take a while too).

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei- go...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/05/29/huawei-goes-legal- again-as-china-tells-its-officials-and-media-back-off-the-u-s/#52b4636b6b3b)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is very interesting reading all the comments from you guys, some from tech prospective others from policical ones. But from my angle, a normal Chinese guy working in the field of material research in China for a decade and deep inside the system, my points would be:

1\. you guys really worry too much about our ability to innovate, seriously. There is no room for real innovations. But at the same time the system rewards stealing and copying. The system, the education, the overall political environment are not designed with innovations in mind but to help a few to stay in power. My personal take on this is that Chinese "innovation" is now built upon: Chinese with foreign education/working background bringing back technologies, CCP buying foreign companies with OUR everyday people's money, and of course hacking/stealing directly. I don't believe we have a change winning the innovation war, not in the long run.

2\. for a "private" company like huawei, isn't it weird that it's always backed by CCP? Lots of Chinese private companies get balls kicked everyday and why only huawei get treatment worthy of a state owned business? Even us Chinese knows better.

3\. please think about us everyday Chinese citizens. we are currently under direct information warfare and systematic repression waged by CCP for decades, and our lives/future squeezed out in order to found companies like huawei and projects like one belt one road, without a f __king vote. It 's much bigger than us vs huawei, at least from our side.

btw it is not my field of expertise but I'd like to call for experienced software/hardware engineers from the west, help us bring down the CCP's GFW system before it's too late. If it is built by man it can be broken.

thanks and apologize for my broken English.

<comment><USER12> Thanks for you comment. It's too rare that we hear from people with your perspective.

Is HN not blocked/censored in China?

</comment></comment><comment> amd-bull the last time we effectively blocked china from acquiring tunneling machines, they ended up building their own, a mean feat, and now they're looking to start exporting them! disrupting the market economy has a vicious way of getting back at ya [0] [http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1121448.shtml](http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1121448.shtml)

<comment><USER13> They are already building their own chips. Huawei has started to use 14nm chips manufactured by Shanghai-based SMIC. They plan to replace TSMC's chips with SMIC's chips in their phones. TSMC blocking will just accelerate their plans.

[https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/05/12/huawei- kirin-710a-smic...](https://www.gizmochina.com/2020/05/12/huawei- kirin-710a-smic-mass-production/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I guess TSMC got a courtesy call so they were able to announce their intention of building a new fab in the US?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23187698](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23187698)

<comment><USER15> TSMC is the golden goose. The entire world will lose if something happens to them.

<comment><USER16> Yeah I speculate that tsmc has gotten some sweetheart deals as part of this policy change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> How many foreign companies actually use US Chipmaking equipment? Will this stop european chipmakers like ASML from selling to china too?

<comment><USER18> > How many foreign companies actually use US Chipmaking equipment?

In the semi industry, nearly all of them. You can hardly make anything in the semiconductor industry without using several of the major US companies. The US still dominates the semiconductor equipment industry. Of the six major players, half of them are US companies.

> The $412bn global semiconductor industry rests on the shoulders of just six > equipment companies, three of them US-based. Together, the companies make > nearly all of the crucial hardware and software tools needed to manufacture > chips, meaning an American export ban would choke off China's access to the > basic tools needed to make their latest chip designs.

> "You cannot build a semiconductor facility without using the big major > equipment companies, none of which are Chinese," said Brett Simpson, the > founder of Arete Research, an equity research group. "If you fight a war > with no guns you're going to lose. And they don't have the guns."

> "ASML cannot do without Applied Materials and the other way around. If you > take even one out of the value chain, that may hamper Chinese fabs," said a > former ASML executive.

[https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9...](https://www.ft.com/content/4a8553a6-f3b2-11e8-ae55-df4bf40f9d0d)

<comment><USER19> Mostly true, but you could come pretty close with ASML, ASM, TEL,ebara, hitachi and a couple others (particularly the Korean companies)

I don't think it is quite so widely understood that there are close seconds in every market.

It is pretty easy to imagine ASML giving up on Intel, cutting HMI, and all the chipmakers going outside of Lam, Applied, and KLA for their next tools. The industry would be a bit disrupted but outside the US...fine. and it would destroy the US industry.

This will also tend to pressure the Chinese to keep pushing their own supplier industry, rather than just integrators.

<comment><USER20> Could you give a layman overview of how ASML is dependent on these companies and what the geo-political/econmic shifts would be?

<comment><USER19> That is a big topic.

Basically, though, a process flow is deposition, track, litho, etch, clean, deposition, cmp, metro, inspect (lots of steps vary, but these are the basics)

You need each of these to work. Deposition: Lam, Applied, TELand then Wonik, ASM, and others Track: TEL Litho: ASML Etch: Lam, Applied, TEL CMP: Ebara, Applied Metro: Onto, KLA, Hitachi Inspect: KLa, Applied

There are more, and I missed a bit, but basically, you need to tick off each of these layers, and quite often with the best at each.

ASML cannot make wafers for anyone without someone doing all the other parts. And really, that is true for all these companies. There is a best of breed and selection bias that makes each system imperfectly interchangeable.

But you can also see that ASML is the sole true monopoly. So if they are out, nothing works. There are plausible workarounds otherwise.not always easy or cost effective, but plausible in most cases.

ASML needs the rest of the infrastructure to sell tools. And likewise, everyone needs ASML to deliver, or there is no new node....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> amd-bull pretty shocking how biased these hn comments are against china. it's clear the US has lost leadership in the crucial technology of 5g and is trying everything it can to stop the leader, huawei. while i'm no china-phile, the US actions is just silly and will have far reaching consequences that will just quicken the demise of our technological prowess. and if you're gonna argue from the point of view that huawei broke the law, then let them have their day in court. we're acting like judge, jury and executioner. how is that right?? shows up hn as a bunch of biased tech bros! let the downvotes begin

<comment><USER21> > pretty shocking how biased these hn comments are against china.

And it took only a few years of media campaigns- the first one I remember was the announcement of spy chips in China-made boards, which turned out to be fake. It's scary how quickly you can steer public opinion to suit your needs.

<comment><USER22> It's actually been a long time coming: Tiananmen, South China Sea, Hong Kong protests, threats against Taiwan, Uyghurs, Tibet, Surveillance State, Authoritarian ruler for life, IP thefts, currency manipulation, shooting down satellites, lop-sided market access and more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is nothing else than the US panicking over losing their technological and economic supremacy, and using brute force to damage a competitor. Disgusting and very dangerous for the whole world.

<comment><USER23> Don't know why you're downvoted given that you're correct. The end result of this is to ensure that China develops their own semi conductor industry. Besides the short term loss of sales, in the long term new companies will emerge that compete with the American semi conductor industry.

It's just a dumb move all around.

<comment><USER24> > The end result of this is to ensure that China develops their own semi > conductor industry

Seems to me that's happening either way and probably always was. Why wouldn't they?

<comment><USER25> It actually was fast tracked by the trade war. Government mandated domestic development of certain things after the US made it clear to China that they're not trustworthy trading partner. Not that China is, but kind of besides the point.

Similar to how the google ban fast tracked Huawei working on google free systems e.g. buying third party map services like TomTom. Bad for Google good for competition.

Basically the US has lost its standing thanks to Trumps bully diplomacy[1].

"Some if not all regional countries may harbour concerns about the security ramifications of using Huawei, but there are real pragmatic considerations," said Collin Koh Swee Lean, a research fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. "Cost-wise in particular, Chinese offers for infrastructure development present more attractive propositions."

[https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast- asia/article/301282...](https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast- asia/article/3012820/huawei-ban-why-asian-countries-are-shunning-trumps)

<comment><USER24> > It actually was fast tracked by the trade war. Government mandated domestic > development of certain things after the US made it clear to China that > they're not trustworthy trading partner. Not that China is, but kind of > besides the point.

I'm not sure why that's besides the point? The U.S. for years worked to invest in China and build them as a great trading partner and the CCP continued to just steal trade secrets and do everything in their power to undermine the U.S..

And it's probably true that this development was fast tracked by the trade war... but so what? This was coming since the CCP didn't want to be a partner with the West, so why wait around to cut the ties? It's going to happen either way, why not happen on your terms?

W.r.t Trump's "bully" diplomacy - I mean, playing nice certainly didn't work. We don't need to and shouldn't be trading partners with China so long as they're acting against U.S. and western interests in general. The U.S. tried to engage and endured years of malevolent activity by the CCP only to have the actions worsen over time. So... I'm not really sure what the advantage to the U.S. is besides having a big market. Ban Chinese products in the U.S. and China can ban U.S. products. Whatever.

> Cost-wise in particular, Chinese offers for infrastructure development > present more attractive propositions

Sure. For now. And if you only want to look at cost. Maybe you want to look at other factors, like maybe you're Vietnam and concerned about the Chinese ramming your fishing boats? [1]

[1] [https://www.news.com.au/world/south-china-sea-tensions-at- ne...](https://www.news.com.au/world/south-china-sea-tensions-at-new-high- after-vietnamese-boat-rammed-and-sunk/news- story/10188f3d7c1d7336bcaffafd742defab)

<comment><USER21> Let's put it this way: China is a huge country, that has been very well governed in the past 30 years. Its people are proud, smart, ingenious, and they're working a lot for a lot less than their western counterparts. Given this, and given it lasts, it was inevitable for China to overtake the US in technology, economic power and importance on the world scene. Sooner or later, even playing by all the rules.

Was the US prepared to accept that? What do you think happens when the world's only technological, economic and military superpower is about to be overtaken by a competitor? Did you think the US was going to lose its supremacy without trying everything it could to prevent it? Of course not.

And then, what kind of actions do you think it would take to prevent it? For example, the US could start a very aggressive trade war with China. They could try to justify it in various ways, for example by saying that China is a risk to the world, that its technology is tainted by some issue (maybe it could be used for spying). They could try to isolate China, advising all its partners not to trade with it. And so on.

And this is exactly what we're seeing. It would have happened anyway, independently from China's behaviour. Because the only variable is how close they are to threatening the US's power. And they're close.

<comment><USER24> Oh no doubt about that. It's just sad for the whole planet that they've chosen the path they've chosen (genocide, etc.) inb4 "but the U.S." .

Given that, I just don't think it makes much sense to engage with China unless the calculation is strictly that it benefits the U.S. (and the west in general). Like, if U.S. companies don't get access to the Chinese market then that means Chinese companies don't get access to the U.S. market, for example. To put it another way, from my current understanding I would say we should maintain U.S. hegemony at all costs short of nuclear war (or anything atrocious like that). Despite recent setbacks and general anxiety about U.S. actions over the last however many years, The U.S. has proven since WWII that it's a trustable world leader.

Although I'd certainly counter your claim that a "rise" is inevitable. Being large doesn't necessarily translate into anything. I think it's only a matter of time before the U.S. global reach is diminished, and China will certainly fill that void, but it won't solely be filled by China, especially in the Pacific.

Countries in Europe will also have to make tough choices. Is NATO still viable? Is it outdated? Should the U.S. pull out? For now those are easy decisions, but when push comes to shove the U.S. is strong-willed enough to do something like back out of NATO if they insist on integrating with Chinese systems. I don't think there will be a lot of having your cake and eating it too for the continent. Yet another disappointment.

From a tech perspective this will have quite the impact. China will eventually develop viable operating systems, but will you buy a laptop with one? Some are concerned about the NSA, but at least I can sort of fight the system. What if I'm from Cambodia? Do I want the Chinese spying on me instead or do I have more faith in the Americans?

Lots of questions and uncertainty here, in my view, except that the U.S. needs to pick up its toys and go home when it's being put at a disadvantage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I implore anyone to check out 'Trade is War' by Yash Tandon:

" Globalization has reduced many aspects of modern life to little more than commodities controlled by multinational corporations. Everything, from land and water to health and human rights, is today intimately linked to the issue of free trade. Conventional wisdom presents this development as benign, the sole path to progress.

Yash Tandon, drawing on decades of on-the-ground experience as a high level negotiator in bodies such as the World Trade Organization, here challenges this prevailing orthodoxy. He insists that, for the vast majority of people, and especially those in the poorer regions of the world, free trade not only hinders development—it visits relentless waves of violence and impoverishment on their lives."

<comment><USER14> Can we please stop flagging comments like these? It's annoying and imho should lead to revoking flagging privileges for everyone part of the "ring". Deplatforming by mass-flagging is shit on Twitter and it's shit on HN as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Very dumb move by the US.

In business, there is the perennial question of "Do I "buy built" thus taking advantage of economies of scale within the supplier while at the same time making myself dependent on the good intentions of that supplier? Or do I "go to the cost and effort and time wasted in making it myself", which means I don't get dependent on that supplier, puts me behind for a year or two, and then possibly may be able to take away his business and keep it for myself in the future?

Most administrators find it's better overall to "buy built". But if forced to, they will "roll their own".

If Huawei starts making its own semiconductors, the US can wave goodbye to its own semiconductor companies like Intel, AMD, Radeon and Nvidia. Just like GM, Ford and Chrysler are there in name only today- when once they made over 50% of the entire world's cars back in the 1960s.

In the words of that famous hair product: "It may not happen overnight, but it _will_ happen!"

</comment><comment><USER28> What is it that is actually preventing this from escalating to a hot war? It feels like we are just waiting for China to manufacture enough warships and nukes or killer drones or AGI with spiking neural networks or whatever can give them an edge so that a real war can start.

It's even a war in the comments section.

I don't think it's safe. How do we really know it can't progress to some kind of overt military activity?

Why are people not more concerned about this?

I get the impression that people think the best way to prevent a war is to keep doing things to hold them down. But that seems to be escalating tensions and not actually limiting them.

What is the plan for getting out of this? I hope that Elon hurries up with his Mars rockets so I can emmigrate before the whole planet turns into a complete bloody (literally) science fiction nightmare.

<comment><USER29> >What is it that is actually preventing this from escalating to a hot war?

The same thing that's always prevented nuclear-armed countries from going to war: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction)

<comment><USER30> Uh, yeah, as long as it's not on their own lands, they could fight some real wars...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Huawei is screwed for RF front end components, specifically integrated PA, switching, and BAW filtering. I don't believe there is a domestic supplier of those.

<comment><USER30> Yet. That's the good news about this. New competition will just bring affordability and innovation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if this will be good for open source. Is there a RISK-V-like equivalent of whatever it is that's being blocked?

<comment><USER9> No, free/open-source semiconductor design software and equipment is non- existent, especially for modern nodes.

<comment><USER32> Well, that's definitely not the case, a lot of labs are on this (including Berkley's hammer/chisel [1]).

I've seen some tools presented at RISC-V conferences, but the major closed- source component nowadays is the PDK, I'm afraid.

Hopefully, inkjet-printed transistors or some other fabless technology will make open source ICs a lot more feasible. One of the major issue is costs, when you look at more than 40k/mm² for multiproject wafers in advanced nodes and contrast that with the anemic budget most open source software has to do with. You don't need to be on the very latest node, if you can afford going slower, on bigger, cheaper dies.

A lot of open source "hardware" project seem to focus on FPGAs, since that's more approachable, and the costs are nowhere as high.

[1]: [https://github.com/ucb-bar](https://github.com/ucb-bar)

<comment><USER32> Just something I didn't make clear in the above comment: I expect that Hardware-description-language-to-layout pipelines will improve a lot in the upcoming years, so if a process becomes viable for open hardware, projects that were developed on an FPGA (here is a wi-fi chip, for instance: [https://github.com/open-sdr/openwifi](https://github.com/open-sdr/openwifi)) might be transferable with a lot less effort than doing everything from scratch.

I would also like to point out that these tools will likely help us juice up a bit more performance from the existing processes, but we aren't really likely to see a lot more of Moore's scaling, going forward. So the door is open to new processes, that may or may not be open hardware-friendly. And current, top-end processes might also become cheaper over time. While I doubt a lot of new foundries will catch up with the end of Moore's scale, it might actually become easier to get there, while disruptive technologies get some time to play catch-up. Together with innovative synthesis tools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think we should all keep something in mind before we go celebrate the end of globalization. If we go on a rampage pulling manufacturing and capital out of China while simultaneously blaming them for the pandemic, in a few years we'll end up seeing a nation with a shattered economy, a pissed off populace, and the largest and most well supplied army on Earth. Rhetoric tends to devolve into a limited decision matrix when we should be trying to expand the tree instead. Diplomacy works, anger doesn't.

<comment><USER34> On the other hand, it's difficult to be diplomatic when one side is so belligerent, sensitive and petty. China has started imposing trade sanctions on my country (Australia) because our Prime Minister had the audacity to suggest there should be an independent inquiry into the origin of COVID-19. Meanwhile, they see fit to interfere in our domestic and political affairs through various front organisations, bribery and even directly through their embassy and ambassador in Australia.

People are fast growing tired of China's aggressive and abusive approach to 'diplomacy'.

<comment><USER14> That's fair-ish for Australia (but then again, Australia is part of the five eyes, so essentially a part of US global policy), but less so for the US.

I believe most people see US <=> China in conflict, they don't really consider China <=> Australia, Vietnam or Japan.

<comment><USER35> The world (and the west) is not us only

<comment><USER14> Absolutely, I just wanted to point out that e.g. China <=> Australia is most likely not considered it's own conflict, but rather a subconflict of China <=> US, as Australia is part of the US bloc, just like every other Western nation and close allies in Asia.

China <=> Russia would be considered a different conflict, as few people believe that Russia would be acting as a proxy for the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I doubt this will be my most popular comment on HN but Trump really has to be congratulated for being the first President to actually _do something_ about the growth in strategic strength of the absolutely terrifying regime that currently controls China. I know the Obama administration made some noises but I don't recall them actually inconveniencing China in a serious way.

To me this is all naked geopolitics, hardly fair and extremely risky. But finally America is transitioning to worrying about real problems rather than, say, the policy of treating shepherds in Afghanistan as a major threat in the Bush era.

<comment><USER37> >Trump really has to be congratulated for being the first President to actually do _something_ about the growth in strategic strength of the absolutely terrifying regime that currently controls China

He might deserve congratulations if his strategies made sense, but they seem more likely to hurt the US than China in the long run.

<comment><USER38> There are no sure things. We don't like the current situation because its risky. But no risk no reward. If we wanted less risk our only option was to have done it way earlier - under Bush 1 or Clinton.

<comment><USER37> I'm fine with risks, so long as they're calculated from a position of expertise. I don't trust Trump to take smart risks, given his business history, narcissism and well documented disdain for expert advice. Someone who ignores intelligence briefings because he thinks he's too smart to need them shouldn't be acting like a maverick on the world stage.

Simply doing something, anything, for the sake of having something be done is even worse than the status quo.

<comment><USER39> I think this is why ppl (msm) should tune out the "Obamagate" nothing-burger, cos it's potentially less dangerous than anti-asian sentiments given the population demographics in the US. Who's next after; Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Asians??

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Trump is starting to drum up campaign "donations"...

</comment><comment><USER41> As someone who is not an american nor a chinese nor from a big European nation this is all frightening to watch.

It's an invisible war of nations and we dont really have a clue about allegiances nor what is right or wrong.

Sure as a european I feel more connected to the US but at the same time I feel very much excluded from that larger sphere protection and benefits.

The US needs a framework for smaller nations where we can build better relations.

<comment><USER42> Between the end of WWII and now, Western Europe, and now Eastern as well, have enjoyed American defense and economic benefits. Europe almost as a monolithic whole has been fixated on a different economic model than the American model, but that's its own choice -- the U.S. did not impose its model on Europe.

> The US needs a framework for smaller nations where we can build better > relations.

What could that be? We've had the U.N., NATO, the WTO, and what not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> It's pretty hilarious that the grounds for the block is that China will use the chips to spy on people, given that the United States is certainly doing that already.

<comment><USER44> Yeah, US spying and Chinese spying are totally the same and used for the same purposes.

I don't like spying period, but to try and equate what the US does to what China does is simply ludicrous.

<comment><USER45> It might feel different depending where you live. If one lives in Europe, I don't see why US or Chinese spying should be perceived differently.

<comment><USER46> Maybe because there are human rights in the US?

<comment><USER47> No, there are no 'human rights' in America. There are only 'American rights'. Non US citizens are not protected by the Constitution. Do not have free speech, etc...

<comment><USER48> Noncitizens are protected by the Constitution. It's just that those who are blithely violating the rights of noncitizens simply don't care about obeying the laws themselves.

A document without maintainers is dead.

<comment><USER49> Those who are blithely violating the rights of noncitizens are also doing so for citizens (most obviously, those suspected of being noncitizens due to skin color, use of foreign language, etc., but it doesn't stop there.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>