Hydrogen Could Replace Coke in Steel Production - <AUTHOR> https://about.bnef.com/blog/hydrogen-solve-steels-climate-test-hobble-coal/?sf108467981=1 <comment><USER3> How does this impact the use of scrap metal feedstock and direct reduced iron?

</comment><comment><USER4> Great, but industrial hydrogen is produced from natural gas.

We need a good alternative source of industrial hydrogen. I have read of catalytic coatings that split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and were considered uneconomical because of the need to process the hydrogen into "something useful". If hydrogen becomes directly useful, the economic equation should balance out differently.

<comment><USER5> Even electrolysis is a reasonable cost if electrical energy is abundant.

</comment></comment><comment> chroem- What about hydrogen embrittlement?

<comment><USER6> I cannot speak directly the process described, but hydrogen embrittlement is an effect of exposure of finished metals to hydrogen gas where molecular hydrogen penetrates the metal walls (H2 is a very small and light molecule with a sort of ambiguous electropotential property) and disrupts the metalic structure.

Presumably use in production would avoid this, possibly through oxydising the hydrogen at some point. I'd like to read a more technical metalurgical description though, and am well out of my depth here.

Update: The process Bloomberg describe may be related to the concept of "hydrogen attack", in which hot, high-temperature hydrogen decarburises (reduces/removes carbon in) steel by combining with it to form methane, with the resulting gas then trapped in the metal matrix itself.

It's not clear if/how this process might function in steelmaking itself, though part of that involves decarburisation through the injection of oxygen to the blast furnace.

See:

[https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what- is-...](https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-high- temperature-hydrogen-attack-htha-hot-hydrogen-attack)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like nuclear heat and electricity can substitute for hydrocarbons. Abundant heat and power within the atom to compensate for lower efficiency.

<comment><USER8> Solar heat concentration and power generation could maybe come close in some scenarios.

The main problem is stability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Doesn't steel require carbon? Where does the carbon come from in a hydrogen process?

<comment><USER10> About 0.8%. You could throw in coke after hydrogen smelting, and skip the decarburization step that you'd normally need with coke smelting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This could indeed be a big deal. "Coked" coal, or metalurgical coal, accounts for 15% of current (or at least recent-years, the numbers are shifting rapidly as electric generation offloads) global coal use. It's a use that would otherwise be hard to substitute for although there are options.

Previously, the main alternative has been to re-use recycled steel, in electric arc furnaces (hit up [https://invido.us](https://invido.us) for some pretty amazing videos of things going well and/or poorly) which 1) use potentially clean electricity sources and 2) eliminate all coke use. Altneratives to the blast furnace refinement of new steel from iron ore would be a development unprecedented since the introduction of Bessemer process furnaces in the 1860s.

Vaclav Smil writes on many energy and resource topics, and covers steel from both perspectives in his _Energy and Civilization_ and _Making the Modern World_ books. I'd strongly recommend both.

What I'm finding odd with the article is that Bloomberg appear to be principally citing themselves as sources. I'm reviewing literature and there appears to be scientific research dating at least to the 1970s on this topic (that'a a very quick first read by titles).

I'll add possibly relevant links here. Anyone with actual metalurgical knowledge is far better placed to comment than me.

This appears likely the technology in question:

Valentin Vogl, Max Åhman, Lars J. Nilsson, "Assessment of hydrogen direct reduction for fossil-free steelmaking" (2018)

[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618326301) (PDF freely available)

Also: "Modelling a new, low CO2 emissions, hydrogen steelmaking process" (2013) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965261...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652612003836)

A techno-economic evaluation of the use of hydrogen in a steel production process, utilizing nuclear process heat Authors: L.M.Germeshuizena, P.W.E.Blomb (2013) [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.06.076](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.06.076) [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00406...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603102004781)

Solutions to Hydrogen Attack in Steels (Timmins) addresses the hydrogen embrittlement question: [https://www.worldcat.org/title/solutions-to-hydrogen- attack-...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/solutions-to-hydrogen-attack-in- steels/oclc/840345832&referer=brief_results)

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure what you meant to link to with that invido.us link, but when I opened it I got an expired cert, followed by uBlock Origin blocking the whole page, followed by a redirect to a different domain whose above-the-fold content was about Minecraft.

<comment><USER6> Typo. Should have been: [https://invidio.us](https://invidio.us)

(Edit window has closed for HN :(

It's an alternative interface to a popular but increasingly advertising- infested and annoying video-hosting platform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is one of many creative ways of getting rid of direct fossil fuel use in industry and in the economy overall. We need ways to make steel, cement, and fertilizer with alternative processes that do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, and techniques like these are extremely useful. They will make a transition away from fossil fuels possible. But all these processes require heat and electricity. The root energy source used to do all these things needs to decarbonized. That's the really big challenge.

<comment><USER13> Interesting though how if you suppose abundant, low cost renewable energy available at scale exists, the above problems suddenly become tractable and solved.

<comment><USER14> Unfortunately not and that is one of the main issues. Even if we had limitless carbon-free energy there would still be significant carbon outputs directly from the production process. The article shows one possible way of reducing this for steel, but cement is currently a different ballgame and is a substantial emissions source from its non-energy inputs.

<comment><USER15> Well with cheap carbon free electricity, we could cut all the CO2 emissions from iron and steel with hydrogen based reduction and about half that of cement manufacture (about half the carbon use is energy cost for heating as per Wikipedia article). Together about 15% of global emissions could be eliminated which is nothing to sneeze at.

In fact many intractable problems in the world can be solved by more clean electricity - eg. 8000 odd skyscraper farms are enough to feed the world eliminating farm-land requirements but would require enormous amount of energy to run - also would represent single points if failure to attack in war - <USER2> will need society to evolve

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Where does the carbon source come from to turn the iron into steel?

<comment><USER15> Steel has miniscule amounts of carbon (0.2% is typical). The carbon comes largely from pig iron from the iron making step (where it comes from the coke used to smelt ore) and an oxygen lance is actually used to burn out excess carbon from molten pig iron to reduce the quantity to a level suitable for mild steel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Wow, I have genuinely never heard of coked coal[1] before in my life, and was extremely confused about why a soft drink was involved in the production of steel... I guess you learn new stuff every day.

[1]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_\(fuel\))

<comment><USER18> On the other hand it was impossible to grow up in my country not knowing about it because the double meaning was subject to a very popular song: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutter,_der_Mann_mit_dem_Koks_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutter,_der_Mann_mit_dem_Koks_ist_da)

<comment><USER19> Official video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m7bHdcq87o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m7bHdcq87o)

Translated lyrics: [https://lyricstranslate.com/en/mutter-der-mann-mit-dem- koks-...](https://lyricstranslate.com/en/mutter-der-mann-mit-dem-koks-ist-da- mother-man-cokes-there.html)

Important to know:

* Koks: Coke as in coal but also Cocaine as in drug.

* Kohle: Coal but also Money.

The song reflects on the situation after WW2 where people were freezing in the winter and longed for warmth but had no money to pay. This is contrasted with the party generation of the 90s.

<comment><USER20> Koks is cocaine, not crack cocaine, Koksen is insufflatiing cocaine

<comment><USER19> I think you're right. I've changed it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "... the technology to make fossil-free steel is already currently operating with natural gas..."

Natural Gas IS a fossil fuel!

<comment><USER22> Yes. The _technology_ is in use, just using natural gas instead of hydrogen because of cost.

If/when hydrogen becomes cost-effective via direct market forces or mandated at gunpoint by government, the technology is ready.

<comment><USER23> Got bad news, you can reduce iron electrolytically and bypass the electricity to hydrogen/hydrogen reduction steps.

<comment><USER24> Is there a well developed industrial process doing that?

<comment><USER25> It is not well developed, but there are at least two approaches being investigated at lab or pilot scale.

The first involves electrolysis of molten iron oxide.

[https://www.bostonmetal.com/moe-technology/](https://www.bostonmetal.com/moe- technology/)

The other approach involves electrolysis of iron ore powder in alkaline aqueous solution.

[https://www.siderwin- spire.eu/sites/template.drupal.pulsarte...](https://www.siderwin- spire.eu/sites/template.drupal.pulsartecnalia.com/files/documents/Massive%20production%20of%20primary%20steel_presentation_DECHEMA_23_11_2018.pdf)

<comment><USER26> I found the Boston Metal link particularly interesting. If you consider it, combined with a small form factor nuclear reactor, you could build an iron ingot producing plant right on top of the deposits in places that would otherwise be forced to ship ore out for external processing.

<comment><USER25> They're both interesting, but the aqueous approach has some advantages. Keeping materials working at extreme temperature is difficult: basically anything above 1000C gets very hard. And a low temperature approach has the potential very big advantage of being highly dispatchable, since it would not have to be kept running to keep from freezing up. Dispatchable electrochemistry is like half a battery, just great for dealing with intermittent power sources like renewables.

<comment><USER23> The second link is interesting. I've only seen the paper on the old Norwegian pilot plant before that slide show. The Norwegians were dealing with Iron Sulfide waste from copper mining as the feed stock. Being able to directly reduce solid iron oxide is probably better.

I have also wondered if you could use the iron rich gangue from bauxite mining as a feed source.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Recruiting the Top 1 Percent (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070501/column-guest.html

<comment><USER2> Interesting article, but isn't $75,000 a year pretty much slave wages in Manhattan? You could barely afford a small studio apartment for that much, and most likely need to live outside of downtown and commute in every day.

<comment><USER3> You can EASILY live on $75K in a studio in Manhattan. What kind of lavish lifestyle are you trying to live? You don't need a car in NYC.

Edit: Maybe starting salaries in NYC for tech startups are that high for programmers, but other positions tend to be in the $35K-$50K range.

<comment><USER4> Second that. I lived for a year in Manhattan (East Village) while working on my start-up - I had roommates, but I made well under 75k and was just fine. Was still able to do all the things a 25 yr old guy wanted to do. The idea that it takes $75k+ to make it work in Manhattan is a farce perpetuated by big banks selling shitty jobs to naive grads and people who don't know how to budget/ be thrifty on message boards.

<comment><USER5> But think about the long run: Roommates are great until you hit age 30 or so and settle down and get married and maybe have kids (no pressure here Sean!). At that point Manhattan becomes painful unless you are married into money. Now you could move out to Brooklyn or your startup can avoid older employees (which is illegal), but if you grow your company to over ten people you can hit those issues pretty quickly. Also it's a spectrum -- Manhattan on $60 can work while being in NYC on $25k is a nightmare.

<comment><USER3> Yup. But they were talking about starting salaries on the Fog Creek thing. $75K right out of college for a young adult opens a lot of doors. But I definitely agree that being 30 with a kid, rather than 22-24, would be a lot harder on $75K.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This probably works well for Fog Creek, who have a small crew and very talented senior people (who, importantly, did _not_ get recuited out of school). But I view this as problematic for larger companies. The core problem of course is that students aren't very good programmers yet. They can hack and solve problems, and have a handful of favorite technologies, but they won't have the breadth they need to be really good at things for a few years yet.

The danger is that if you then build a culture where _everyone_ gets recruited out of school, everyone is swimming in the same pool with equally narrow skill sets and _no one_ develops the required breadth. So you get "architects" who know their field really well but can barely write working code on a modern system.

This works great for the true elite who will learn this stuff on their own, of course. But even then recruiting from schools tends to incorrectly bias decisions on things like grades, which correlate at best weakly with hacking talent. You'll miss some of those targets who were slacking off in class working on their own projects.

<comment><USER7> Actually, some of the biggest of the big guns at Fog Creek did come straight from school. More than one product was built exclusively by people who never worked anywhere else. The whole point of the internship recruiting process is to correct for the high grades only bias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think Joel is giving his company a little too much credit.

Today's students, if they are really good, have much better opportunity than to work at Fog Creek. They are thinking of companies like Amazon, Facebook, Apple, Google, LinkedIn, etc. that are actually innovating and working on some of the most interesting problems and applications. Not creating VNC "Remote Assistance" clones and help desk software.

Fog Creek does create very good software. But game changing? Or well known? Most people outside of software development wouldn't be able to name an actual Fog Creek product.

<comment><USER9> I have to concur. Their primary claim to fame is Joel himself. I don't mean to denigrate their products either - and a new grad could certainly do worse - but there are more "meaningful" and challenging opportunities elsewhere (that also happen to pay more).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is really insightful and a little ahead of its time, and a bunch of companies have picked up this kind of tactic recently, and not just in the software industry.

In September recruiting here at Western University, for example, a bunch of firms host their info sessions at a club, where it's open bar. But students are getting smarter here, and almost everyone looks for internships in third year. Thus, the companies have adapted and several have started recruiting second years. But more than that, firms like KPMG have started running summer programs, where they fly promising students down to Hollywood for an all expenses-paid vacation, to _introduce them_ to the firm.

Let's see who's the first to offer to pay for tuition.

<comment><USER11> The US military has been offering ROTC scholarships that completely cover all college costs (at least at cheaper schools) for a long time. Of course they also include a multi-year commitment to a job that could include being shot at.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If only every company developed sales funnels like this intern pipeline, there would be many more happy customers in the world.

You could probably launch a business in almost every possible field in the world, charge 50% more than everyone else, not fix a thing about how you do business... except cloning a sales funnel like the one mentioned in this article,(overwhelming your "qualified" prospects with a pleasantly surprising "shock and awe" experience and you would crush the competition, and have prospects lining up around the block begging you to take their money!

It might cost you an extra buck or two upfront, but it will pay for itself in spades in the long run, and as the article points out, greatly minimize your risk by qualifying your prospects before investing in them, and instead spend the money on attracting the top 1% of customers!!!!

I guess the only real question is... This article is 5 years old, what's taking you so long to realize your customers just want to feel special and want an experience they can't resist sharing with everyone out there.

It truly amazes me that there is a guaranteed to work formula here, and yet so many companies spend their marketing dollars trying to attract everbody or the wrong-body instead of investing in the right people at the right time, and making bigger margins, delivering better services and experiences to better customers, who are very happy to pay premiums.

</comment><comment><USER4> Most important part of the system the article describes: "We use the summer to decide if we want them full-time. So we give them real work. Hard work."

Too many summer internships (see big law, big finance, etc) fail to give employers the information they need to know if there's a fit, and, just as importantly, fail to give top students the information that THEY need to know if this is where they want to spend 70 hours a week for the next 1-3 years.

<comment><USER13> I agree, this smells a lot like late '00s legal recruiting - throw money, parties, and interesting work at summer associates, giving them and the firm almost no information about the actual long-term fit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> 75K for top 1%? _Anecdotally_ an average(not top 1%) fresh grad in companies like Microsoft,Google,FB or (insert any other big co) etc these days get about 80-120K(depending on your negotiation skills,competing offers,school where you went to etc), not to mention ESPP every year,RSUs/options. If any average grad at these companies can make so much, shouldn't top 1% be getting much more?

Also more than the offer, Fog Creek is not known to people who don't follow tech news, read Joel's articles etc. But everyone knows and uses a (insert a big co)'s product and that reputation definitely stands out.

</comment><comment><USER15> "They don't give up and go into plumbing. They apply for another job." That's an unfortunate choice of words ;-)

</comment><comment><USER16> It is possible to live in Manhattan for $70K/year--with roommates. However you should not have any financial shocks. You should not, just to name a personal example, find yourself suddenly needing three dental implants at $2700 each, not including the cost or surgery. You should avoid cabs and use public transportation instead. And you should avoid taking advantage of any cultural activity that isn't free.

One downside of taking lower paying jobs is that employers often decide that you really are worth the lower salary. Programmers can end up doing system administration and desktop work. Perhaps that's not too bad in moderation, but it's very easy to get sucked into an on-call mode. Then again there may be exceptional people who can program in their heads as if they had an office with a door they can close, while some administrative assistant is nagging about corrupted email.

<comment><USER17> Interestingly I do know one guy who's job is both development and IT support roled into one.

He literally sits at a desk in an open plan office with a headset on while he writes code.

At any given moment his headset beeps and he has to quickly switch from visual studio into his ticket logging application.

I have no idea how it would be possible to write half decent software that way.

<comment><USER18> The same way anyone gets work done--during the day, he does easy shit, and if he has something hard to do, he does it at night and at home when he can't be bothered.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> When I saw the title of this article I assumed it was about how to recruit the richest 1%

</comment><comment><USER19> Joel I take it you mean the 1% that apply to you? Small companies (dont take this persoanly) are neaver going to be the first point of call for the true top 1%.

<comment><USER20> This is decidedly not true. While I wouldn't be so vain as to call myself the top 1% of developers, I've gotten job offers from most major software companies, but one of my criteria for where I accept a job is "do you have fewer than 50 people?"

I want to write code all day, and I want to work on interesting and very hard problems. While this exists at large companies, there are very few jobs at top tier small companies where this doesn't exist.

<comment><USER21> That seems backwards. At a big company like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, engineers code all day and industry-leading problems. At a small company, there's a lot of setting up servers and customizing UI and evaluating 3rd- party software packages.

<comment><USER22> There's plenty of that at large companies too.

<comment><USER23> Setting up a server in a back room in your office is a much different task than setting up a server at Big Co. scale though, they basically aren't even the same task at all.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: WebdevLearning – Discover new web development learning resources - <AUTHOR> https://webdevlearning.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi

The main goal of this website is to make it easy for web developers to find new guides, books, courses and playgrounds for most topics related to web development and keep track of what they're learning.

There are similar projects available, but I didn't like their ranking systems that usually place outdated resources on top, and if you sort by "newest" you get old resources that were just submitted to the site.

For WebdevLearning I wanted to give a higher focus to fresh content, so all resources are displayed sorted by their original publish / launch date on every page.

I also wanted a way to keep track of all resources by my favorite authors, regardless of where they published their guides, books or courses. All authors are welcome to launch their resources on WebdevLearning, especially if they self published.

There's still a lot of work, but I hope you'll find it useful as it is right now. Even though I have many ideas for additional improvements/features, I'd love to get some feedback from web developers before I start working on new features.</comment>


Tunguska Event - a blast from the past [ Meteroite hit on Siberia 1908] - <AUTHOR> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/11/the-tunguska-event-a-1908-explosion-estimated-at-1000-times-more-powerful-than-the-atomic-bomb-dropped-on-hiroshima/

<comment><USER2> A quote: "Today I found out about the Tunguska Event, which was a 1908 explosion estimated to have been nearly 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and about 1/3 as powerful as the largest ever detonated atomic bomb, the Tsar Bomba."

The Tsar Bomba was not an atomic bomb, it was a hydrogen bomb with an fission trigger.

A quote: "The U.S. had originally planned a series of much larger nuclear strikes that would happen in quick succession after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, wiping out most of the major cities in Japan, had the Japanese at that point not agreed to surrender."

Yes, except that this ("quick succession") wasn't possible -- after Nagasaki we could assemble just one more bomb:

Source: <http://www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm> : "The Third Bomb"

Quote: "Timing was important, Tibbets said: 'It was vital that [the Japanese] believed we had an unlimited supply of atomic bombs and that we would continue to use them. Of course, the truth was that we only had one more bomb on Tinian. Delivery of the third bomb was several weeks away.'"

The problem was the plutonium supply -- breeder reactors in Hanford, Washington were being used to generate the plutonium, and they could only produce so much material per month.

<comment><USER3> "atomic bomb" is often used generically as a stand-in for 'nuclear weapon'.

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atomic%20bomb>

<comment><USER2> Yes, in dictionaries, but as explained here --

<http://arachnoid.com/wrong/index.html#Dictionary>

\-- dictionaries don't define words, they only report how people choose to use words, however irrational those uses might be. Consider the word "literally", which dictionaries define as meaning in accordance with reality, or the opposite, depending on who is speaking:

<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally>

But among educated speakers, an atomic bomb is a fission weapon, and a thermonuclear bomb is a fusion weapon -- opposite physical processes to convert energy from one form to another.

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon>

Quote: "The first fission ("atomic") bomb test released the same amount of energy as approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. The first thermonuclear ("hydrogen") bomb test released the same amount of energy as approximately 10,000,000 tons of TNT."

Clearly distinct meanings.

<comment><USER3> 'Atomic bomb' for any kind of nuclear weapon is historically inaccurate but it's a (relatively harmless) generalization - after all, in a more technical context one can still avail oneself of 'fission' and 'thermonuclear' and 'implosion device' and 'Teller-Ulam design' and so forth, to the desired level of detail.

I understand your point about dictionaries but they do also describe what passes for acceptable usage. In other words, a dictionary can also be viewed as a record of a definition and usage battles lost. 'Atomic bomb' seems to belong on the same pile as 'literally' and 'begs the question'.

I'm completely with you on holding the line at 'less' and 'fewer', though, futile as that likely is, over the long term!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


United Taps Criminology Students to Uncover Patterns in Accident Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/united-taps-criminology-students-to-uncover-patterns-in-accident-data-1475161313 <comment><USER2> > United says the program's costs are "negligible" because its own technical > department provides the computing power and the _unpaid_ interns work with > existing employees to collect and load the data.

Not having to pay people is a great way to save costs.

Considering how valuable the benefit United received, United could have coughed up the money.

<comment><USER3> Not only could they have, but this type of unpaid internship is pretty clearly illegal: [https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm](https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs71.htm)

<comment><USER4> They'll claim to be exempt:

> In general, the more an internship program is structured around a classroom > or academic experience as opposed to the employer's actual operations, the > more likely the internship will be viewed as an extension of the > individual's educational experience (this often occurs where a college or > university exercises oversight over the internship program and provides > educational credit).

It's still possibly over the line, and tacky as all get-out.

<comment><USER5> It's hard to tell from the article exactly what "intern" means in this context. If it's effectively a full semester unpaid co-op job then I tend to agree. If it's more along the lines of a class project then that's extremely common, mutually beneficial, and nothing I'm going to get very excited about.

<comment><USER6> Often when it is a class project the department or the professor's lab can collect the payment as a sponsorship instead of the students. Still sketch, but arguably at least the company is forced to pay _someone_ for the labor, and arguably better than the company getting work for free.

<comment><USER7> That's arguably even worse, especially considering the price the students pay to attend the institution and the extra costs they pay for lab credits.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Judging a Book by Its Cover: Protecting words, now and then - <AUTHOR> https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/judging-book-its-cover <comment><USER2> Are there any online archives with high res scans of book covers? The few photos in this article are very beautiful.</comment>


The Devastating Decline of a Brilliant Young Coder - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/lee-holloway-devastating-decline-brilliant-young-coder/ <comment><USER2> Wow, it's like my worst nightmare. Very sad.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you do when too many people want to "help" your startup? - <AUTHOR>

Some background: I am bootstrapping a startup by working part-time at a few jobs.  This isn't going as quickly as I would like, but it is what it is.  (I have obligations that I'm unable to blow-off to launch it full-time.)  I haven't even told that many people about it - just those that ask what I'm doing in my "free" time - and am not advertising it.
The problem is that everyone is offering their help (literally every. single. person. who finds out about it).  I don't talk about it anymore, and won't until it's ready. I would actually like to keep my personal life separate from my business life as much as I can.  In three different instances, I have witnessed businesses (and money) destroy lives in my own family, so this hits home.  Also, and I'm not sure how to put this tactfully, even though I think the people offering to help feel like they would be doing me a favor (and this is definitely true in some regard), I am not a fan of their work ethic, among other things.  They may have an inkling as to how obsessive I am, but working together would be a problem.
Has anyone else had this conflict?  And if so, what did you decide and what happened?  Am I being short-sighted by ignoring help?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Meta: Many Ask HN's annoy me to no end (like yesterday). Yours, however, does not (unlike smt88).

Personally, I don't think you will be able to build a business all by yourself, so I think it's in your best interest to think about the type of person (or people) you will need to generate a profit in your company's future.

For the people offering to help that you feel will not bring anything to the table, just say what you did here (i.e. "I'm a bit too obsessive about this project and feel it would hurt our relationship in the long-run."). Or, that your project is still too immature to add anyone at this point.

I wouldn't worry about such things at this point, just focus on launching and validating your project ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tell them thanks for the offer, what is your background, I'll reach out to you if we have a problem in that area? That way you're polite, but they'll stay out of your way until you need them?

</comment><comment><USER4> I've always been really nice and positive to people on HN, but this tipped me over the edge for many reasons. You're whining about people offering to help you!

You will eventually need people to help you to succeed. Even if these aren't the right people, they're expressing confidence in you and interest in your product. These could be early evangelists, but at the very least, they're just nice people in your life. Shut up and stop complaining about them.

<comment><USER5> This sounds great in theory, but in practice it's much different.

I've had 'nice' people telling me they want to 'help' me by throwing out any and every idea they could think of. I, being the nice guy, listened to their ideas.

All of their ideas were extremely generic and obvious (example: comment section on a blog, images and sound on an e-learning site). A few months down the line, they then claimed that I needed to give them a percentage of the company because I somehow 'owed' it to them. It never amounted to anything because I laughed it off and outright refused (the company never got off the ground anyway). However, I could see a lawsuit if I had ever become extremely successful.

Many people think that an idea is worth millions or a significant percentage of a company.

You do need people to make anything succeed. However, there will be people that want to grab onto your success in any way possible because they want a piece of it. Family is no exception.

I also have experience choosing people with questionable work-ethics because they were my friends to start a company. It failed every time because of the other person's work ethic.

I have found that most people just aren't willing to put the time and dedication into a company needed to succeed and are better off employees.

<comment><USER6> Just to add on to this, most business owners have tons of ideas they know they should be doing. They generally don't need anymore ideas. After a certain point it just becomes too much. Being able to prioritize the ideas they have becomes more important than hearing new ideas.

It's easy for people to offer ideas. They don't actually have to put in the work.</comment></comment></comment>


Top 29: Best Cities To Live In - 2010 Edition - <AUTHOR> http://www.askmen.com/specials/2010_top_29/ <comment><USER3> Data-scraped for your pleasure. (And because there are full page ads every five clicks.) I _love_ these things; grain of salt and all that :)

      29: Las Vegas
      28: Rome +
      27: Bogotá
      26: Kyoto
      25: Toronto
      24: Chicago
      23: Amsterdam + (More commonly know as Hamster Jam)
      22: Montreal
      21: Shanghai
      20: Istanbul
      19: Beirut
      18: Lisbon
      17: Berlin +
      16: Sao Paolo
      15: Barcelona +
      14: Tel Aviv
      13: Hong Kong
      12: Los Angeles +
      11: Paris +
      10: San Francisco +
      09: Sydney
      08: Buenos Aires
      07: Miami +
      06: Cape Town
      05: London +
      04: Madrid +
      03: Tokyo
      02: Melbourne
      01: New York City + (This was a misprint for Dublin obviously)

I put a little plus alongside the cities I've lived in or visited. I would love to visit them all someday except the places in Oz (who wants to visit a former penal colony?) Thanks, I'll be here all week. Seriously though, out of this list the city I'd love to visit for an extended period is Tokyo - <USER2> next would be Singapore which is not on the list.</comment>


It's Time to Leave San Francisco - <AUTHOR> https://thebolditalic.com/its-time-to-leave-san-francisco-2a5a74f42433 <comment><USER2> > You long for 2012. That was when you moved here. That was when shit was > real.

Actually, I don't think the serious public defecation started until last year or so.</comment>


5 Tips for Choosing a Co-Founder - <AUTHOR> http://www.freshbooks.com/blog/2008/09/26/5-tips-for-choosing-a-co-founder/ <comment><USER2> The analysis of "trust" is a good start, but passes over one of the more difficult points: that although trust is a "never-ending process", it's not always easy to keep the legal arrangements in line with the latest situation. Put simply: even though you trust someone now, write the contracts as if you don't, because the day may come when you won't. (Take it from one who learned the hard way....)</comment>


120-Year Old Photo Sparks Wild Conspiracy Theory About Greta Thunberg - <AUTHOR> https://swedesinthestates.com/this-120-year-old-photo-sparks-wild-conspiracy-theory-about-greta-thunberg/ <comment><USER2> How would this mean she's a time traveler from the future? Clearly it means she's a time traveler from the past.

<comment><USER3> Or both. She started to go back a long time ago to see if she could make a positive difference there/then. She did not succeed so she is here now. Perhaps she has to go back even further and we will find even earlier images of her when she has created that timeline, and if "we" are in it. (treating this as sci-fi, don't nutcase me)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1) I don't see it.

2) There's far[0] more compelling "evidence" of Nicolas Cage being a time traveler anyway.

[0][https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/08/nic-cage-in- the-...](https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/08/nic-cage-in-the-history- books)</comment>


Why old people make better entrepreneurs than young ones - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/id/2278383/

<comment><USER2> I'm 22, and I'm currently starting a business.

My dad is 61, he's currently starting a business.

My company is very small scale because I have limited capital. I'm investing <$2k for now. I'm creating a relatively simple product but the bulk of my work is going into software development and marketing online.

His company is using a contract manufacturer, about 2 million bucks, and really doesn't break any new technical ground. Their products are better than the current market leader, but have existed for a few years. He is bringing new marketing to the process, but most importantly changing the distribution channels. He has contacts at all the current market leading distributors and retailers (he was previously the EVP of the market leader) and is bringing on about 5 full time sales guys to go out and win business.

So the scale is completely different, the reason we think we can win is different (he is focusing on business, I'm focusing on product), but we do have a lot in common.

Both of us are not taking that much risk. I'm working a day job, he has enough in the bank to be retired and is using other people's money. Both of us are working insane hours (he probably is working more than I am because he has a bunch of employees depending on him, I just have myself). He is doing it full time, I am doing it as a sideproject for now.

Neither approach is better or worse, they are just different. The good news is that you can start a business anytime between age 22 and 62 (and younger and older I'm sure). The other good news is that we both enjoy it more than anything else we've done working for other people, so that never gets old. And you can bring enthusiasm to a new venture even if you have been in that industry for 40 years.

<comment><USER3> My sons are 21 and 23. I'm 45. We all three want to start something of our own (well, they want to start something together as a team, I want to do something myself). I hope we all three succeed. So I hope you are right and age is largely irrelevant.

Good luck to both you and your dad. And thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Two points that I think are worth making

1) When someone in early twenties sets up a successful business it is considerably more newsworthy and is far more likely to get attention than someone in say their 40's, thus distorting public preception.

2) Once you get into your 50's your career options narrow dramatically. You become too expensive, less flexible and potential employers may feel that you are 'stuck in your ways'. Therefore entrepreneurship may in actual fact be a necessity.

<comment><USER5> heck, your career options can narrow dramatically in your 30's. Especially if you have a startup background with titles like founder, CEO, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Jim Clark was 50 when he co-founded Netscape with Marc Andreessen. And he was 37 when he first got in the game and started SGI.

Mark Pincus was 41 when he started Zynga. Mark Cuban was in his late-30s when he started what would become Broadcast.com and Mike Bloomberg was about 40 when he started Bloomberg.

Just a few names/ages off the top of my head, though we could obviously name just as many extraordinary entrepreneurs who proved themselves in their 20s/early 30s.

Age matters little for entrepreneurs, I think. What really does though is the amount of time you have and just how much of it you're willing to put in to make something happen.

<comment><USER7> I feel you are discounting (with your concluding sentence) the emotions that are at work while dealing with the millions of negotiations at play while starting a company, whether it be for something as simple as "getting a good price on bandwidth" to something as complex as "getting a good valuation on our stock".

Even day-to-day operations involve a lot of emotions, such as managing feedback from users. When you start dealing with tons of customers, eventually the situation will come up that you answer the phone and there is an irate user on the other end screaming at you.

Even when you have zero users, you are going to need to make really tough decisions inside the company regarding who is working on it and how much they are being compensated (whether it be for stock or for equity).

As I've gotten older (I'm 29 now), I've seen a dramatic change in my abilities in these regards, abilities that I expect (based on discussions I've had with 40-50 year old people who advise me) will hopefully continue to improve over the next decade or two (until my brain starts to turn to mush, which of course will start to happen, making me sad).

Of course, some people manage to be good at this when they are very young, and some people simply suck at this until they are very old, but I seriously doubt that this incredibly vital skill is something that anyone doesn't get much better at as they get older, whether they are actively trying to or not.

<comment><USER6> I'm 25 and I've founded two startups in the past; I know exactly what you're talking about regarding the emotional roller coaster.

But I greatly disagree that age somehow naturally helps you deal with this. The _only_ thing that does help you deal with it is experience, plain and simple. That's why it helps if you start when you're younger.

If my father (who's 51) decided to start a company tomorrow he'd feel uneasy and make way more mistakes than I would simply because he's never been through it before.

<comment><USER7> I do not disagree with this, but will state the following "in response": I believe there is a lot of overlap in the things you learn from running a business as running a family, giving your father a lot to teach you about running a business from his many further years of experience in those areas (and consequently I believe his first year of entrepreneurship would be smoother than yours, even if your 26th were smoother than his first).

<comment><USER6> I agree, I think it's because life exp of any kind greatly helps for confidence and leadership in running a company as well.

But I still think there's no better way to learn the game than to just go out there and do it... make mistakes, learn/improve, and keep iterating. No one becomes a great entrepreneur overnight; and certainly a lot of those guys I mentioned (Mark Cuban especially) went through a lot of failure before making their first big hit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I didn't have the feeling of urgency to bring something into the world when I was in my 20's. The feeling of mortality you get as you get older is a real motivator.

I suspect that those who want young people to drop out of school and start businesses are Pied Pipers running yet another "chew 'em up and spit 'em out" operation like McKinsey or grad school.

<comment><USER9> I really have to agree here. I have several successful companies and invested in myself.I am one who lost most in the real estate market.I because of my previous entrepreneurial experience believe in myself. No school can give you that only life experience. I took all the plus and minuses of the previous business and develop a real for profit business that meets all the things I want a business to do for me. Also, I can for see problems easier and have more patience for somethings and less for some others. but I know the difference. Also, because this is a later life business I have an urgency that I think younger entrepreneurs don't always have this makes my concentration stronger, at least for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> old entrepreneurs used to be young entrepreneurs. of course they're better.

</comment><comment><USER11> It just takes a while to make all of the mistakes you need to learn from to be successful. I think I'm getting close...

<comment><USER12> That thought was your next mistake!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Young people bring enthusiasm, new thinking and energy to a startup. They are at a place where they can risk everything and it doesn't matter. They've also not learnt any bad work habits.

Old people bring experience, wisdom, capital and connections to a startup. They either have risk capital or have decided to pursue a riskier path in order to get larger returns.

It's two routes to the same goal and I would argue that it comes down to a mix between the individual, the business, the opportunity and luck. I doubt age has that strong an influence.

</comment><comment><USER14> The impact of a group of young people who have tried to create a company while they had little to lose, will be significant.

No matter whether they succeed or not. In 10 years measure them against their friends and see who has had the most impact.

</comment><comment><USER15> _In the startup world, there is a lot of love for young founders, because many believe only they can be disruptive and come up with innovative startups. As I get older, I should resent such a preconception, but I agree with it.

And now I understand why it is so: the more experience I gain, the better I am at knowing right away if something is going to work or not. But what I gain in efficiency, I lose in innovation. _

[http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2010/12/16/young-and- clueless-a...](http://blog.fairsoftware.net/2010/12/16/young-and-clueless-an- unexpected-recipe-for-innovation/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd argue that it's the other way around. Older entrepreneurs have more monetary and social resources with which to start a company. Younger entrepreneurs make up on this distinction by shooting for the stars. The fact that older people tend to just want to have a profitable business, while the younger ones tend to want to change the world (at least in their perception) makes for bigger risks with bigger rewards. That's not to say some younglings aren't in it only to get rich, nor that some oldlings aren't in it to change the world of course.

</comment><comment><USER17> There is still hope for me!</comment>


What has your microcode done for you lately? - <AUTHOR> https://travisdowns.github.io/blog/2019/03/19/random-writes-and-microcode-oh-my.html <comment><USER2> If you want prevent Meltdown and Spectre patches from slowing down Your PC, on Windows you can use the InSpectre tool: [https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm](https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm)

On linux add the following boot parameter: pti=off spectre_v2=off l1tf=off nospec_store_bypass_disable no_stf_barrier

I saw a measurable decrease in build times in Linux. '$ time make' dropped nearly 10%.

Of course do not do this if you visit sketchy websites, install dodgy software, or open random attachment in email. That said, I can't find any evidence that any mass attack has been based on these exploits. <tin foil hat> Have a feeling our machines are made slower to make cloud providers safer or sell more CPUs.</tin foil hat>

<comment><USER3> I've got to somewhat agree with that. Meltdown and spectre were very serious, but were also branded and marketed specifically to be "viral". Also, web browsers, possibly the single biggest risk, were patched separately iirc.

<comment><USER4> Some, such as Google developers, have said these vulnerabilities can't be fixed in software: [https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/02/google-software- is-n...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/02/google-software-is-never- going-to-be-able-to-fix-spectre-type-bugs/)

And it's ridiculous to give credence to the idea that the people pushing software mitigations to Linux, and the maintainers merging them, are doing so in bad faith.

<comment><USER5> Bad faith is unlikely. Overzealous sacrificing of performance for nebulous gain in a large mount of use cases is, however, quite likely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Did AMD ever release Spectre ucode updates for K10 processors? We've got a pretty good handle on the internal format of those and it'd be interesting to see exactly what changed.

</comment><comment><USER7> Haha, that title reminds me of "Eddie, what have you done for me lately" from Eddie Murphy's "Raw"!</comment>


Ask HN: How much is my webapp worth? - <AUTHOR>

www.bitflop.me<p>I've been made an offer by a development company to purchase my webapp for 25k. The software took about 4 months to write (weekends only). I'm just curious how much webapps like this usually get bought for. It's built in node, and used WebRTC to create a video link between players at a poker table. <comment><USER3> First tip, always be willing to walk away from a deal. It gives you leverage. They've shown their hand by contacting you and saying they're interested. Would you hate it if you couldn't sell it to them? If not, then great - <USER2> now have leverage.

Second, price is often negotiated. A first offer is usually a lowball offer, but not thát low to be laughed out of the room. I'm not saying you can get 500k for it, but 25k does seem low. They obviously want it for something, try and find out how they intend to use or integrate it. Where would the value be for them? If they're a development company, maybe one of their clients asked for something similar? Determine the value and price accordingly. Make sure to make it a win-win scenario; the perfect pricing would be one where they'd actually waste more resources building it vs buying it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think you would know the answer better than anyone - because you should have the most feedback from users already. If it doesn't look like the idea easily catches hold, then sell it after some negotiation. Don't think about "webapps like this", but think what's it worth to your acquirer. That's the only way to gauge price. Every buyer would be different.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would keep it and profit from it. It looks like you could make a lot more than $25k. From the name I thought it was going to be bitcoin poker. I think if you added that you would be very successful.

If you do want to sell it now, I would try and get much more than $25k anyway. That seems like a bargain.

</comment><comment><USER6> Given how big online poker is I don't think 25K is a lot of money. There are so many ways to monetize this site that it hurts. I would finish the multiplayer feature and then promote it well. It will make more than 25K easily.

</comment><comment><USER7> Two questions: Is there any funds management functionality? Have you tried listing it on Flippa to gauge interest?

<comment><AUTHOR> There is no funds management functionality. Haven't heard about Flippa, will give them a try. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> How long has it been around?

Does 25k include the purchase of the domain as well?

<comment><AUTHOR> I put it online at the beginning of December. The purchase includes all the software, domain, twitter and facebook handle.

<comment><USER8> Considering its not exactly crowded or anything I am thinking this company wants to port this to a mobile app/ web app experience/ facebook game

Which I would not personally sell for less than 50k.

But again it doesn't have a user base which is why they are shooting for 25k.

If you personally think its possible to get a user base on your time then try it.

I personally would try it just because it looks like a really solid app even though its in alpha.

But I don't develop apps or invest in anything so I would wait for more people to reply who actually have solid experience with this.

I mean I am assuming you know this app has potential to grow but at the same time kinda sounds like you need the money. Which is why I took the time to reply and upvote it so other people can help

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the great response. I'm not in need of the money or anything, but I haven't had much time to work on this, so I've been really thinking about just letting it go.

<comment><USER8> Shoot for 25k for the app

and 5k for the domain + social media and fees for transferring everything over

If they are serious they will jump at it</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


FDA Approves Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine for Coronavirus - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/03/30/fda-approves-anti-malarial-drugs-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-for-emergency-coronavirus-treatment/#3778727c5e5d <comment><USER2> Then why would governors be forbidding this drug for this purpose?

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.redstate.com/nick- arama/202...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.redstate.com/nick- arama/2020/03/25/nevada-governor-bans-use-of-anti-malarial-drugs-to-fight- wuhan-virus-gets-blasted-by-ted-cruz-and-dan-bongino/amp/)

<comment><USER3> Because Orange Man Bad, clearly. /s</comment></comment>