Monopoly as a Markov Chain - <AUTHOR> http://koaning.io/monopoly-simulations.html <comment><USER2> A very interesting little experiment! Based off this, the author notes that the orange streets will provide a steady stream of income, and this is useful information.

But the trick in Monopoly is to get hotels on your properties as quickly as possible, because this not only provides you with a revenue stream (and fastest return on investment), but also takes money away from your competitors, who would have used it to buy/upgrade their own properties. An important factor is therefore how quickly you can acquire all the streets in a block so you can start putting up hotels, and p * rent of a single street is only one part of that equation.

<comment><USER3> Instead of hotels, put 4 houses as quickly as possible so there are no houses left for other people to build. Only upgrade to hotels when you can afford to put the houses that will become available onto another of your properties. Other people's sets are worthless to them if you own all the houses.

Combine this strategy with the fact that the highest ROI on most properties is 3 houses, and you have a winning strategy against most non-experts.

1\. Do whatever it takes to get cheap sets (other than risking somebody else getting the red or orange set). This is where blues and purples are very useful.

2\. Put as many houses as you can as quickly as possible.

3\. Wait for desperate people to trade with you to get the oranges or reds.

4\. Spread your houses across the sets you own with 3 on each property, prioritising the reds and oranges.

NB - nobody likes me at Christmas.

<comment> jon-wood That last line is the rub here. I used to play Monopoly as if my life depended on it. Now I don't, because no one will play Monopoly against me anymore.

<comment><USER4> Monopoly requires player elimination. That's seen as "mean", whereas winning isn't seen as mean. That's the main reason Monopoly isn't a good game. The other reason is that people have house rules, which often have the effect of reducing the risk of player elimination, which then increases the playtime to stupid lengths.

There are a bunch of great, easy to understand, easy to play games that are much better.

(HN search might find a few, there have been several threads before. Board Game Geek tends to skew toward the more complex end, but there's probably good lists of great family games.)

<comment><USER3> There are some interesting variations of the game, using a standard Monopoly set. One I've seen allowed things like Lynch Mobs - if enough of the players agree, they can send someone to prison, remove their assets, or even eject them from the game. You could also institute a rule like "90% tax on cash holdings" or "those with assets under $200 receive an extra $1000 when they pass Go". It sort of combined Werewolf with Monopoly, because it required more skill at the human level to persuade your fellow players to vote with you.

<comment><USER5> Sounds like "Monopoly: Regulatory Capture Edition".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> hi all, glad to hear you guys like it. im the guy that wrote that post, didnt imagine that it might be trending.

some of the comments here are indeed very valid. the fact that you can push all the houses to your deeds actually might make it more interesting to push for the the cheap investment places that otherwise don't give too much of a return.

my main goal was to figure out which house yields the best return on investment. which was a problem that had been bugging the back of my mind for a while.

ill add strategies that ive missed and give credit to it when i recheck the blog for spelling.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is also solves project Euler assignment 84.

</comment><comment><USER7> Another cool article from this website: [http://koaning.io/canvas-trees-and- communities.html](http://koaning.io/canvas-trees-and-communities.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> A comment on the display of the data: more decimals don't make your results look better.

Only show a relevant number of decimal places. In the case of this data most of it needed 0 to 2 decimal places.

<comment><AUTHOR> fair enough. the reason why there were so many numbers was lazyness, i just copied the R output directly.

<comment><USER8> options(digits = 3) is our friend. :-)

___

Also I should have said, "nice simulation!" instead of just nitpicking.

<comment><AUTHOR> no worries. this way i've learned something. +1

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have read about some of this before in the book "Luck, Logic, and White Lies: The Mathematics of Games"

[https://www.crcpress.com/Luck-Logic-and-White-Lies-The- Mathe...](https://www.crcpress.com/Luck-Logic-and-White-Lies-The-Mathematics- of-Games/Bewersdorff/9781568812106)

</comment><comment><USER10> I was playing around with this Java simulation recently that does include Chance and Community Chest cards [http://tesuji.org/monopoly.html](http://tesuji.org/monopoly.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> Not to nitpick, but it seems like what you did would have been much more suited for an IPython (Jupyter) notebook directly outputting with matplotlib rather than writing Python code to generate data for R?

<comment><AUTHOR> out of curiosity, how many lines of code do you need in matplotlib to generate [http://koaning.io/theme/images/monopoly_plot3.png](http://koaning.io/theme/images/monopoly_plot3.png)? in R, you'll only need one. also i have done this work in a python notebook, you can specify R cells to take pandas dataframes allowing you to still use ggplot2 for plotting. see old video of mine: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW8Aei2wlsM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW8Aei2wlsM)

<comment><USER12> Using the Python Seaborn library one line sounds about right:

[http://stanford.edu/~mwaskom/software/seaborn/examples/scatt...](http://stanford.edu/~mwaskom/software/seaborn/examples/scatterplot_matrix.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> thats not a facet grid though, in a facet grid you'll have split data across different cells. this is a cross plot across 4 columns. i did find this tho: [http://stanford.edu/~mwaskom/software/seaborn/examples/facet...](http://stanford.edu/~mwaskom/software/seaborn/examples/faceted_histogram.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "players can go bankrupt" is listed twice at the end.</comment>


Q&A with Ed Catmull - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2016/08/ed-catmull-q-and-a/ <comment><USER2> I used to really look up to Catmull, given all the research he did into early computer graphics, but that wage fixing scandal [1] is just downright disgusting. There is no way to look up to this guy, unless you get turned-on by those kinds of immoral business practices.

[1] [http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/pixars-ed-catmull- emerge...](http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/pixars-ed-catmull-emerges-as- central-figure-in-the-wage-fixing-scandal-101362.html)

<comment><USER3> Separate the work and the man and you can keep your admiration without having to spend your time condoning or condemning everything else the man does you disagree with. I think this is necessary for most historical figures (even many living ones) given popular modern ethics. (Edit: with separation you can also work with your coworkers professionally even if they have different politics.)

<comment><USER4> No this is not about separating the work from the man. We're not talking about personal stuff.

In his capacity as a senior leader of a major silicon valley company, he actively worked to limit people's employment opportunities. That tarnishes his record as a great leader.

<comment><USER5> > senior leader of a major silicon valley company

Pixar is in the East Bay, not the valley!

<comment><USER4> SV colloquially refers to the entire region comprising SF, the peninsula, San Jose, and East Bay.

<comment><USER5> No, it does not. Try telling a Berkeley resident they live in the valley and you'll get corrected hella quick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _The notion that a significant number of people in this country are drawn to a sociopath is fascinating. ... Yet there are a large number of people that are utterly missing the clues._

The thing is I don't even think Trump's a sociopath. A troll for sure but not a sociopath.

I had the displeasure of meeting some real sociopaths in my life. The dumb ones are easy to spot and typically end up broke and/or in jail. But the smart ones are way, _way_ more subtle than Trump.

A smart sociopath typically aims to make you believe that they are the nicest person in the world in order to gain your trust. Once they have it their goal is to use it for their maximum profit while giving back nothing in return. Lies and deceit are their primary tools.

Trump's not one of these. He's blatantly disrespectful and crude and quite certainly lacks education, manner and values. But he's not trying to mislead anyone about it. In fact he's pretty upfront about it. And that's what separates the troll from the sociopath.

<comment><USER7> > He's blatantly disrespectful and crude and quite certainly lacks education, > manner and values

Yeah, Trump isn't a sociopath. He has a shtick which isn't unusual given his profession. After listening to him, I don't think he's being deceptive, he ad libs pretty consistently to the same beliefs.

I don't think Trump lacks education. He's not a stupid person and his family had the money to get him a decent education which he took advantage of. I expect the media to say he's stupid because they have never said any Republican is educated or smart.

Mr. Catmull's line is one of those "I'm smatter than everyone else and see the truth" lines often used in politics (and sadly, journalism). The common people would think just like me if they weren't mislead (charitable reason) or stupid (malice reason). He really isn't examining why Trump won the nomination, but I wouldn't expect him too since he made his mind up already.

Of course, his own actions in regards to worker pay while at the same time touting how important his people were might face the same accusations.

He was a hero of mine, then the scandal was revealed and there was no apology, now he's been just another brick in the wall.

<comment><USER8> > He really isn't examining why Trump won the nomination, but I wouldn't > expect him too since he made his mind up already.

Actually, I think he's getting at that very point in his statement. The 'sociopath' and 'missing clues' comment certainly frames it a certain way and reveals his bias, but to be fair he does state in the very following sentence, "What are the fears inside of them that get us to this place"

<comment><USER7> I thought the fear line just reinforced the negatives directed at the voters and his made up mind. Everyone has fears, but I think focusing any honest enquiry of Trump's nomination on voter fear is just not looking very hard. It neglects the history and attempted influencers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "So, the thing that is hard to do, that I try to do, is to come back and think that everyone is trying to do the right thing, which I believe is the right place to start. If someone's doing something that doesn't make sense, there's a reason for it and we need to understand their reasons. We make our best progress when our efforts are to be empathetic and understanding of what's going on in other's lives."

So, so true. I'll also recommend his book Creativity, Inc. - what works for Pixar might not all be directly translatable for the software industry, but there are some good lessons and experience (and entertainment) in there.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm happy to second the Hardcore History recommendation, because Dan Carlin's work is absolutely brilliant. He combines a solid grounding in fact, a keen eye for illuminatory quotations, and a strong narrative skill to produce the kind of compelling historiography which you're rarely fortunate enough to encounter in any context.

</comment><comment><USER11> His answer to "Is there any lesson you've had to learn multiple times?" echoes one of the most important lessons I've ever learned.

</comment><comment><USER12>
       The notion that a significant number of people in this
       country are drawn to a sociopath is fascinating. How do
       people get there when other people look and say, "Oh,
       clearly that's a sociopath." There are sociopaths in the
       world but they don't usually end up getting this far.
       Yet there are a large number of people that are utterly
       missing the clues.

Yeah, and here's one of those clues: [http://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist- rights/ed-catmull-on-wage-...](http://www.cartoonbrew.com/artist-rights/ed- catmull-on-wage-fixing-i-dont-apologize-for-this-105855.html)</comment>


Don't Quit Your Job to Chase Your Dream (Do This Instead) - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dont-quit-your-job-chase-dream-do-instead-jeff-goins <comment><USER2> I don't think you have anything to do with it, but why would you ever style a quote exactly like the streamers? I almost skipped it...</comment>


PicoCTF: free computer security game targeted at middle and high school students - <AUTHOR> https://picoctf.com/ <comment><USER2> I failed to register due to the fucking google captcha. Guess this game is not for me. :(</comment>


The NSA Fight - <AUTHOR> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354552/nsa-fight-jonathan-strong

<comment><AUTHOR> A good look at the kind of maneuvering that goes on in Congress to determine what gets voted on, including some interesting -- and very unusual -- tactics by Amash.</comment>


Despite Mass Testing, University of Illinois Sees Coronavirus Cases Rise - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/09/03/909137658/university-with-model-testing-regime-doubles-down-on-discipline-amid-case-spike?t=1599253856527 <comment><AUTHOR> " In just under two weeks of classes, there have been more than 700 positive COVID-19 cases on campus, according to the university. The school's researchers had anticipated about 700 positive cases for the entire fall semester, but if current rates continue, the school of about 50,000 students could see as many as 8,000 positive cases by the end of the term, according to a statement from the university.

At a press conference held over Zoom, Nigel Goldenfeld, a physics professor who contributed to the school's reopening plan, said the campus's models had already anticipated parties and people not wearing masks — but they did not take into account that students would fail to isolate, that they would not respond to local health officials' attempts to contact them or that students who had tested positive would nonetheless attend and host parties."

</comment><comment> just-juan-post Hi @kgwgk can you please help me understand the value in posts like yours?

This article seems to do nothing but sew fear among the population and to what end?

What is the informational purpose of this story? Aren't cases rising everywhere?

<comment><AUTHOR> I found funny that the physicists' model failed because people don't behave according to their model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Wouldn't it be only expected that cases would rise as testing increases? The number of "cases" in fact stays the same, it is just that more of the cases are exposed with the increased testing?</comment>


(R)?ex – Deployment and Configuration Management in Perl - <AUTHOR> http://www.rexify.org/ <comment><USER2> Really nice! I only wish there was something similar in Python, Rust, or Go. I really don't like the Salt and Ansible approach of (ab)using YAML for command logic, which reminds me about how in the past people invented XML-based scripting languages... just because it was easy. Rex is cool, plus, more SysOps know Perl than any other language (except maybe Bash), so, this is a good selling point.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Although I use Chef on most of my servers, I like Rex because it doesn't require any client/agent running on the machine.</comment>


Moonshine: A Puppet and Capistrano based configuration management tool for Rails - <AUTHOR> http://blog.railsmachine.com/articles/2009/03/18/moonshine-what-burns-blue-makes-your-blues-go-away/

<comment><USER2> Moonshine is a great name!

Do you have plans for handling rollbacks?

<comment><AUTHOR> not currently, since the underlying configuration engine, Puppet, doesn't support rollbacks

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice! I'm gonna try this out on a current project this week.</comment>


Show HN: I made a simple time-lapse screen recorder - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/makerlapse <comment><USER2> Are you seriously showing HN your Product Hunt post?</comment>


Apple takes two weeks to update a forgotten password? - <AUTHOR> http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/apple-takes-two-weeks-to-update-a-forgotten-password <comment><USER2> Ya... it can take a while. There are some ways to speed it up. Giving my Credit Card that I had on filed helped a lot I think.

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204921](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT204921)</comment>


NYC MTA (mta.info) redesign - <AUTHOR> http://www.leosternlicht.com/mta.html

<comment><AUTHOR> After being constantly reminded by trips on Metro-North, I decided to throw together a simpler UI. Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER2> Very nice</comment>


Ask HN: What additional data do you think should go into your credit risk? - <AUTHOR> Right now, companies look at only your timely historical credit payments to determine credit risk. If you don't have a credit score or believe your credit score doesn't represent your true risk, what would you want companies to look at instead? e.g. in case of international people, their qualifications and data from their home country; for millennials, their education background and future potential. <comment><USER2> _Right now, companies look at only your timely historical credit payments to determine credit risk_

I have to disagree with the above quote. That is not only what they used. This should shed more light [http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/218126](http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/218126) [https://www.calcxml.com/do/article?id=751719129&cat=credit](https://www.calcxml.com/do/article?id=751719129&cat=credit)

What you are proposing thus, _their qualifications and data from their home country; for millennials, their education background and future potential_ will lead to discrimination, redlining etc..

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. I should've been more explicit in saying that they only look at credit related behavior. The article shows contributions of various things to their FICO score. 2\. there are several things that can't be used to underwrite in the U.S. - [http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal- credit-...](http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0347-your-equal-credit- opportunity-rights) other variables such as education are fine if they are not a very close proxy of the prohibited variables</comment></comment>


Pass-Through Businesses Are Rethinking Their Status in Wake of Tax Law - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/tax-law-leaves-business-owners-with-big-decision-to-c-or-not-to-c-1519295401 <comment><USER2> My understanding is that as a professional couple, that is "service businesses", my wife and I are hit super-damn-hard by the new tax law.

Apparently working for your income, rather than rent-seeking or capital investment, is something to be discouraged in the modern economy.

Damned uppity folks that thought they could get an education, become professionals, and work their way to a better life than their forebears. Where do they think they are, America?

<comment><USER3> Serious question are you just making this up or trolling? Because nearly everybody should see a tax reduction? Are you structured as a pass-through LLC?

Do you own a house and live in New York or Caifornia?

<comment><USER4> Since when did "be a homeowner in NY or CA" become some maligned minority that deserves to be screwed to benefit rich folks?

<comment><USER3> Since living in the highest taxed states and then complaining about taxes... I moved from SF to Nashville TN, couldn't be happier.

<comment><USER5> People make decisions based on the available information, which does NOT included a looking glass.

Imagine if your property taxes quintupled because it turns out your governor misallocated tax revenue and now they need to make up the shortfall. Well, serves you right for moving to TN, right?

Wrong.

<comment><USER6> CA taxes haven't quintupled in the last year. Its always been high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Just did a bit of research and it looks like 'Architects & Engineers' are exempt from the 'service business' designation, and thus eligible for the full deduction.

[https://www.pscpa.com/professional-services-new-20-pass- thru...](https://www.pscpa.com/professional-services-new-20-pass-thru- deduction/)

<comment><USER8> How do they define "Engineer"? Are they requiring a professional license?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm having this same discussion with my tax attorney and CPA firms. Right now my corporate structure is all LLC's with plans to elect to be treated as a C Corp for taxation. For smaller companies there are a lot of headaches involved in keeping the documentation for a C Corp. Whether you held all your board meetings becomes important if you get sued and they try to pierce the corprate veil.

<comment><USER10> There's less documentation for a C corp than there is for an LLC. Literally all you need is a Statement of Information (usually 1 page of basic info, like name and address) and Articles of Incorporation (also 1 page, though they can be longer as required by the needs of the business).

LLCs also require the equivalent of board meetings (aka, member meetings) to avoid veil-piercing, and indeed for veil-piercing purposes have all the same requirements as corporations. (I wrote a law review article on veil-piercing for LLCs, so I'm very familiar with how it works).

<comment><USER11> S-corps are the easiest, but you'll be more restricted in capital structure. Still, it's sufficient for many more people than realize it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Anyone got a non-paywall link?

<comment><USER13> One weird trick for seeing articles like this is purchasing a subscription to The Wall Street Journal.

<comment><USER14> Paywalled articles shouldn't be on the front page of a public aggregator like this then. What's the point in an article most people can't read, just a catchy headline?

<comment><USER15> It's a WSJ story that everyone here thought was important enough to vote up to the front page. Where else should the link go?

<comment><USER14> Well of course the link should go to the WSJ but I think in the case of paywalled articles it's good that mirrors get posted.

<comment><USER15> Is it not worth just paying what it costs for a subscription? Anyway, isn't that copyright infringement?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter May Have Predicted the Election - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603010/twitter-may-have-predicted-the-election/ <comment><USER2> Right now 100% of the comments in here are about "predicting" the election, when the word "predict" isn't even used in the article. Probably an over-eager editor who changed the title.

The article itself is about a very interesting network analysis of establishment vs non-establishment behavior. I'd like to see more discussion about the content of the article.

edit: downvoted within 1 minute for trying to spur interesting discussion past the crappy headline :(

<comment><USER3> ___"Our analysis was showing something, but our beliefs were different," says Vishal Mishra, CEO of Right Relevance, which sells a research platform focused on influence. "We thought, how is Trump going to win? But our analysis kept showing us."_ __

He doesn 't say "predict". But it is very clearly implied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Any global predictor that claims to have accurately determined Trump's victory should keep in mind that he lost the popular vote. Only a state-based predictor can be plausibly said to have been able to make such a prediction.

<comment><USER5> I've seen one of those predictors. It looked at an honest signal, captured in a way that would be fairly representative of the population at large. Since the data had some location information attached, you could attach every point of signal to a congressional district. The model was simple, comparing the signal per district, and then building an electoral college map. It didn't nail every state, but it wasn't off by much, and gave Trump a slightly smaller victory than he actually had.

I won't mention the signal because I want to keep my job. However I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a dozen companies that have access to some honest signal with such a good sample of the population at large as to be better at predicting the election than any pollster.

<comment><USER6> It's interesting to think about where to find this information.

Big ISPs have access to these "honest" signals on a large scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This makes sense to me. I saw similar things in newspaper comments sections. I have a weird habit of always scrolling to comments sections of news articles. It gives me an interesting snapshot of a huge range of opinions. On political articles, I consistently saw so many comments from Trump supporters, with some consistent threads of opinions (as well as more fringe or extreme ideas) that just weren't being represented strongly enough in the general media. I also of course saw comments from Hillary supporters and Trump haters. Their arguments and thoughts WERE already being represented strongly in the general media - there was not much new that I learned there. Something that Obama hasn't addressed is just how biased our mainstream newspapers and magazines were in the run-up to the election. As someone living in a highly liberal area (and who is not aligned with Trump's politics - before I get criticized to infinity) I felt I gained a lot of understanding for why people were supporting Trump, not from the dozens of mainstream newspaper articles I read each day, but from comments sections. I view that as a media fail. I was the only person of my peer group who was not shocked about Trump's win. I'd also add - the media strategy didn't work. Marginalizing people's voices and points of view - often people who felt marginalized in other ways (economic etc), strengthened their resolve to vote for the person who DID hear them (which was Trump.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Where's the "predictive" part? Just visualizing twitter networks isn't actually a prediction.

<comment><USER8> Sounds like a "prediction" just like the results you get from training your stock picker on historical data.

<comment><USER9> At least you can break your data in to training and testing sets for stock picking, this is just hey guys we found a correlation. 20/20 hindsight is not a prediction.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. Furthermore, is this company claiming that they can predict electoral college distribution? Because we all well know that Hillary actually won the popular vote. So in fact the _popular_ sentiment was actually on her side.

Any analysis claiming that they could predict Trump's victory without even addressing the disparity between popular vote and electoral college is a fail even before it begins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> actually Google Trends predicted it:

[https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=vote%20for%20hillary...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=vote%20for%20hillary,vote%20for%20trump)

it predicted obama as well in 2012

[https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=vote%20for%20romney,...](https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=vote%20for%20romney,vote%20for%20obama)

<comment><USER11> Interesting how Hillary is the only one who was referred to by first name. "Vote for Clinton" didn't register as much as "Vote for Hillary"

<comment><USER12> My impression is that this was a choice of her campaign (differentiate from Bill Clinton? make her seem friendlier?).

Jeb Bush and Bernard Sanders also had campaigns centered around their first names.

<comment><USER13> I find it odd that you refer to "Bernard" when he's almost universally referred to as Bernie, but simultaneously call John Bush "Jeb". I'm missing whatever the intended meaning of the way you wrote these names was.

<comment><USER12> I did not know that Jeb wasn't his real name, that's all there is to it.

<comment><USER10> holy cow. mind blown. did not know that wasnt his real name either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How much computing power, work and money is it to produce visualizations like this? I'm handy with cytoscape and DAG concepts but I don't know where to get real time datasets like this, or how to automatically construct them for other forums (eg say I wanted to study the social networks on Reddit or HN). Ideally I'd like to be able to work with something like this interactively although real-time operation isn't too important.

</comment><comment><USER15> One thing that jumped out at me from this brief article was that the use of the term "media influencers" \-- they certainly weren't influencers in the conventional sense of being gatekeepers.

</comment><comment><USER11> Hindsight is 20/20

</comment><comment><USER16> How do these people predict the electorial college?

<comment><USER3> They don't. It's a complete PR sham.</comment></comment>


Sun Microsystems: A Lesson in Failed Cosmetic Surgery - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/sun-microsystems-a-lesson-in-failed-cosmetic-surgery/

<comment><USER2> Sad to see Sun die.

I remember the first heady days of Bill Joy and crew--they were neighbors of ours (back at Imagen, a laser printer startup) in Mountain View in 1980, and we traded printers for workstations.

We shared the SUN (Stanford University Network--original acronym--licensed from Stanford) 68K CPU board design with them; they used it in workstations, we used it in the first typeset-quality laser printers, and for a while were sharing technology improvements. (Imagen was a TeX project spin-off.) Exciting times; Sun was the last successful major hardware start-up before the PC era.

Now get off my lawn, you pesky young kids! ;-)</comment>


Ikonate – fully customisable and accessible vector icons - <AUTHOR> https://www.ikonate.com <comment><USER3> "Do not resell or redistribute the icons, even for free." But they gave them the MIT License, which explicitly allows those things...

<comment><USER4> You're right, this didn't make any sense. I updated the README accordingly. Sorry for the confusion!

<comment><USER5> You also have a little typo in README, under License: "Attribution IN much appreciated", instead of IS

<comment><USER4> Thanks a lot, next this will fix this one too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I only checked a few raw icons and I am impressed: They are fully stripped of superfluous markup introduced by SVG editors; that was something which I had to implement over and over again for customers' build pipelines.

Also, the possibility to download a custom styled set is great: With all other icon sets I ended up either modifying them myself in a text editor or received a bunch of modified files from the graphics person in the project - <USER2> bloated with markup I needed to strip afterwards (see first point).

<comment><USER7> Are you familiar with svgo?

<comment><USER6> Yes, but my clients usually don't want to add node to their infrastructure (I do CL) and, after all, the basic cleaning of SVGs is simple: Filter XML with a whitelist of namespaces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Ikonate is the very first icon set of this kind designed to be fully > accessible*

> * Ikonate is NOT accessible out of the box and will never be. We've done our > best to follow the best accessibility practices while building this > software, but it's your role to adjust it and make it truly accessible > inside your project.

these are incompatible statements. the author should just not call it accessible.

also -- why "will never be"? there are ways to make it more accessible, if not perfect. one idea: turn the icons into a truetype GX variable font with a weight axis that increases as viewport size decreases using media queries. that would increase out of the box legibility considerably.

<comment><USER9> I handle ADA issues at work and deal with updating sites to adhere to WCAG 2.0. So perhaps I can offer my $0.02 and clear this up.

It is actually impossible for anything to be accessible out-of-the-box, but they have been designed to be accessible and have sane defaults. Those statements do not contradict one another.

For example, if you use a magnifying glass icon to mean "zoom" but their default title text for a magnifying glass is "search" then it is not out-of- the-box accessible even though it was designed to be fully accessible. They even mention this scenario (generically, not specifically) in their disclaimer.

>E.g. all the titles and descriptions given to the icons should be treated as placeholders and changed in implementation depending on an actual role of each icon. In many cases, you may not need them altogether

Having the placeholders there is questionably good - it would be better to have the attributes _there but blank_ in my opinion. It will do more harm than good being wrong than being blank, but that's a difference in preference for implementation.

<comment><USER4> You're right that placeholder may do more harm than good and it's questionable if it makes any sense. Still considered it a better option though at that point

<comment><USER9> Would need data about whether or not people are more or less likely to

1) Add text when it is missing but the attribute is there to serve as a reminder

OR

2) Change text when it is wrong

Neither one is "wrong" but one might be better than the other.

<comment><USER4> 100% agree. Right then I was just blindly guessing ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Kinda related: It seems clipart died with Google image search and the only alternatives I can find are things like the noun project[1] or fontawesome[2] both of which require a subscription, rather than a purchase, and neither really fills that clip art use-case.

I'd love to purchase a clipart set like in the old 90's days of power point.

[1] [https://thenounproject.com/accounts/pricing/](https://thenounproject.com/accounts/pricing/)

[2] [https://fontawesome.com/pro](https://fontawesome.com/pro)

<comment><USER11> There's also [https://www.flaticon.com](https://www.flaticon.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Really cool! I kinda wish I had thought of it :) Any thoughts to adding further parameterization to icons? Like altering the length of the handle of the magnifying glass or something?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I share the project but I'm not the author, I just think it's pretty cool too

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nice collection. Would be nice to easily create icon with just any text similar to already included HDR icon to accommodate e.g. ISO, WB, I/O, HD etc

</comment><comment><USER14> I can't find a link to it, but I remember reading a discussion, that if you want icons/images for fixes known sizes and resolutions, it is better to have rasters than vectors: I think, mostly to do with scaling of line weights/widths, vector scaling of these often results in ungainly images while a raster of a given native resolution looks clearer/better more proportionate.

<comment><USER15> To the extent that might have ever been true, it would have been because of the limitations of very low resolution displays, or to work around limitations in the vector rasterizer.

In any modern context, a vector is always preferable as it will generate the best output for an unlimited number of sizes, resolutions and contexts.

<comment><USER14> The question may have been the scaling of line widths in a linear fashion while using vector images, which isn't that pleasing to the eye, compared to a hand crafted raster with more eye pleasing line width for a give size/resolution. May for aesthetic reasons line widths may require to be scaling in a nonlinear way?

Scaled vectors will have mathematically correct line widths, but to a human perception the line may appear to thick/thin for the image size, than which a raster artist would have used if they were creating a native raster of that size.

<comment><USER16> But the scaling of bitmaps would have the same problems, wouldn't they? Or do you mean custom icons per given resolution/size?

<comment><USER14> I meant that custom unscaled raster icons per resolution/size looks better than a scaled vector image.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for all the feedback, I tweeted the author about HN link, and someone has created a thread on GitHub. Hopefully, it will help him clear things up about the license. I believe it is not his intention to confuse us. Anyway, it is a cool tool and big thumbs up for the author!

<comment><USER4> Thanks a lot for the heads up! It's fixed, I already updated the README. Sorry for the confusion caused.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Obviously very nice looking icons. It would be even better to be able to download them as font. Then one can customise the icons later on his/her own website using CSS (text-color, background-colour, font-size, etc).

</comment><comment><USER18> I played around with it and have to say that this is just great. The only option that I did not understand since it didn't change anything was the "style" button. What is that for?

<comment><USER19> Rounding (or not) the edges/corners of the objects within the icon.

<comment><USER20> Did the button work for you? It didn't for me.

<comment> X-Istence Set the size of the icons really large, and then switch between the options, it does affect them, but very very minimally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is pretty neat, cool name, it goes to my loved bookmarks :)

One thing though I don't get is the 0 border width setting. Is that useful somehow?

<comment><USER22> Afaik, its a workaround for IE.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Note that there's a vaguely popular site named 'icons8' on about the same topic, so some confusion might ensue in the future.

<comment><USER24> Heh, I wonder if Mikolaj will respond to this comment. I don't think it's a coincidence. Some spill-off traffic never hurts. Although the icon8 owner may frown upon this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There's a certain irony in having the link to the accessibility disclaimer be so hard to target.

</comment><comment><USER26> off-topic question: what library the site is using for these icons: [https://imgur.com/a/GVVi3TQ](https://imgur.com/a/GVVi3TQ) , I really like 3d icons.

<comment><USER27> Those look like standard OS font emoji

<comment><USER28> More specifically the ones in that screenshot look like the versions you'd find on iOS/macOS. Just thought I'd mention it in case someone was viewing it with say an Android device it would look different [1].

[1] [https://emojipedia.org/hammer-and-pick/](https://emojipedia.org/hammer- and-pick/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Pretty cool. Will use it in my projects for sure. Thanks mikolajdobrucki :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Oh, wow. Thanks a lot to the owner of this web site.

</comment><comment><USER30> Nice job! The spritesheet is the best!

</comment><comment><USER31> what would be the most reasonable way to "fill" these icons?

<comment><USER32> You'd have to do that manually with Adobe Illustrator/Sketch/Affinity Designer or some similar vector editing software.

The Github has the raw SVGs you can download and edit.

<comment><USER31> Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook Messenger Platform - <AUTHOR> https://www.messenger.com/platform <comment><USER3> I'm crying. Remember when messaging was built on open platforms and standards like XMPP and IRC? The golden year(s?) when Google Talk worked with AIM and anyone could choose whatever client they preferred?

Welcome to the future friends when we must pay to battle the keymasters and gatekeepers on their terms to do what we used to do ourselves, for free.

First they took my RSS, then they took my XMPP... Who can guess whats next?

<comment><USER4> We can take back the internet. We've been at a disadvantage for so long because centralized services are easier to build great experiences with than federated services. Messaging protocols require identities, and federated identities are user-hostile. They worked once: email. Never again.

Luckily, we're in the middle of a decentralization renaissance. Instead of managing your identity on a server controlled by Facebook or your XMPP host, you can manage your identity on a blockchain controlled by no one. We can build identities that any app can use. When it comes to network effects, federation loses to centralization, but centralization loses to decentralization.

Pick up the tools—Ethereum and IPFS—and start building systems without gatekeepers. We will win.

<comment><USER5> You're right about UX being central to the problem, but you're missing a major part of it here.

UX is _hard_. Getting great user experience takes IMHO a lot more _pain_ than getting algorithms and systems to work right (in most cases). UX is about endless revisions, a lot of boring and often ugly code, obsessing about pixels and quirky details of your UI's "story," and other things that are very time consuming, not fun, and that the vast majority of programmers hate doing.

As a result, people generally have to be paid to work on UX.

This is doubly true because most nerds don't need great UX. They know how things work and can use "raw" hacker projects from the command line. So there's really no motive in most cases. "Works for me."

Until and unless there is an economic model for a less centralized less winner-take-all Internet economy, vertically integrated closed silos will continue to dominate if for no other reason than the fact that they can pay people to do the boring tedious work that separates a nerd project from an app non-nerds want to use.

Edit: It's really always been about UX to some extent. Personal computing won back in the 70s and 80s because it offered far superior user experience to closed silo mainframes. But the Internet and especially mobile have changed the game pretty dramatically. Now closed silos are winning because they offer superior user experience.

<comment><USER6> But isn't that exactly where countless free and paid clients/apps of varying quality for the user to choose from would come in handy? Take RSS as an example - the technology as open for everyone, but as a profit-seeking company you can still seduce with high-quality, polished client / feed reader. Of course, that option would be open to any number of freelancers, one-man- operations and other indie developers, not just the Googles and Facebooks of this world. A great thing for the enduser, not necessarily a desirable outcome for the mentioned companies.

<comment><USER7> This is pretty much why the very common failure state of these open technologies is that some company gets very close to perfecting the UX, pulls in a vast majority of the possible users in that space, then slowly abandons the open technology for closed replacements, thus locking in those users that thought they were buying into the open system. (Google Reader, Google Talk, Facebook Messenger, ...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Facebook seems to slowly be building out the feature set that WeChat ([https://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile- first/](https://a16z.com/2015/08/06/wechat-china-mobile-first/) ) has had for ages.

It seems like Facebook first set out to capture the whole market, and are now slowly monetizing it fully. WeChat has achieved incredible ARPU (>$7/user/year) through a combination of chat APIs, 3rd party bots and integrated payments Facebook. If Facebook can achieve a similar number, it would greatly increase their worldwide ARPU. ([http://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks- average-...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/251328/facebooks-average- revenue-per-user-by-region/)).

<comment><USER9> The ARPU # is mis-leading. According to the Economist article, 85% of the revs are from gaming, not "to hail a taxi, order food delivery, buy movie tickets, play casual games, check in for a flight, send money to friends, access fitness tracker data, book a doctor appointment, get banking statements, pay the water bill, find geo-targeted coupons, recognize music, search for a book at the local library, meet strangers around you, follow celebrity news, read magazine articles, and even donate to charity."

<comment><USER10> I asked a Uber driver in China why he thought DiDiKuaiChe (local competitor) was more popular, and he said "because you can order one through WeChat... And everyone has WeChat"

Of those services, gaming is probably the most mature which is why it generates the most revenue, but give it a few years and I'm sure more of those will become far more significant..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is now time to take all the innovations that have been happening in china around WeChat/WeiXin and to implement them into messenger. This time it's the other way around, we are actually going to copy the Chinese (they have had an API addressable messaging platform way before us and are ahead of us in the exploration of what work / is possible) :

\- this may disrupt Local business/shop relation to client. (see how weixin is used by small online shop)

\- this may disrupt insurance (see how zhongan is selling micro-insurance through weixin)

\- this may disrupt paypal, as soon as you can send 'money' over a messaging app.

\- this may disrupt movie / theater ticket selling ... (there is tones of other example)

There is a lot of land to grab, the working use cases are already known (we get 5 year of china market data). I hope I had a couple of millions to invest in this market.

<comment><USER12> > \- this may disrupt paypal, as soon as you can send 'money' over a messaging > app.

American banking is so backwards and this will only make it worse.

In Australia and New Zealand, no bank offers you checks. Do I own you $50? Well give me your BSB and account number. I type it into my phone app or web browser, type $50 and click send. It shows up tomorrow morning. Works on weekends, holidays, ANZAC day, New Years Day and no fees. $0. Person-to-person transfers are free, move in 24 hours and your account number doesn't need to be private.

I came back to America back to the world of three business days for an electronic ACH payment to clear (if you're lucky)!! WTF?! Our banking system is in the 1990s because PayPal, Square and now Facebook will lobby to keep their business models.

Fuck. That. Shit. Money should move through the banking system using standards, not via Facebook with their proprietary PayPal like garbage.

<comment><USER13> I don't think the average kiwi has seen a cheque in decades. After 10 years of living in the US I have started to rejoice in how despite being one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth the US still clings to things like paper cheques, $0.01/$0.05/$0.10 coins, US customary units, and a plumbing system that requires most houses to own a plunger. Perhaps it's a sign of assimilation?

<comment><USER14> > and a plumbing system that requires most houses to own a plunger.

Getting off topic for the article at hand, but what's different in Australian plumbing in that area?

<comment><USER15> [https://youtu.be/ryIQYYogQ8A](https://youtu.be/ryIQYYogQ8A)

I've literally never owned a plunger in my whole life, and I don't know anybody who does. It baffles me everything I'm in the US and every toilet has a plunger!

<comment><USER16> Why wouldn't these be the default in all new construction everywhere? Are there downsides?

<comment><USER17> Not that I'm aware of. Lived in NZ for 5 years and just moved into a brand new construction in CA just a few months back. Terrible. I've had to plunge(technically I use the scrubber to generate the pressure) a few times already :(

Also, the showers mostly all have baskets under the drain caps to capture hair and stuff now.

<comment><USER16> I searched Lowes website and could not find any toilets like this. There has to be some reason!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Back in 2009, Google Talk toyed with a similar idea of realtime chat as a platform for other applications to build on. [0] The demos were very neat at the time, but it turned out to be a brief detour along a road that ended with Google stripping out extensibility and interoperation from Google Talk and building it into the service we now know as Google Hangouts.

I love the idea of chat as a platform, but Facebook will need to convince developers it won't close the door on them down the road.

[0] - [http://googletalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/attention-nerds- new-g...](http://googletalk.blogspot.com/2009/05/attention-nerds-new-gadgets- api-for.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> The Twitter debacle is what really did it for me. As others have pointed out this is sharecropping through and through. You build anything meaningful on this and Facebook has you by the you-know-whats and can pull the rug out from under you at will. Thanks but no thanks.

<comment><USER20> > You build anything meaningful on this and Facebook has you by the you-know- > whats and can pull the rug out from under you at will.

Is that accurate? If I build a chat-based application, why can't I build out interfaces to various services? It may not be trivial, since some will offer features that others don't, but what's the principal problem preventing me from building a chat-based application that works over Google Hangouts, Facebook Messenger, Kik, etc. so long as they each provide an API for connecting these bots, beyond time?

<comment><USER21> You can but FB has the most MAU's. I believe after FB Skype is the biggest. Is it easy to build bots on multiple platforms?

Personally I'm staying away from Kik. Their MAU is low and I really dislike their constant spam.

<comment><USER22> I'm blanking on any names right now, but I've seen a few startups recently working on platforms for building bots with integrations to multiple different services. No doubt one or more of these will add Messenger support. There are also open source projects like Lita[0], BotBuilder[1], and Hubot[2] which give a nice abstraction layer.

[0] [https://www.lita.io/](https://www.lita.io/)

[1] [https://dev.botframework.com/](https://dev.botframework.com/)

[2] [https://hubot.github.com/](https://hubot.github.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> aaron-lebo Facebook disregards your rights as a creator, user, and individual.

I've read enough history to know what sharecropping looks like. Tell me how this is different than sharecropping. Why should I build something I don't control on Lord Zuckerberg's platform so I can play the startup lottery? We did this almost a decade ago. Facebook introduced their developer platform and people started giving up their freedoms. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is something you can observe by yourself.

Facebook has already broadcasted loud and wide how they are going to screw you over. It's your choice.

<comment><USER23> The real question is can you get in, win, and get out before any of that matters.

If you 'rode the facebook apps' wave you probably made decent money unless you stayed in too long.

Another strategy is to build an integration to messenger to get exposure for your totally independant app.

For example If i made some pizza ordering ai, i could hook it up to messenger as an additional channel.

<comment><USER24> There's a word for people who only care about their own quality of life, and not that of those around them: "assholes".

Don't be an asshole, and don't advocate "fuck you got mine" practices like these. Let's work to dismantle abusive systems like Facebook.

<comment><USER25> So you agree with [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11482075](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11482075) but also just felt like calling the parent an asshole?

<comment><USER24> Yes!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This seems kinda disappointing in capability compared with what you see in WeChat. I was expecting you'd be able to build apps that run from inside messenger, instead of toggle back and forth between native apps, possibly using something like ExponentJS/Reactive-Native, but maybe Apple would disapprove.

The WeChat SDK allows apps to run JS from inside WeChat itself. You see this in action in China where you can actually do complex stuff like book a taxi via Didi Dache without necessarily having to switch back and forth between heavyweight apps.

<comment><USER27> First browsers became OS's, now you want messenger apps to become OS's?

How many layers of cruft do we need?

<comment><USER28> I'd hardly call it "cruft" \- this is the beauty of computer systems and software - abstraction!

<comment><USER27> And now your messenger app needs a launcher, switcher, notification manager, search, per-app settings pages, etc. And maybe its own process model/scheduler, to prevent rogue apps from slowing down the messenger app. And apps within the messenger app now need to be cross-messenger-platform on top of being cross-webview-platform.

<comment><USER29> It's almost like people's expectations for software go up over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> X-Istence Am I the only one that keeps some separation between different platforms?

For example, there are people I follow on Snapchat, but I have absolutely no interest doing the same on Facebook Messenger. My Facebook is still mostly people I have met in real life and care about, that and groups I am a part of because social life.

I don't want to adulterate that with chat bots, and ordering pizza and any other integrations. In reality I spend very little time in Facebook messenger and have zero interest in increasing the amount of time I spend on Facebook.

<comment><USER30> Clearly this isn't for you then. I, however, use messenger frequently - <USER2> frequently. And I welcome all these changes, as they are really maturing the platform and making it a delight to use.

I have a group chat on messenger of all my friends, and when they added the simple options to change the group colours, add nicknames, and even change the default emoji to something other than a thumbs up, messenger became a whole lot more fun to use.

I can't wait to see how it develops with these changes.

<comment><USER31> Honestly curious: Why is this your first and only comment on HN?

<comment><USER30> Honestly, because I needed karma so I could confirm this account on keybase. So I jumped on the homepage and commented on something I thought relevant to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Everyone seems to be jumping on the bots bandwagon - Microsoft, Facebook, Slack etc. Do we really think this kind of text-based interaction is the future?

Granted, it's an interface practically everyone knows how to use, but I believe it could result in rather long conversations (what are the available commands/questions?) to actually get something a little more complex done.

Our messaging startup is heading in the opposite direction: we offer fully functional tools and games that can be instantly used by groups of people. We also offer a platform that allows developers to create these HTML5 based apps themselves. If you think this sounds interesting, have a look at [https://platform.happening.im](https://platform.happening.im) .

<comment><USER33> Natural languages are terrible interfaces. They're linear, verbose, inexpressive, ambiguous. Clearly, we need a computer-assisted language to elevate humanity's ability to communicate.

Such a platform could be as important as Gutenberg's printing press.

<comment><USER34> I don't know what that means, but you've got my attention. Could you elaborate on what you have in mind?

<comment><USER33> # PROBLEM

Software is fragmented. This leads to poor user experience.

\- I have 100+ apps on my phone

\- I have 1000+ online accounts

I need to discover these apps/websites/services, repeat the same information over and over again, learn their features and limitations. They don't talk to each other, which means that I need to continuously update them. We're humans, we're smart, we adapt easily, we got used to it, we don't even notice. However, when you take a step back and look at it, it's a mess.

Generally, when I try to show the problem to people, they blame the user. They say there's no need to use that many systems. And they're right. In the real world, I can get by using only English (or in my case, French) as a general- purpose communication interface.

The problem with software is that people tend to associate one system with one use-case. One app for this, one app for that. Do one thing, and do it well. That's the general direction a lot of software is going in (i.e., Facebook Messenger vs Facebook). When people tell me I should use fewer systems, they also imply that I should accept to cover fewer use-cases with software. And while most people think it's reasonable not to use software for various things (unlock doors, turn on lights, preheat oven, change channel, pay goods, track calories), I consider them short-sighted. We can't afford to choose which activities deserve the power of software and which can continue to be done the old-fashion (and so-called "simpler") way. We need software everywhere.

Beyond the consumer-facing UX fragmentation problems, as an application developer, I'm exposed to the even uglier side of things. The arbitrary design process, the compromise-ridden business decisions. Most people have no idea how expensive (in time and resources) it is to build the simplest of software in the real world. Take 100 different teams, and they'll all design the same system in completely different ways, repeating the very same mistakes. How many different user authentication systems have been implemented in the world? How many caching layers? How many ORMs? How many online stores (all with pretty much the very same features, from the image gallery to the cart). This is insane. This makes SAP look sexy.

Now, take the top 100 most popular apps and websites. List out all of their features. Remove duplicates. Remove duplicates. Generalize. Remove duplicates. You'll realize they all share 80% of the same features, probably more. Don't be tricked by functional synonyms. A like, an upvote, a favorite, a share, a retweet, a rating, a pin. They're all the same things. You can reduce the functionalities of most app to a very simple vocabulary. Basically, people have things, people want things. The only challenge is in describing things. And that's what we need a tool for.

# SOLUTION

The customer is NOT king.

Stop thinking that software should be tailored to its users. People don't know what they want. People have a tendency to under-generalize. They think that because two things look different, they're different. They're wrong.

There is not as much difference between hailing a cab, ordering a pizza, sharing a video, shipping a package, flying to Hawaii, renting a room, sending money, taking an elevator, and selling your couch, as people are lead to believe. They're essentially the same things, and software should treat them as such.

We need a general purpose communication platform. Not one monolithic app to which all possible features were added, but something that can be extended to a wide array of use cases. I'm not talking about plugins, micro-apps, or a web browser. These usually give too much freedom to developers, which once again results in fragmentation. I'm talking about a language, English on computer- steroids.

By communicating through a computer, this language gains access to the world's knowledge. This language can challenge your thoughts. This language can predict your thoughts. You only need to be as verbose as what the language doesn't already know about you. With time, the language becomes more like a to-do list a la Google Now (i.e., tells you what to do next) than a notepad. This language is your interface with the past, present and future world.

English is text-based and linear. You start from nothing, then a word, then a sentence. I don't want a language where you start with nothing. Start with the entire state of the entire world (as some sort of hyper-graph), communicate by editing it. Edit edges, introduce new nodes. One place for every idea. Never repeat, support instead. Invest your social credit to augment the credibility/value of facts. Use it as a way to describe both the past, present, and future (prediction and/or wish). Follow the path of PROLOG, RDF and lojban.

Graph-oriented communication is what the world needs. I believe we can make it accessible, not without a learning curve, by the use of inference and custom renderers. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but I can't foresee it not being done.

<comment><USER35> I'm working on Retrace, "Graph-oriented communication" for sharing the ups and downs of experiences via a waveform interface. Reach out if you'd like to chat!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The 1-800-FLOWERS example in the F8 livestream was pretty neat. In the example a user ordered flowers through only a chat.

Somehow they were able to do this without entering their credit card details. I wonder if the payment was a Facebook Messenger feature, or if the user had just already entered their details on the 1-800-FLOWERS site.

<comment><USER37> You've been able to setup a US debit card with your Messenger account and then use that to send friends money, so you can use that payment info with the Messenger platform integrations too. I'm guessing that FB processes the payment versus sending the partner your payment info.

Here's more info on payments in Messenger, but note that this doesn't include info on the platform stuff and how payments interact with it since it's brand new:

[https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger- app/750020781733477/](https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger- app/750020781733477/)

<comment><USER38> > so you can use that payment info with the Messenger platform integrations > too

That's not supported by the platform yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wouldn't it be wise for Facebook to just replace Messenger with WhatsApp and offer that as a platform?

<comment><USER40> I'm confused about this as well. Why are they choosing to compete with themselves?

<comment><USER41> Is it really competition though?

You choose A, Facebook wins. You choose B, Facebook wins.

I believe WhatsApp and FB Messenger are the two top chat networks right now (sadly), at least when looking at regional dominance. And since the value of a network to the individual is dependant on the size, AND they're locked up, they win whatever you choose.

You might loose because you chose the network with less friends, but that changes nothing in the end.

<comment><USER42> How is this not different from the strategy MS used to follow either kill opponents or buy them? How did the anti trust dept of US allow whatsapp acquisition since it literally made FB king of everything digital?

<comment><USER43> Mostly because they still have tons of competitors in the messaging space and they're not leveraging their success in social networking to force success in messaging. I'm personally reachable from 10-15 different forms of messaging (and neither WhatsApp nor FB messenger), and most people probably have at least 4-5 so it's a really tough argument that because of Facebook users _have_ to use WhatsApp or FB messenger.

<comment><USER42> Valid points, they aren't stiffling anyone, you can use others but since everyone is on whatsapp and facebook you have to use them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I don't get the hype behind bots? When are where was it proved that bots as interfaces can be successful?

<comment><USER45> Everyone read this [0] and now think it's The Next Big Thing™. That and Slack, I guess?

I don't get it either. The nice thing about not typing out _requests_ ("it's not a command-line interface," they all say) to perform virtual actions is that _you don 't have to type out requests to perform virtual actions_. And having different apps and websites for different purposes gives you choice, privacy, and control over who you interact with online. You don't have to get locked in to a platform and hope they never do anything nefarious or user- unfriendly for fear there's nowhere else to turn.

But I guess we're the minority.

[0] [https://medium.com/chris-messina/2016-will-be-the-year-of- co...](https://medium.com/chris-messina/2016-will-be-the-year-of- conversational-commerce-1586e85e3991)

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I hope people will help support matrix.org instead of building on a platform like this.

<comment><USER47> I just checked out some of the previous HN posts about matrix.org - I´d love something like it to become widely used... in the same way that I'm hoping for a Mozilla Persona, diaspora, etc. to become succesful.

Is that ever going to happen though? With all this money going to centralised products?

<comment><USER46> Probably not, which is why I said "hope." I'm doing my part by working on implementations of matrix.org components myself. Obviously, I can't predict the future, but I think it's unlikely any open system will "beat" or even compete meaningfully with the big proprietary systems. It's like a small group of well meaning political activists thinking they can beat lobbyists with unlimited funds. It's an army vs a couple people wielding sticks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I feel like this is going to be huge in terms of how much money starts flowing through Facebook Payments

</comment><comment><USER9> I like bots and everything but I wonder if chat's popularity stems from there being a human at the other end?

<comment><USER49> I don't think so. 15 years ago I created a service to let people access data from my company's intranet via AOL Instant Messenger (which everyone was already using for internal chat). It was still a big hit. People loved the convenience of just being able to ping a bot and immediately get back Client X's phone number, instead of having to wade through umpty-ump levels of menus and web pages to get the same info.

The interface to that service was _extremely_ crude by today's standards (basically a set of magic keywords that comprised a simple query language), but people liked the convenience so much they were more than willing how to talk to the bot in its own lingo. I can only imagine how much more popular it would have been if it had a real, natural-language chat interface.

As long as it's easy and convenient, and comes back with the right answers (a big _if_ , that last one), nobody will care if there's a human on the other end or not.

<comment><USER50> Funny thing - the bot you described is essentially a CLI. I'm willing to bet that at least some of the same people who happily used it would also be terrified by the real command line.

Reminds me also of an observation that a lot of people in accounting are actually programming without realizing it, by virtue of making pretty complex Excel spreadsheets to automate their work.

It's funny how much of users' apparent inability to grok computers is actually in their heads. Also, the fetishization of GUIs that has been going on for the past two decades is actually quite sad - it robs people of efficiency and convenience in using the machine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is the old platform. Not what was announced at F8 today.

<comment><AUTHOR> It redirects to

[https://messengerplatform.fb.com/](https://messengerplatform.fb.com/)

see also

[https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger- platform](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> People are talking about sharecropping, but this seems to me like they're trying to make Slack-like integrations for the general (non-dev) public. Can someone explain why this is different from Slack's model of using their platform to make apps?

Also people sound like they want to make money from an app on Facebook's platform. But I'd think that to consider making your start-up off someone else's platform is just a bad idea to begin with. Maybe have integrations to the messenger app from your app, but making an entire app on the messenger platform is a bad idea.

</comment><comment><USER53> For a while, Messenger supports some partners-only kind of program for bots. For example, if someone posts @dailycute then a random image from imgur aww is posted [0].

I am quite interested whether they have plans to extend this and make it more open (some kind of chat apps so that you can't just reserve a bunch of good keywords with non functioning bots?).

[0] [http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/05/facebook-messenger- bots/](http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/05/facebook-messenger-bots/)

<comment><USER54> [https://www.fbf8.com/schedule/session/introducing-bots-on- me...](https://www.fbf8.com/schedule/session/introducing-bots-on-messenger)

They covered this today at F8, but there doesn't seem to be any text or archived video version just yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Does anyone see Messenger as a potential Skype for business/Slack/Hipchat competitor? I feel like the technology is on par, but the link to my personal facebook kills it for me.

<comment><USER56> Well, Facebook at Work has Messenger built-in, just scoped to your organisation. So I guess they're already doing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Anyone know what stack FB uses for their messaging platform? I know WhatsApp uses Erlang...

<comment><USER58> > Anyone know what stack FB uses for their messaging platform?

Initially Erlang. Now C++. [1]

1\. [https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Erlang-chosen-for-use-in- Faceb...](https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Erlang-chosen-for-use-in-Facebook- chat)

edit: was quoting wrong part of the op comment

<comment><USER20> Note: The link you post is about Facebook's rewrite of their chat services from Erlang to C++, not WhatsApp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> In the meantime, Facebook still hasn't gotten around to allowing 1-to-1 messages from users on mobile websites, and probably never will. Sharing on your wall, sure, but send something privately? Sorry, we haven't gotten around to fixing that 4-year-old bug yet. (Even weirder, it works fine in desktop browsers...)

<comment><USER60> What do you mean? Sending messages from mobile to a single user using the messages menu works doesn't it?

<comment><USER59> I mean from our website, not Facebook's. You can use the Fbook API to share (1-to-many) on mobile websites, but you can't use the "send" functionality to send a private 1-to-1 message. It's surely not a technical issue, I'm assuming Fbook just decided never to implement it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Ah ha... Now I understand why they pulled Messenger out of the core FB app. So they could badger people for a year to install an intrusive application (or never be able to read those notifications the FB app keeps sending you without firing up a web browser) that would ultimately be leveraged as a B2C marketing platform.

</comment><comment><USER62> so it's basically just those automated phone systems that everyone hates except over Facebook Messenger?

I have to say I don't understand Silicon Valley these days...

<comment><USER63> You don't see the difference between this and hanging around with a phone to your ear listening to an audio user-interface synchronously waiting until it's ready for you to input commands with your numpad?

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I am surprised no one comparing that to Telegram.

</comment><comment><USER65> Off-topic: I have few friends but they all have a preferred chat medium. One I keep in touch with via SMS; another via WhatsApp. Others via IRC.

Is there a good iOS app that is essentially Pidgin, enabling communication via multiple protocols?

<comment><USER66> Bitlbee + irccloud/znc maybe?

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> _" The Send/Receive API must not be used to send marketing or promotional messages...advertising...branded content..up selling..cross selling"_

Then, _" Spring offers a personal shopping assistant on Messenger"_ [https://messengerplatform.fb.com/wp- content/themes/fbmesseng...](https://messengerplatform.fb.com/wp- content/themes/fbmessengerplatform/images/slides/caseStudies_spring/foreground.png)

Huh?

<comment><USER68> The big difference seems to be that bots built on this platform are not to be used as an ad delivery mechanism, like, say, outbound.io. The App Review section of the docs makes this a little clearer of what is acceptable and what isn't, complete with graphics:

[https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger- platform/app-...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/messenger-platform/app- review)

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> As much as I don't like Telegram weird pseudo-crypto, I really like what they are doing with their bot API and the messenger is really good in general.

They are adding features like on fire.

</comment><comment><USER70> Backchannel: [http://dev.backchannel.net](http://dev.backchannel.net)

[https://medium.com/@backchannelbots/introducing- backchannel-...](https://medium.com/@backchannelbots/introducing- backchannel-826f3836e6d2#.hr7vxmni7)

</comment><comment><USER71> From official docs : [https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/t39.2178-6/12057143_1982183939...](https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/t39.2178-6/12057143_198218393902993_755928037_n.png)

</comment><comment><USER72> Interestingly if you try and set up a Messenger Bot, there is a one-time fee of $99[0] to take advantage of Customer Matching - where they use phone numbers you have to find existing customers to contact.

</comment><comment><USER73> [https://messengerplatform.fb.com/](https://messengerplatform.fb.com/) "Powered by WordPress.com VIP" lazy faebook developers...

<comment><USER74> Imo it's a sign of effectiveness not laziness

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> We need a WhatsApp API

</comment><comment><USER76> Is there _anybody_ that sees positives to this ?

</comment><comment><USER77> "Now that we've almost finished migrating our app away from Parse lets start integrating this new Facebook thing!"

Yeah, how about no.

</comment><comment><USER78> Nice.

I assume Facebook gets a tonne of data about what I ordered etc. (many examples are order confirmations)

</comment><comment><USER79> I've no idea why anybody would install or use that POS spyware Messenger.

</comment><comment><USER80> Does FB own Wit.ai or is there any strategic coop?

How is their relation?

<comment><USER56> Wit.ai is apparently the new brand for the developer side of their 'M' personal assistant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> Looks like a dead end to me

</comment><comment><USER82> I suggest we crowdsource a list of chat bot related startups: [https://github.com/shaohua/awesome- chatbot](https://github.com/shaohua/awesome-chatbot)

Submit a pull request to include your bot :)

<comment><USER83> This was on HN yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11472612](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11472612)</comment></comment>


Faraday Future 'breaks ground' on $1B Nevada factory - cat-dev-null http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/13/11425594/faraday-future-breaks-ground-on-1-billion-nevada-factory <comment> cat-dev-null (Faraday... I see what you did there.)

An inevitable business model is a hybrid between Uber and Tesla: where one of a fleet of vehicles autonomously picks you up and self-drives (yes, Johnny Cab). Why own a vehicle (car, truck, delivery van, etc.) if you can have just what you want (different models), when you want and not have to garage/maintain it? And the prospect of eliminating human-error and unnecessary deaths/injuries is also appealing.</comment>


VMAF and FFmpeg in Ubuntu: Installation and Usage Guide - <AUTHOR> https://ottverse.com/vmaf-ffmpeg-ubuntu-compilation-installation-usage-guide/ <comment><USER2> For Windows, I've used this script to build ffmpeg with vmaf support.

[https://github.com/m-ab-s/media- autobuild_suite](https://github.com/m-ab-s/media-autobuild_suite)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's cool - thanks for sharing! Luckily brew on mac makes it super-easy to install vmaf & ffmpeg

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This uses libvmaf and vmafossexec which I heard will be deprecated at some later date. I hope the Netflix team doesn't break FFmpeg support when the switchover occurs.</comment>


How to earn on any niche with YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://1967vacation.westescalante.com/gbook/go.php?url=http://justsoeasymoney.blogspot.com/2016/11/earn-over-500-per-day-with-this_22.html <comment><USER2>
      se my personal youtube bot to add free unlimited views,likes,dislikes or channel subscribers

Well, now isn't _that_ special?</comment>


Maths spying: the quandary of working for the spooks - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229660.200-maths-spying-the-quandary-of-working-for-the-spooks.html

<comment><USER2> Good Will Hunting already took a shot at this question in 1997: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrOZllbNarw)

</comment><comment><USER3> The first submission url [1] was lifted from an original source. HN prefers original sources. Submitters: please double-check the article you post and if there is a more original source, post it instead.

Here, Slate did the sleazy thing and linked only to newscientist.com, not to the article. That's all the more reason to link to the original, not the knock-off. In such cases, googling any sentence from the article almost always returns it.

1\. [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scienti...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2014/04/mathematicians_at_the_nsa_and_gchq_is_it_ethical_to_work_for_spy_agencies.html)</comment>


Convertible and SAFE notes - <AUTHOR> http://avc.com/2017/03/convertible-and-safe-notes/ <comment><USER2> It's really not that hard to understand how these notes convert and how much you are diluting if you spend just a few minutes modeling it out with [https://angelcalc.com](https://angelcalc.com)

Of course it's still possible to get more dilution than expected if you raise at unrealistically high caps (or uncapped!) and convert at a lower valuation down the road, but even that is probably less painful than a conventional down round.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. We walked all our angels through a 3 scenario (low, goal, home-run) Series A pre-money valuation analysis using a calculator. Bit overwhelming for some but everyone appreciated the effort.

The biggest benefits of the note structure to us were a) Rolling close b) Not wasting time debating "valuation" when neither us nor the angels were capable of estimating a number with limited to no data.

<comment><USER4> How does a safe prevent you from debating valuation? It seems like a safe note with no discount is rarely a good deal unless you hit the valuation cap (why not just wait until A otherwise?), and if you do hit the cap it's essentially equivalent to investing in a round priced at the cap (a little worse due to preference caps).

In what way is the cap not a "valuation"?

<comment><USER5> The argument for a seed investor to invest in a SAFE note with no discount and no cap is that the Series A round will be priced by a VC or superangel, and the seed investor will not otherwise have the opportunity to invest at that later point. That is, the seed investor is trading the opportunity to participate in an investment at all for control over the exact terms. But since neither the entrepreneur nor the seed investor have any idea what a pre- revenue company is worth, they're often fine delaying the valuation question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This isn't as epic as the "extended option exercise periods screw employees! Really!" post from Scott Kupor of a16z ([http://a16z.com/2016/06/23/options- timing/](http://a16z.com/2016/06/23/options-timing/)), but close. FFS.

The "bad case" alternative to the second/third round of notes is often a down round or running out of money -- way worse.

The "good case" alternative of a second higher cap note batch is fine.

Founders and early investors can get screwed even if they raised as equity early on, too.

<comment><USER6> (Er, sorry, didn't mean to be this mean; I'd been stuck in flight delays for hours.)

I do think the analysis is both incorrect in conclusion (SAFE _is_ the best choice in many/most cases for both sophisticated founders and new founders), and the case badly supported in the blog post.

But it probably isn't someone doing the equivalent of pushing a self-serving agenda, which was my instinctive reaction and thus defensiveness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> (I'm a seed-stage VC, but as a caveat I'm not an expert when it comes to cap tables.)

He's an example of where having many notes can hurt founders:

\- Raise $2m at an $8m cap, 15% discount.

\- Raise $2m at an $18m cap, 15% discount.

\- Raise $2m at a $28m cap, 15% discount.

\- Sell 20% of company for $X in the Series A.

Caps are "sort of" like pre-money valuations, so the founder might expect that their dilution from the 3 notes is approximately 2/10 + 2/20 + 2/30 = 36.7%

Here's what actually happens in 4 different scenarios:

1) Raise $10m at a $40m pre. Dilution from the notes is 20.0 + 8.9 + 5.7 = 34.6%

2) Raise $7.5m at a $30m pre. Dilution from the notes is 20.0 + 8.9 + 6.3 = 35.2%

3) Raise $5.0m at a $20m pre. Dilution from the notes is 20.0 + 9.4 + 9.4 = 38.8%

4) Raise $4.0m at a $16m pre. Dilution from the notes is 20.0 + 11.8 + 11.8 = 43.6%

For the founder, #1 and #2 are better than expected, #3 and #4 are worse. It's not hard to get into situation #3 or #4 if you raise money from strategic investors or angels at high caps, and then Series A investors drive your price down below your most recent caps because that's where the market is. The 9% dilution difference between the first and last scenarios is fairly dramatic. When you combine that with the 20% dilution from the Series A, it's the difference between founders and employees having ~45% of the company vs ~36% of the company.

(Source of calculations: [https://captable.io/company/8/convertible- notes/calculator](https://captable.io/company/8/convertible-notes/calculator))

<comment><USER8> Isn't that functionally just a down round?

<comment><USER7> Yes. But based on my understanding of conversion mechanics, the anti-dilution terms in priced seed rounds are often "weighted average" (which are more founder friendly) while in SAFEs and notes they are closer to "full ratchet" (which are founder unfriendly). An example of the two types of anti-dilution provisions is worked out at [https://www.strictlybusinesslawblog.com/2014/03/08/venture-c...](https://www.strictlybusinesslawblog.com/2014/03/08/venture- capital-term-sheet-negotiation-part-7-anti-dilution-provisions/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's great when a VC makes a pro-VC argument and without any hard data cites feelings as the reason why founders should do what he says. AVC has some great ideas, but sometimes it's pure propaganda.

If you're just raising a small seed in order to get something going, what's more important than moving fast and getting the product to market?

<comment><USER10> This is not a pro VC argument. You may want to believe that. But that's not what I'm trying to say

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm ambivalent about notes vs priced rounds for founders. I agree that they create nasty surprises at conversion time.

But notes/SAFEs are great for the earliest employees since we can grant them real shares instead of options. Plus, we can do it at par value.

Shares granted before a priced round are typically identical to the shares a founder has, with all the same tax advantages.

Doing priced rounds early means having to worry about a 409a early, and probably giving employees worse quality equity (or creating income tax problems for them).

<comment><USER12> Huh? Surely you cannot do 83b election for the employees who joined after 30 days since the company formation?

And if you don't, that makes situation a lot worse for the employees, as they end up owning taxes at each vesting event.

<comment><USER13> 83b doesn't have that restriction. You just have to file within 30 days of receiving the shares. Can be indefinitely long after company formation, since it's an election made by the employee, not the company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I really really dislike when VCs make a pro-investor claim and try to hide it in founder-friendly terms.

Priced rounds are great for VCs because they remove all their risk. But they don't remove any founder risk. Do a down-round after a priced round and you'll wish you were just taking more dilution from a SAFE.

> "1\. They defer the issue of dilution until a later date".

When the company is doing well, notes allow founders get less dilution, sometimes way less. This is great for founders, and is just about the only time in the whole startup thing where things go better than expected for founders.

If the company is doing badly, I'll take a lower conversion rate over having to raise a down-round any day.

> "2\. They obfuscate the amount of dilution the founder(s) is taking. I think > many investors actually like this"

He sets up a moral imperative: you're an irresponsible founder if you don't know what dilution you're taking. But I know what dilution I'm taking: it's X _or less_!! (Again, in a down-round I'm fucked either way, so the downside of notes doesn't matter)

> "3\. I cannot tell you how many angry pissed off angel investors [..] they > own a LOT less than they thought they did."

And here we get to the crux of the issue, investors own less. If investors own less, who owns more? Founders do.

> "4\. Most importantly, we cannot and should not continue to allow founders > to issue notes to investors and not understand how much dilution they are > taking on each time they do it. This is WRONG."

"Silly inexperienced founders accidentally give investors a bad deal. This is morally WRONG". Needless to say, I'm unsympathetic to this view.

Look I understand why VCs don't like notes. But to pretend that this is a founder-friendly thing is beyond irritating (note: he's far from the only VC to do this!). And this is one of the reasons I trust YC far more than any other investors - they're in it to help people make startups and they argue for founder-friendly terms.

(PS there is a real issue in that inexperienced founders might raise too much thinking its free money, and then they get a lower cap than expected. But my only bad experience with raising with notes is that VCs treat it as a lower implied valuation when raising the next round.)

<comment><USER10> I wrote this from the heart. You can ascribe whatever agenda you want to believe. But I wrote this for founders and it is based on thirty plus years of working with founders. I don't want to see them get screwed and notes screw them over a lot

<comment><USER14> Thanks for saying that!

I don't have any agenda or ascribe any to you. All I think is that to the untrained eye, this post comes across as founder-unfriendly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This totally misses how painful it is for a first-time founder to negotiate against an experienced VC. The power of the SAFE note is that you don't need to worry about the terms, you know it's acceptable. If there are twenty different possible funding mechanisms and you have to negotiate which one you want, the power goes to the VC. Just use a SAFE note.

</comment><comment><USER16> This bit of (excellent) guidance is actually two somewhat separate suggestions:

 _" Founders should insist that their lawyers publish, to them and the angel/seed investors, a "pro-forma" cap table at the closing of the note that shows how much of the company each of them would own if the note converted immediately at different prices. This "pro-forma" cap table should be updated each and every time another note is isssued. Most importantly, we cannot and should not continue to allow founders to issue notes to investors and not understand how much dilution they are taking on each time they do it."_

Requiring that a cap-table be published is somewhat different than ensuring that the founders understand their dilution. It's quite likely there is a ton of overwhelming information/events going on during a close, and it's easy (though it shouldn't be) at this stage for a founders eyes to glaze over yet another-table. But taking the extra 60 minutes to walk through the implications of dilution, and ensuring that they actually _get it_ is something a responsible investor/VC will do.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm not seeing what is confusing about dilution, or how that is exacerbated by multiple note rounds. Can anybody give an example along with the correct and incorrect interpretations of terms investors are prone to?

<comment><USER18> "or how that is exacerbated by multiple note rounds" \- YES - I too am looking for a clear and concise example of this. The only people that have ever suggested this to us were....VCs and from my reading and rereading of all of our notes, its very unclear as to why this would be some sort of actual surprise/issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This article assumes naive founders and doesn't mention the many situations wherein convertible notes and (especially) SAFEs are very advantageous to the founders.

I wonder which situation is more common?

<comment><USER20> It's even funnier: SAFE notes are _very_ advantageous to naive founders as well...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is super light on concrete info, can we have some examples of this house of cards? and of angels getting screwed?

</comment><comment><USER22> Maybe these endless rounds of financing even when the company is selling product aren't such a good idea. The result is often a chicken run for the bankruptcy cliff. Can you buy dominant market share before the investment money runs out?

Looking at you, Uber.

</comment><comment><USER23> > They defer the issue of valuation and, more importantly, dilution

That's what the cap if for. If the founder is 19 years old, fine, read a book on it (I recommend this: [https://www.amazon.com/Funded-Entrepreneurs-Guide- Raising-Fi...](https://www.amazon.com/Funded-Entrepreneurs-Guide-Raising- First/dp/1491940263) but basically any will do) but angel investors that don't know what caps are are dumb angels.

> They obfuscate the amount of dilution the founder(s) is taking.

Also what a cap is for. Unless we're talking about it from the founders perspective, in which case it's their decision to raise another round or not. If the dilution doesn't make sense don't raise the round. If you're desperate and were banking on hitting the cap maybe the company wasn't worth what you thought it was worth when you raised your Angel round.

> They can build up, like a house of cards, on top of each other

Here I 100% agree. Early family and friends money or angel investments or small seeds should be convertible, but subsequent rounds should be priced, or a down round is going to eviscerate the cap table.

> They put the founder in the difficult position of promising an amount of > ownership to an angel/seed investor that they cannot actually deliver down > the round when the notes convert.

What? How? Only if the founder is lying or doesn't put in a cap can I possibly see this happening.

> The company has been around for a few years and has financed itself along > with way with all sorts of various notes at various caps (or no cap) and > finally the whole fucking mess is resolved and nobody owns anywhere near as > much as they had thought.

False dilemma. The choice isn't "use convertible and get a fucking mess" or "do priced rounds for equity and keep things clean". If you keep your capped convertible round simple and follow it with a priced round for normal equity anyone with two brain cells can figure out what the outcome will be given different scenarios. I've seen some really, really fucked up priced rounds because some dumb angel investor took a dump on the shareholder agreement and it took hundreds of thousands in legal fees and payoffs to fix by the time they were going for what they ended up calling their seed (they renamed their small seed their angel round).

> It can easily be done for less than $5k in a few days and we do that quite > often.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that a bunch of regulatory issues come in once a company is selling stock that a two person startup doesn't want to waste time dealing with.

> The first convertible or SAFE note issued in a company should have a cap on > the total amount of notes than can be issued. A number like $1mm or max $2mm > sounds right to me.

What? Is this at the idea phase or something further along? Because I don't know anyone that has a $1M cap if there is any serious amount of work or team.

> Don't do multiple rounds of notes with multiple caps. It always ends badly > for everyone, including the founder.

I agree. Only do this if you're desperate or if you raised a tiny angel round (<5% after cap).

> [...] a "pro-forma" cap table at the closing of the note

I agree, though more as a CYA thing to keep relationships good than something I think would be necessary if the founder set up a sane round in the first place.

I'm personally not a fan of SAFEs because they can get hairy when you have lots of angel investors, but convertible is great.

As a partial aside, this whole "strong views weakly held" (see [http://avc.com/2016/06/strong-views-weakly- held/](http://avc.com/2016/06/strong-views-weakly-held/) for more details) is kinda annoying to debate with because it frequently boils down to me having to colour in the nuance. It's like a less extreme version of arguing with Trump supporters.

My style is:

Strong views strongly held, until they're no longer strong views because they've been eroded away by building, credible counter-arguments. I generally stop talking about the view during this period or when I do talk about it I'll ask questions. I think of this as weak views weakly held. Then I re- investigate the view's premises and:

1\. If finding my original assessment still broadly correct, I evaulate the counter evidence and modify the view to include a greater degree of depth, since I now understand a further degree of the complexities. The view then becomes a "nuance aware-strong view, strongly held".

2\. If finding my original assessment false, build a new strong view (strongly held) from the premises of others.

Strong support carries information "this information should be trusted" and I don't like broadcasting that signal if my view is weakly held.

<comment><USER24> > The first convertible or SAFE note issued in a company should have a cap on > the total amount of notes than can be issued. A number like $1mm or max $2mm > sounds right to me.

By "cap" in this context, I believe he's referring to the aggregate amount of convertible notes.

<comment><USER23> Ah, nice catch. In that case I generally agree with him.</comment></comment></comment>