Facebook is the worst thing that's ever happened to the internet - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1087484682910846976 <comment><USER3> Before Facebook, if I lost someone's contact information, and drifted outside of their social circle for a long enough time, chances were I would never ever see or speak to that person again.

Before Facebook, if people wanted to organize conversation and cooperation on an information technology platform, the options were to pay $X00-$X000 for a proprietary system, get lucky enough to know about mailing lists, have someone who knew sysadmin do it basically for free, or have everyone learn how to use something like IRC.

Social networking was an enormous pain in the ass. Facebook was the first platform that actually worked for people. Every subsequent social network took their cues from Facebook, it was a veritable sea change in the state of the Internet.

The problem here isn't Facebook, you'd be having these growing pains with any useful social networking technology platform. It's the unintended consequences of Facebook's universal accessibility. Anybody can use Facebook, and so everybody will. It's the story of technology all over again. Technology is invented, we have a honeymoon phase, then the real marriage begins. We're in the "just had a baby, now we need to get it to a year old so we can all relax" phase.

It'll get better.

<comment><USER4> > Before Facebook, if people wanted to organize conversation and cooperation > on an information technology platform, the options were to pay $X00-$X000 > for a proprietary system, get lucky enough to know about mailing lists, have > someone who knew sysadmin do it basically for free, or have everyone learn > how to use something like IRC.

Did you just drop off the planet between 1995 - 2005? Poor Myspace... everybody just forgot it ever existed. And AIM... ICQ... MSN... Yahoo... not to mention the endless forums on every single conceivable subject. Nobody I knew in the late 90s and early 2000s wasn't using AIM or some other comparable program. It wasn't hard to keep in touch with people.

Facebook didn't invent social networking. All it did was give people a platform to vomit out their every thought for all their friends to see at once.

<comment><USER5> Your parents were on ICQ? And AIM? They set up a Myspace account?

Facebook is easy to use and accessible everywhere. This is coming from someone that hasn't had a Facebook account since 2009. GP makes great points and the title to this submission is pure clickbait.

<comment><USER6> My whole family was on ICQ when I was a kid. This may not actually be true but my understanding back then was that ICQ was pretty popular internationally (most of my family lives outside of the US).

<comment><USER7> Yes, ICQ was popular just before the internet went full on mainstream, MSN and Yahoo messenger followed it up, followed by a brief Google chat and Skype stint and then a void filled up by the social networks and eventually the mobile messengers like WhatsApp.

MSN being killed is still so weird to me, I get that The Netherlands is a small country, but they had full 100% market dominance, after MSN got killed I bet some researcher could have seen people in The Netherlands just had a communication dip for a year or two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The websites I constantly use every single day:

      google.com
      maps.google.com
      youtube.com
      wikipedia.org
      weather.gov
      stackoverflow.com

For almost 20 years, I've been using Google for dozens of random searches every single day. Its utility to help me find information is unmatched. And Youtube -- even with the ads -- adds value to my life because of all the helpful tutorials and DIY content I can view for free.

On the other hand, I've never needed to create accounts for Facebook or LinkedIn. Unlike google/wikipedia/stackoverflow, I think of Facebook as my _adversary_ that's reckless with personal data and harming me. I assume they are developing more unethical uses of personal data but we don't know about them yet because an ex-Facebook employee hasn't publicized them. The questionable ethics starts at the top with Mark Z.

I do think humanity would be served by a "real names" database by an entity we could trust to help us connect with each other. Unfortunately, that valuable info is currently held by an unethical company like Facebook. (My previous comment about this.[0]) They abuse their stewardship of the social graph which is why I adamantly avoid them.

Facebook was a bad actor even before all the revelations about Russian funded political ads to hijack the election.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18728061)

<comment><USER9> Facebook is harmful because it's reckless with your personal data, but Google is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's able to provide those results because it steals your data, which it also abuses and sells. And as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with similar DIY books complete with pictures and drawings, but without stealing and selling your data.

<comment><USER8> _> , but Google is invaluable because of its utility and amazing results? It's able to provide those results because it steals your data_

What data from me does Google steal? I don't have a Google account. I can be anonymous at a Starbucks coffee shop and search google for "Paul Graham" and get back useful results. If they coalesce search queries on my home ip address, that's unavoidable and a tradeoff I knowingly make.

 _> And as an alternative to YouTube, there are free public libraries with similar DIY books_

In the last month, I needed to replace a side mirror of a Lexus car and also disassemble a Moen faucet. No, my library does not have the manuals to show how to do it. But youtube did have the videos uploaded by nice people. Both of those procedures had tricky steps that weren't obvious and Youtube saved me hundreds of dollars in fees from car dealerships and plumbers.

<comment><USER10> > I can be anonymous at Starbucks coffee shop and search google

The "Google WiFi"?

> I assume they are developing more unethical uses of personal data

Why not make the same assumption about Google? They could jot down the MAC address of your device, and track you all over the place (not that they need to, since you already use Google maps).

<comment><USER8> _> They could jot down the MAC address of your device, and track you _

Yes but a wifi MAC address is not my _real name_. I'd be more concerned if Google bought a telecom company like AT&T/Verizon and linked phones' IMEI/ESN hardware numbers to search queries. The IMEI is absolutely linked to a real identity because it's the billing address of the person paying for the phone.

The MAC address correlation seems more useful for targeted ads rather than abusing personal real names data like Equifax & Facebook.

<comment><USER11> not only that you can forge a MAC address in a number of ways, such as configuration, or with a bridge, there are very tiny routers that fit in a cigarette pack or a coffee cup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I laughed out loud when I saw (twitter.com) at the end of the title

<comment><USER13> Twitter is also in the running: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI)

<comment><USER14> This talk is fantastic. I hope everyone watches it.

I wonder how much better the world would be if Twitter itself posted this video or something like it, every year, once a year. It might be amazing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I know, and cars are the worst thing to ever happen to the planet, synthesizers are the worst thing to ever happen to music, etc. Worst thing to happen to pundits? The inability to recognize the value of something to the common person beyond the negatives they focus upon.

<comment><USER16> Unfortunately, humans are susceptible to the desire for short term gains that produce long term problems (ex. from your comment: cars).

Products can have both utility and be a danger. It's possible to criticise something and still understand it's utility but simply feel that the danger is worse.

When the internal combustion engine was criticised as the worst invention of all time, it wasn't because people thought it wasn't useful, it was because it was insanely useful and incredibly bad for the environment.

In fact, there's little need to criticise things that aren't useful as very few people use them.

<comment><USER15> > It's possible to criticise something and still understand it's utility but > simply feel that the danger is worse.

Sure so long as it's OK to come to a different conclusion. Since utility of these things are basically unquantifiable, an objectively correct answer cannot happen. All I ask is that those closest to the tech and the current anti-big-web-tech narrative recognize that the benefits differ by user group. Too often, it's presented as an obvious fact sans rebuttal that FB is overall a negative.

<comment><USER16> Right, I think DHH's comment could better be prefaced with "For me..."

Someone appearing to speak on my behalf with a position I don't agree with always bugs me too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Facebook seems to be taking a lot of heat these days. But I wonder: what would actually "fix" the platform? As far as I can tell, the only "solution" is getting rid of Facebook. Obviously, FB doesn't agree. Short of destroying itself (and having a competitor instantly take its place), what should they do?

What can they do?

Proposed solutions to their various problems:

\- Make the timeline less addictive, to prevent people overusing it. Won't work, as soon as facebook loses its relevance another, more addictive site will take its place (reddit, instagram). In any case, they've already tried this.

\- Introduce moderation, to prevent abuse of the platform. They're already frantically hiring moderators--they cannot find enough people to moderate the platform. And competitors are emerging in any case (whatsapp and other messaging apps)

\- Stop collecting data on people. Not going to happen, since they rely on this for revenue. Asking them to do this is like asking someone to violate their survival instinct. This has to happen from some force external to Facebook. And in any case, people's data is valuable, so saying "stop collecting data" is like saying "don't pick up $100 that you find on the ground."

I guess I'm trying to say that this problem is so much bigger than just Facebook. It's a problem with mankind that will prove to be more and more intractable as time goes on, regardless of who is a player and who is pointing fingers.

<comment><USER18> They should stop selling advertising and charge for API access to the social graph, both users and app developers. There should be a free tier with the core functionality for users.

This will realign Facebook's interests with the interests of their userbase.

<comment><USER17> That would solve the problem -- but now we are back at square one, because a free competitor will emerge to replace Facebook.

There are paid social networks out there. Nobody uses them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> this guy is obsessed with Facebook, while justifying his presence on Twitter which has the exact same business model, with various excuses. He is a troll trying to generate clicks and visibility. That's all.

If he really was serious about hating the free social network / paid for by targeted advertising model, he would have gotten off Twitter. But he has a lot of followers there and it's an effective marketing tool for him.

<comment><USER20> Twitter is terrible, but at least it's honest. There's no pretence of privacy through vague "controls". If Facebook just said: "Anything you post to Facebook is public, except PMs", it would be a lot more palatable. Instead it's a bait-and-switch, where Facebook lets you think some information is private, but uses it for its own purposes as if it's public.

Edit: Also consider that Twitter doesn't enforce a real-name policy. This means you can often maintain your own anonymity/privacy on Twitter simply by not using your real name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'd be curious to hear what people think are the top 3, because I feel like Twitter and Instagram are strong contenders. Or if indeed Twitter belongs in the top spot.

<comment><USER22> I would place Twitter at number one.

I can very easily remove Facebook from my life. Even though I still have an account, I can easily restrict it to only using Messenger for group chats and maybe checking the feed for less than 1 minute every few days (my usage statistics can confirm this).

With Twitter, I am constantly bombarded with people soapboxing their opinions, trying to start arguments, virtue-signalling, trying to force group outrage, witch-hunting... all manner of things. Even news articles have started using Twitter as sources. Its ridiculous.

I can't get away from it, despite not even having a Twitter account.

<comment><USER23> > With Twitter, I am constantly bombarded with people soapboxing their > opinions, trying to start arguments, virtue-signalling, trying to force > group outrage, witch-hunting... all manner of things. Even news articles > have started using Twitter as sources. Its ridiculous.

What stops you from removing Twitter from your life just as easily as Facebook?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I guess it depends on metrics. It feel like Facebook/Google showed everybody else the gold mine that is sucking up as much user data as possible and fusing that data with other companies. That is probably the #1 worst thing about the internet and its effect on regular life today.

However, with work at it, I think it is possible to leave both the Facebook/Google bubble.

If that is #1, #2 is definitely what Twitter has done to distort the news cycle and cause "social media" storms. Twitter seems to make it much easier for that to happen, and worse, you will never get the full story from Twitter. And the worst part? you don't even have to have a Twitter account to be subject to that.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm a Facebook advertiser. I can attest that there's lot of good products where the _only_ cost effective and scalable way to reach your target market is through Facebook. Want to reach teachers with a time saving app? FB is the best way. Want to offer a SaaS tool to small businesses? FB is the best way to get it in front of them. Etc.

FB ads don't have 0 utility for consumers. A lot of products just couldn't reach the people who want them without it.

<comment><USER26> Sure this is just personal preference however Facebook always was a huge waste of money if I sold anything worth while (like my SaaS und stuff) however it worked kinda great to sell cheap China reimports and other shit like that.

Not to mention that it gets more expensive and less effective every year. And all those 'bugs' where clicks count from the wrong countries and all the other horrible stuff the Facebook adverser forum is filled with.

<comment><USER25> It's possible to lose or make money on any channel, but here's a chart of where you can target different types of audiences: [https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marke...](https://www.kevinlordbarry.com/uploads/3/6/5/4/3654649/marketingchannelchart- orig2_orig.png)

FB is the only online player with any significant scale in that bottom right quadrant. And that's pretty much the ballgame for putting products in front of specific audiences.

<comment><USER26> Well I moved on with them locking my last account last year. Agreed it's not as easy to discover different platforms for different ad projects but I do definitly get a lot more for my money now.

I would argue Facebook is the easiest but I doubt its the most efficient in any way.

Edit:// before anyone thinks locked means I did something unethical. No they locked it because I travelled to different countries and I wasn't able to open it again. After I spend thousands of dollars on ads they didn't help.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Top reply:

>What do you think of Facebook-owned products? IG started out like a mobile Flickr in the early days, a place for personal creativity and documentation, but now has become an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote. I wonder about the psychological impact on people.

His response:

>Plenty of studies have confirmed that Instagram is having a terrible effect on the psychology of many people. Also, Instagram gave us The Influencer. That's gotta be up there in the top 10 of worst gifts to the world.

TIL that apparently IG used to be a mobile Flickr. But even if that line of thought advanced, would it not have still turned into "an ad-filled place to peacock, gather likes, and promote" personal creativity and documentation?

<comment><USER28> I somewhat disagree with his assessment of influencers. Can they be annoying? Yes. Are they providing real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes of people? Yes. The influencer has single handedly upended the advertisement industry and taken money away from traditional media is a big way. I think it's given more jobs to people who don't work on Madison Avenue and maybe don't have technical skills, but can connect with a large audience of people.

<comment><USER29> I'm guessing most people who don't like influencers would rather have newspapers than provide more value to companies and create an industry for people whose main talent is popularity.

<comment> 52-6F-62 And only the most popular stories are noticed. The backstories for many of these people aren't often told:

[https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram- stardom...](https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-stardom-left- me-in-financial-ruin/)

I don't understand what value they really provide to the public. They almost exist to inspire envy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Facebook hijacked friendships/acquaintances and made us talk to each other in a different way that we would have in person. That's my primary beef against them.

As for the internet, they've consistently closed off integrations so as to become a closed platform that benefits from the internet but does not give back:

\- APIs closed

\- Integrations with other services: closed

\- Hyperlinks to posts: hard to find for sharing and bookmarking.

They've become the new AOL (the kid on the block that doesn't play with others unless they have a toy he wants to steal from them).

Having said this, the closed platform may end up being a blessing in disguise, making it easier to cut off facebook from habits altogether.

</comment><comment><USER31> You know - my wife and I were talking about Facebook the other day and the role it plays in 'the way society acts' these days.

We came to the conclusion that the vast majority of feeds are filled with posts from sites that other like-minded people also have in their feeds. This causes the comments on those posts on your feed to _mostly_ be filled with people whose feelings align with your own.

I think that's dangerous, maybe mainly because the general population doesn't realize this. Everyone, no matter how 'distorted' their views are - <USER2> vindicated in those views.

Every time I feel like removing my Facebook, I just take a few steps back and only use it to stay in touch with family and/or friends that I have moved away from - which soon morphs back into the constant checking for new posts and then reading those comments, which tend to align and solidify my own feelings.

I think the world would be a better place without Facebook - and I also think the world would be worse off in some regards without it. In either event, if Facebook vanished tomorrow, I wouldn't complain.

<comment><USER32> Bubbles are real, but not only on Facebook. People will watch TV stations that have content that aligns with their world view. They'll read news papers that do the same. Listen to people who say things they like. This isn't strictly Facebook issue.

<comment><USER11> news and news feeds align with and are pestilently allied with FB

</comment></comment></comment><comment> unique-template The worst thing to have ever happened is the monetization of clicks. It's killed journalism. And by proxy it's created echo chambers where people only seek validation of their existing beliefs.

<comment><USER33> This was a issue way before clicks got invented though...it's basic human nature

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Second only to Twitter (which is the platform where this was published).

</comment><comment><USER35> My vote would be for Javascript, but that's only because I'm optimistic and think Facebook might still be torn apart.

</comment><comment><USER36> DHH's comment is another example of what I call one-bit reasoning: everything is either wonderful or terrible.

Facebook's features have had far-reaching effects and it's not that easy to classify them as positive or negative. Getting in touch with people is easier. Thoughtlessly sending things to all your "friends" is probably too easy, but there are also announcements you do want to read.

<comment><USER37> Twitter is the prime place for hot takes like DHH's. And his making this post is only part making us aware of this issue, and more his further building his own brand as a tech influencer. All about personal incentives. Basically, the whole system's fucked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I personally loved the first years of fb even if I never been a social network person.

Now I think that company ( in terms of fb product) should focus how to be still facebook of the first years with innovations.

Because right now my traction to use facebook is just read news or to follow some companies that I like.

</comment><comment><USER39> Sensationalism.

FB is a tool. Their mistake was deciding to mix politics into an app people liked for family/friend connections by trying and succeeding to increase monitization/engagement:

The News Feed

(I stopped using FB after the news feed started dominating my engagment in 2016)

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't understand the hero worship that goes on with DHH. He seems to make some blunt, uninformed and lacking arguments and people take it as gospel. (His offhand tweet is on the front page of hacker news).

Is facebook the worse? It's bad, and there have been many things it's done badly. I would say there are far worse actors on the internet. (I.e. mpaa, agressive marketers etc) People have been screaming from the rooftops during the whole time. Many of the worse-case predictions have come true (considering the info leak/cambridge etc). However they're far from the only one doing that.

They've really brought on the walled garden there. That imo has been the worse. It's no surprise that you're getting all these negative effects when there is no competition. Thankfully they haven't taken the full-on paid censor.

We're lacking in rights about our data and ways to stand up to this.

</comment><comment><USER41> Where exactly is the substance of this argument? I don't disagree or agree, but this is just bare invective hurled into a world looking to agree. I don't see anything justified or rigorously argued and most of the follow up basically asks for exactly that.

I'm not quite sure why, but DHH has chosen "antagonizing and negative" as his calling card. It seems to be working out, as he's the go-to guy that has enough street cred to be negative about high-growth VC fueled startups.

</comment><comment><USER42> The only generic platform I need to keep up with friends and family is WhatsApp.

I wish WhatsApp IPO'd instead of selling out to FB. Good for consumers. Founders would have made more money too.

</comment><comment><USER43> 100% disagree. My older relatives use Facebook to reconnect with old pals and love sharing family pictures and conversing over messenger. It'd be difficult to find them otherwise. I'm personally not on Facebook because I cringe on what people post but to say it's the worst thing on the internet is pretty ignorant

</comment><comment><USER44> Would be nice with some more explanation. But I guess that is part of what is lacking on social media.

</comment><comment><USER45> I don't have a Facebook account and I admire DHH, but a lot of the criticism of Facebook seems over the top. Most people don't care about similar actions done by other companies (at least not at the same level), and don't seem to take much real action to mitigate the harms they see from Facebook. I think much of the criticism is a form of signaling, rather than an expression of a real belief.

</comment><comment><USER46> Is Twitter the second worst? It has emphasized our decreasing attention span to the point where we now have "world leaders" communicating in short, meaningless blurbs.

</comment><comment><USER47> That's a bold thing to write... on Twitter.

<comment><USER48> You're downvoted. Maybe because of your snarky tone, but I think you have a point. Twitter is a cesspool with all of the same problems as Facebook.

<comment><USER49> It has problems, certainly, but not all the same. A bunch that don't apply:

* Twitter has always been easier to avoid (more people/groups/places expect you to have a Facebook account if you want to know about stuff)

* real-name policy

* Anything related to payment, due to not selling anything to end users, e.g. the recent story about charges caused by kids [https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-...](https://www.revealnews.org/blog/a-judge-unsealed-a-trove-of-internal-facebook-documents-following-our-legal-action/)

On the other hand, Twitter is more public, which brings issues not so much on Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> In what sense did Facebook 'happen'? People chose to join; they weren't forced to. Facebook qua social network is a valuable tool for many people.

Now you can perhaps make the case that their effort to monetize was an unethical bait-and-switch. Get people on the service, then keep them engaged via promotion of provocative and unhealthy behaviors, which ultimately fuels an advertising money-printing machine the likes of which we've never seen before, save Google.

</comment><comment><USER51> People forgot Orkut? I have made so many friends and some are still close to me. :)

</comment><comment><USER52> "Facebook is the worst thing that's ever happened to the internet" -Twitter

</comment><comment><USER53> Facebook brought us React and GraphQL (dont't know if ReasonML is an important enough technology to count). I despise Facebook as a social network; but as a technological company, it's clearly not the worst that happened to _ _the Internet_ _.

</comment><comment><USER54> He says from Twitter, which is waving "what about me? I'm awful too!"

My runner up is Youtube, now infested with piles of crap, and when finding something decent it's infested with ads. What an innovation! It's now just like cable TV!

<comment> 52-6F-62 I still get a fair amount of value out of Youtube, personally.

But yeah, you definitely have to wear some goggles to see through the noise.

\---

My rules for youtube:

* Don't read the comments

* Don't participate in the comments

* Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and conspiracy theory ramblings

* Stick to music, favoured clips from shows (I do love that I can watch some old Mitchell and Webb Look), DIY/How-Tos, old lectures and interviews (Feynman's are fantastic), and the like.

\---

Grievances:

* The aforementioned suggestions that I keep up on my extremist ideology lessons and conspiracy theories about Clinton and her child slave moon base on Mars

* I now know what Peppa Pig is, kind of.

<comment><USER55> > Ignore many of the suggestions—they tend toward right-wing extremist and > conspiracy theory ramblings

Interesting, the suggestions I get are mostly sailing vlogs, featuring scantily clad ladies. I sarcastically wonder why...

<comment> 52-6F-62 Looks like I'll have to just start randomly clicking on videos like that to skew the suggestions.

I have _no_ idea why I'm getting the kinds of suggestions I am. Thankfully they're an increasing minority as I get more music these days. And Trailer Park Boys haha.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Ironic that someone is saying this from Twitter, which is worse.

</comment><comment><USER57> Posted on the second worst thing to ever happen to the internet

</comment><comment><USER58> Sure, but Ruby on Rails has to be in the top ten.

<comment><USER59> Why? I get that it might not be the ideal framework, but that's a long way from being one of the worst things that's ever happened to the internet. (Or are you just trolling?)

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> And this is coming from the creator of Rails.

</comment><comment><USER61> The problem is human nature, not Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER62> A modest declaration. FB, and some of its properties, is worser than this.

</comment><comment><USER63> I dont want to offend anyone but DHH turned himself from a technologist into an annoying SJW with the holier than thou attitude.

Seriously that guy is big mouth about this and that but instead of contributing something meaningful he is just spewing non sense all the time.

</comment><comment><USER64> Clearly DHH wasn't around when AOL dumped it's user base onto a community that was previously gated by having to actually learn something about computing in order to get connected. P.S. - Get off my lawn;)

</comment><comment><USER65> Agreed if you expand that to social media in general.

</comment><comment><USER66> It's funny how DHH is constantly bashing Google or Facebook, but we never hear him about Amazon (because Amazon invested in his company, Basecamp).

</comment><comment><USER67> So he's talking about the Web not the Internet. Counter argument, the web was never that great to begin with and maybe let's stop pretending that some large companies we all don't like for whatever reason are responsible? Social media is opt-in. It is not a requirement to use the Internet and communicate effectively with it. If you hate it so much, start a new web. But then you quickly realize the Web is what it is due much more to economics associated with it than anything else.

<comment><USER68> Unfortunately, with trackers such as the Like button embedded in every web page and shadow profiles, social media is definitely not opt-in.</comment></comment>


Sincerely looking for honest feedback (welcome harsh comments also) - <AUTHOR> http://www.perfhack.com <comment><USER2> I just shut down my computer for the night so I ran a test on mobile. You've got a lot of things to improve and I'll provide some feedback tomorrow.

One glaring issue and an easy fix is you have "improve DNS loomups" instead of "improve DNS lookups"

<comment><USER2> Sorry, real tired as it's nearly 2am in Chicago. you have "reduce DNS loomups" and clearly mean "reduce DNS lookups".

<comment><AUTHOR> I am very Sorry for the late reply Brian. Just now corrected it. If you don't mind, is there any way i can reach you ? Thanks

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very good. My only feedback is that line spacing is slightly off on my iPhone 6S, not terrible though. Also I entered my website starting with https, but it just shows it with http in the report.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Alex, I am really sorry for the late reply. Yes, right now we are forwarding all https requests to http. We will correct this soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The test does not accept a URL with https, but instead strips https. This has a large impact on performance, since my http-based website redirects to the https-based website.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am really sorry for the late reply. Yes, its a mistake from our side. We are going to correct it soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The free test has parameters that does not make sense: a desktop usually has a cable, not Wifi.

</comment><comment><USER5> Works great! nothing to complain about

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback Arthur. Is there any way i can reach you to talk about the product and get some more feedback? Thanks</comment></comment>


How I Programmed Myself - <AUTHOR> https://bezan.io/testing <comment><USER2> This reminds me a lot of James Clear's "Atomic Habits" where he says that in order to make a habit stick it needs to become part of one's identity. Writing down one's beliefs for 10min in a row might certainly be one way of going about this, though I do wonder how long it will last.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting, pretty similar to this in a way.

All I know personally is that through repetition, behaviours/habits become more ingrained into your identity.

It could be something to do with neural pathways getting 'deeper' the more a certain behaviour is repeated?

Anecdotally, this method has worked well for me for a bunch of habits (like social media addiction, exercise, diet etc.) for a 2-3 months now.

Definitely recommend grabbing a pen and paper and giving it a try for 10 minutes with a habit you want to change!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Make me think about how Scott Adams talk about affirmations.

Thank you for breaking it down in simple steps.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, his book (How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big) is also great on this topic.

He talks about how he changed bad habits/implemented new ones. But also on using affirmations for bigger goals. Very interesting book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool. A somewhat related self help book about that from 1960: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho- Cybernetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psycho-Cybernetics)

"Maltz became interested in why setting goals works. He learned that the power of self-affirmation and mental visualization techniques used the connection between the mind and the body. He specified techniques to develop a positive inner goal as a means of developing a positive outer goals"

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been hearing a lot about this book lately. Added to my reading list.

These concepts definitely aren't new, probably as old as humans. But I wonder who in history harnessed these methods to 'maximise' themselves really, really well?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In addition to affirming what I want by repetition, I try to generate logical ammunition for an argument: to think in depth how and why something is bad for me.

It's very interesting how just repeating something makes it more "real".

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really starting to think that the physical body (which contains the animal mind) is really just an advanced self-learning AI that improves itself by pattern recognition. And of course our consciousness (the self aware part) is what can steer this AI more precisely.

It's almost like a stubborn mule (your physical avatar) and a rider (your self aware consciousness).

The mule just wants instant gratification, while the rider wants to get up the mountain. So you have to work with the mule, by providing instant gratification that gets you both up the mountain.

I'm not sure if you've read much about neural plasticity - where behaviours get programmed into the brain like a trail path. The more the trail gets walked on (repetition), the deeper and more permanent it becomes.

But I don't think the animal mind understands logic that well, so you can program it through repetition, hence making it more "real".

<comment><USER5> Sorry for my hazy morning scribbles. I meant real as in how this property often is employed to mold our reality or behavior. Indeed the information has more copies - or links (as a better analogy for brain structure). I should have made it more clear that I don't use repetition to "program myself" or change habits, but to affirm thought. I am familiar with the concept since it's actively in use everywhere from religious mantras to marketing.

Generally life can be seen as a copy mechanism for DNA. The logic of it is (drumroll) to make more copies. I'm not sure about artificiality, but mentioning that reminds me that we are already capable of simulating neural nets that very much correspond to some (simple) real organisms.

In any case, I agree that our brain is structured over time and old "animal" areas of the brain appear sometime to have a firm hold over the cortex . Deeply ingrained habits have indeed 'deep pathways', and of course they're not only localized single neurons that can be flip-flopped.

Neuroplasticity refers to the ability of the brain structurally change, or rather to correspond to thought. The software/hardware analogy is useful but I want to add thar the human brain is really not just a programmable computer, but much more.</comment></comment></comment>


On Hiring and FizzBuzz - <AUTHOR> http://topherlandry.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/on-hiring-and-fizzbuzz/

<comment><USER3> I honestly don't know if it's the mathematician in me, or if I'm just a cranky person, or if I actually have a valid point, but if I were given the FizzBuzz task the way it is worded here, I would reject it on the grounds that it is self-contradictory:

'for multiples of three print "Fizz" instead of the number [...]. For numbers which are multiples of both three and five print "FizzBuzz"'

So for the number 15, for example, I am being asked to print "Fizz" instead of the number, but I am also asked to print "FizzBuzz". That cannot be done. A valid way of formulating the problem would be:

Write a program that prints the numbers from 1 to 100. But for multiples of three _that are not multiples of five_ print "Fizz" instead of the number, and for multiples of five _that are not multiples of three_ print "Buzz" instead of the number. For numbers which are multiples of both three and five print "FizzBuzz" instead of the number.

An alternate way of saying it would be:

Write a program that prints the numbers from 1 to 100, except for numbers that are multiples of three or five. For multiples of three print "Fizz". For multiples of five print "Buzz".

(Edit: no, the above doesn't work, because it would allow you to print "BuzzFizz" for numbers like 15. You'd still have to add, 'For numbers which are multiples of both three and five, print "FizzBuzz".' So it's really just the clause "instead of the number" in the original formulation that causes the contradiction.)

<comment><USER4> It's still a good test. I wouldn't hire you if you insist on making a problem out of something you understand perfectly well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm in the camp who thinks that fizzbuzz is a "do you know the modulus operator?" test.

I use the modulus operator several times a week but I realize that the software world is a pretty big place and people do _not_ all know the same things that I do because they don't have any reason to.

For example: I never have cause to use a hash table. It's not something applicable to the stuff I work on. A world where hash tables aren't useful is probably unimaginable to some of you. I can assure you, I'm not an idiot - <USER2> mother had me tested ;-) I just work in a different corner of the programming space than the mainstream developer.

</comment><comment><USER6> FWIW, Trello's FizzBuzz has more meat to it than this article suggests :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> It really is an excellent FizzBuzz, and I feel like it gets to the root of what FizzBuzz should be accomplishing -- does someone understand basic programming constructs like loops, and are they able to analyze and solve the problem?

The people that I've shown it to in person tend to overthink it on first go, going so far as to talk about rainbow tables to solve the hash. In fact, if you spend the time to look at the hashing algorithm itself it's much easier (and is also a terrible "hash.")

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can even implement FizzBuzz without being aware of the modulo operator. It's not that hard to write your own test that does the same thing.

<comment><USER7> Sure you could have two counters, one initialized to 3 and one to 5, that are decremented each time thru the loop. When they reach zero print Fizz or Buzz and reinitialize.

Or you could create a finite list, initialize each member to its index, then go through by 3's and 5's and replace a number with Fizz or Buzz, or if not a number just add it.

Or you could create a program that generates print statements that print the same, then run that.

Or you could write a scraper that searches the web for 'fizzbuzz solution' and print the text on that page.

Or...

<comment><USER4> Or you take the number, divide it by 3, round down, multiply by 3, and if it's the same as the original, you print Fizz. Same effect as the modulo operator, but without the modulo operator.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Will a Hacker ever be electerd President? - <AUTHOR>

Discuss and debate. <comment><USER2> I think the word "ever" denotes too much absolution. Sure, never say never (arrgh! Beiber); Obama definitely isn't a hacker in software, but he definitely hacked the ways presidential campaign are done for a long time. Now that I think about it, most elected officials ARE Hacker in some way as they have:

1) build a product (their image) 2) build a product (themselves) 3) deal with competitors 4) innovate with new messages 5) change the ways certain things are done etc.

Also, might be elected, but probably never "electerd" :)

</comment><comment><USER3> Obama isn't a hacker, but he appointed people who made our government more transparent by using technology. Opening government data up a little for hackers to play with - data.gov, usaspending.gov

<comment><AUTHOR> Much of that is more token transparency. A better description IMO would be technology enhanced disemination facilitation seeing as much of the data was available previously only in a less readily available format or simply in a different location rather than a centralized repository. Obama isn't substantively more transparent overall

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> yes, once enough of the country buys in to electronic voting machines with wifi. i dunno, does that already exist?

<comment><AUTHOR> Would a hacker win be immediately suspect? Or would an openly hacker friendly president's win be suspect?</comment></comment>


Steve Blank: I've seen the Promised Land. And I might not get there with you. - <AUTHOR> http://steveblank.com/2010/01/21/i%e2%80%99ve-seen-the-promised-land-and-i-might-not-get-there-with-you/ <comment><USER2> Essentially an argument for professional management that is seen as critical for a high-growth startup's transition from its formative stages to what might be called a "real company."

It is easy to stumble along this path but the highest risk of doing so, in my experience, comes from a premature bringing in of serial executives (e.g., a "real CEO") who inject so much "process" that the company loses its vision and sinks of the weight of its own burn rate ("process kills" might be the epitaph for such companies). This, by the way, is why a far higher proportion of early-stage startups today will try to defer VC funding for as long as reasonably possible if their business model permits it. Call it short-sighted if you will, but I think most founders strongly prefer not to be on the receiving end of this sort of transitional conduct.

As usual from this author, many good insights about the key issues, whether or not one agrees with him on all particulars.

<comment><USER3> I read it differently.

To me Steve seems to be saying "if you want to avoid getting replaced, you need to learn to scale your skills for each stage of the company". Managing 20 is a very different problem than managing 300.

Having lived through that transition once as an early employee of a startup that made it, Steve pretty much nails the issues we faced on the head. In the case of that startup the founder didn't scale and needed to be replaced much sooner than it happened.

I would have preferred it if the founder did scale better. Managing around your founder for his own good is some of the most soul draining work ever created.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Professional management is often necessary, and I think most founders recognize this. However, bringing on a CEO is an enormously risky proposition for founders. No matter how thoroughly you vet him, this guy's going to be your boss and he could potentially run your just-starting-to-pop startup into the ground, leaving you with nothing for your efforts.

There would be a lot less anxiety and acrimony over this critical transition time if investors recognized the risks involved for the startup founders and offered them the opportunity to limit their downside by taking a modest amount of cash out. After all, getting to the point where the startup is starting to scale nicely is still a relatively rare achievement.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think he offers an excellent framework for the three kinds of leaders necessary for a startup to scale from idea to major company. Some entrepreneurs have the ability to lead at more than one stage of the company, some try and fail, and the rest are not given the chance.

This reminds me of a story a successful serial entrepreneur told me a few years ago (I blogged about it at [http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2006/12/21/two- images-of-startu...](http://www.skmurphy.com/blog/2006/12/21/two-images-of- startups/) ) An avid cyclist, he thought of the entrepreneurial journey with a VC as having two distinct phases: in the pack and near the finish line.

       Working with VC's is like a bicycle race. At first you are all in
       the pack and everyone works together, alternating position to
       draft and move faster together than the solo leaders.

       But as the finish line appears the pack breaks up as each cyclist
       tries to cross it first. Even if the VC's have been good partners
       for most of the journey, they can't resist the temptation
       to break away and gain the advantage at the finish line.

</comment><comment><USER6> Not that there aren't times when a founder needs to get ejected, but I think it happens about 10x as many times as it is good for the company.

The boards at these companies are too often like the group of senators that killed Julius Caesar. Nominally trying to save the state/company, but really just interested in their own power, and almost always the true bringers of chaos and destruction.

</comment><comment><USER7> I agree with the gist of this, although grellas makes a great point about shooting yourself in the foot by looking for "big" CEO qualities too soon.

But I can't help but note the irony here, which is thick. You manage to beat out 100 of your peers and actually start a company. Then you manage to beat out the 20 other guys who started a company and make something that will grow. You fight tooth and nail 24/7 against all odds to make this happen.

So what do you get? Sacked by the very people that invested in you! The guys who are basically just getting lucky by hitting _their_ 1-in-20 shot are now the experts on what it takes to scale and bub, you're not in the mix.

I'm not saying it's not the right choice sometimes, I'm saying that life really sucks bigtime if you go through all of that and then get the axe right as it's all going to happen.

The more I learn about startups the more I've come to realize that it's a fool's game. If you win you lose, if you get funding it's probably for the wrong reasons, and if you manage to listen to your inner voice and deliver a vision you're more likely to be called a fool than a genius.

Damn I love startups.

<comment><USER8> I like Mark Pincus's take on corporate control - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lUNFHD- iM&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lUNFHD- iM&feature=related)

<http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2310>

In this clip - <http://ecorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=2310> \- he says startups should be building a platform to test out many ideas in their chosen domain instead of just one. I think this is a good parallel to the VC's 1-in-20 shot. We need to learn to hedge our bets too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I first came across an argument very similar to this in "Pro Excel Financial Modeling: Building Models for Technology Startups"[1]. There the author makes an argument for why you should address the qualities needed in leaders of different size organizations in your models.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Excel-Financial-Modeling- Technolog...](http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Excel-Financial-Modeling- Technology/dp/1430218983)

</comment><comment><USER10> Yeah completely agree. As a startup founder, I know what I am good at. I also know that it isn't yet the time to bring the 'mainstream management' on board. I have to eliminate the risk and create a business based on some defensive position and repeatable customer sales proposition.

In short take us somewhere unambiguous to then hand the reins over.

</comment><comment><USER11> leadership and management are orthogonal.

</comment><comment><USER12> What happened to Martin Eberhard at Tesla could be a case study for this post.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm sorry, but comparing an entrepreneur who has to leave a company before he gets rich to a civil rights leader who gets murdered before his children are recognized as fully human and equal members of society by his government is pretty damn tone death. There is no comparison. That epigraph shouldn't be there, and that post shouldn't have that title.

<comment><USER14> He did attribute it to MLK, but ultimately it's a biblical reference (Moses & crossing the Jordan River). Those are usually OK in a variety of contexts.

<comment><USER15> It may originally come from the Bible, but that line is indelibly linked with MLK. I agree with rauljara - that headline is tone-deaf and tacky, though the article itself is well-written and informative.

<comment><USER14> I don't actually disagree, but mostly in the sense that it distracts from the point he's actually making.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


CEO of Svpply: I have no idea what I'm doing - <AUTHOR> http://pieratt.tumblr.com/post/5450242474/my-job-pt-1-i-have-no-idea-what-im-doing <comment><USER2> I am very grateful for this post. One of the most common pieces of valuable feedback I got before starting my company (as a sole founder) is that I need to keep going no matter what - especially in times of self-doubt.

I always considered myself to be confident, and self-assured (not obnoxious, just confident)...but starting a company is a completely different cup of tea. I have both a Computer Science degree + an MBA. I learned Rails on my own and I thought that would be the hard part. Just to learn that transitioning from hardcore product development to sales & marketing is even trickier than I thought.

When you think about all the promises you have made to people, and things you have sold in various ways, it's perfectly natural to get self- doubt....especially given that things will NOT happen exactly the way you planned. This. Happens. A. LOT.

Self-doubt is one of the most unspoken about aspects of starting a company and I am glad that Ben has so courageously spoken about it so publicly.

If you have never done a startup before, nothing can prepare you for the experience fully. I read every PG essay, most of Founders at Work, almost every other bio/story of most if not all of the tech founders from Fairchild Semiconductors to Facebook, watched dozens - if not a hundred+ - of Mizergy interviews, understand finance & economics (I can explain the differences between a Collaterized Debt Obligation & a Credit Default Swap), also know most of the fine points of the standard term sheet (including to focus less on valuation on more on things like liquidation preferences, etc.), know enough legalese to understand most contracts, I built teams from scratch, recruited people to work with me on a project bigger than myself but under-resourced, hell even worked at another startup before...but having done all of that...I still wake up every morning and there are MANY things that I am tackling for the first time - and it makes me doubt myself.

Most people won't talk about it, but I think we need to start being real with ourselves - for the health of the startup community. Especially for those of us that don't have investors or many mentors, or don't live in the Valley, or are not YC-alums.

So Thank You Ben. For being so honest. For being so real.

<comment><USER3> Completely agreed. I'm a sole founder as well and my friends keep telling me "wow, you really know your stuff" but in reality I have no idea what I'm doing.

I spend all my time in a state of confusion.

But after a while you get used to it, actually. And you just keep going and learn as you go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's a shame so many of the comments here are criticizing this guy for not lying more.

<comment><USER5> Witholding the truth isn't lying.

<comment><USER6> This is an attitude I've never agreed with. Say you're an investor. Would you rather this CEO put on an I-know-what-I'm-doing face, and imply that he's got this all under control? Or would you rather he be upfront about his lack of experience but determination to get it right by learning and surrounding himself with smart people that can help him? Maybe he fails, maybe he doesn't. At least you know what you're getting into.

Dishonesty is dishonesty no matter how you cut it.

<comment><USER7> > _Would you rather this CEO put on an I-know-what-I'm-doing face, and imply > that he's got this all under control?_

Up front in my office or up front in a public blog? I certainly wouldn't want him scaring off potential deals with over-the-top candor.

> _Dishonesty is dishonesty no matter how you cut it._

This is a ridiculous assertion. If you walk around saying every true thing that comes into your mind at best you'll be treated like you have Tourette's, and at worst you'll be a complete pariah. Honesty and integrity tend to fall in the "know it when you see it" camp for most people, but the criteria are far from black and white.

<comment><USER8> You lie for PR. This blog post seems to be great PR, going for an honest approach to the realities and approaches of heading up a company. What potential deals is he scaring off? Instead a group of intelligent individuals are now exposed to not only him, his integrity, and his product. I had never heard of svpply before today.

I call that a PR win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm pulling for Ben, if only because svpply tries to solve a problem (universal Internet wish list) while generating a _metric f---load_ of data. If they do it right, they could develop an amazing recommendation algorithm.

</comment><comment><USER10> I liked reading it, and I can't help but root for the guy.

That said, startups don't need _people who like them_ so much as they need _people who trust them_. As an investor, customer, or employee, I do need to know that the founder can tell what problems are on the horizon, and is brutally honest about which ones will be challenging. But I also need to know that he'll take care of them, or if not, that he'll hire someone who will (or, if an employee, he'll tell _me_ to do it).

But founders aren't superhuman, and the money involved in successful acquisitions is so high that there are a lot of "companies" working on marginal ideas---ideas that _might_ be big, or they might not, often depending on factors beyond founder knowledge. And at this point I think VC's have to own the responsibility for investing in a high-risk industry.

</comment><comment><USER11> Have you heard of svpply before? (I have not). Now you have. This is what this post was written for.

</comment><comment><USER12> Developer here - If I were about to interview for a dev job at svpply I would surely find this blog post and promptly cancel my interview. No way am I going to go to work for a guy who has no experience doing what he is tasked to do. This is kinda scary.

<comment><USER13> Every CEO has no idea what they're doing the first time they're a CEO. Most don't know it. Many won't know it even after the been a CEO for years.

If I was applying for a job at svpply, I'd be happy that CEO knows what he doesn't know: it's much better then someone thinking they know everything and not having a clue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have no idea why someone would post something like this, and I can only attribute it to complete lack of responsibility and quite frankly: lack of common sense. Do you want your company to fail? Do you want it to perform 2% less than before? Because that's what you are doing right now.

<comment><USER15> F--- that. He approaches his position with humility, an understanding of what he doesn't know, and a desire to learn it. Instead of reveling in whatever success his startup has had, he's candidly looking forward to learn what he needs to grow his business.

<comment><USER14> Which he should do in private.

<comment><USER16> I simply disagree. I believe that good companies will head in this direction of transparency. We all know that all humans have faults, and acknowledging them upfront goes a long way with some like myself.

TBH, you sound like my 75 yr old father that ran a $2B business for the last 23 years, and I guess I hope that attitude goes away with our elders.

<comment><USER17> Puzzling, you make it sound like running a $2B business for 23 years is a _bad_ thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> it isn't smart for a ceo to be publicly open about these weaknesses, but it is brutally honest, and i respect that. you may gain more than you lose from this post, but in general i have found that confidence in your ability to get it done and figure it our means everything, and that telling people you don't know what you are doing creates FUD in an organization.

<comment><USER19> He appears to be supremely confident in his ability to get it done. He's just admitting he doesn't have a lot of experience, and doesn't know exactly how it's going to play out.

If you're bald you don't get dates by pretending you're not bald... you get dates by not _caring_ that you're bald.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> _This_ is running a startup.

</comment><comment><USER21> "He just summed up the last 3 yrs of my life" said a friend and fellow entrepreneur. So true, so true.

Every CEO was new to the job at some point. So was every founder. What he's saying is no mystery to any of us entrepreneurs. He just happened to have his entry picked up on HN ;-)

(Not to diminish what he wrote, of course - cheers to his honesty!)

</comment><comment><USER22> I've met Ben a few times in New York City. He's a very level-headed, honest guy. This blog post speaks wonders about his character. We need more people like Ben in our industry and fewer people that write blog posts trying to blow smoke up their own ass.

</comment><comment><USER23> It'll be interesting to see if the next round of investors bring up this blog post.

Its not really a surprise that when doing something you've never done before, your a little lost. Thats normal.

But the buying public dont want to hear that. It bursts their bubble about CEOs.

<comment><USER24> To be fair, the buying public isn't reading that post. Also, CEOs as a group already get a pretty bad rap for wage disparity and dishonesty.

I think thenpost was courageous ansnsmart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Keep calm, carry on.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1571427>

<comment><USER26> Leadership is about managing other people's panic attacks, as well as yours.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> This epitomizes the problem with fresh-out-of-school "founders" who view their startup as some sort of a post-grad experience. The guy mentally still is in a high school, but is supposed to be a responsible adult running a company. Every businessman has challenges running their business, but not every challenge is something that has to be known publicly. Business is supposed to be ran from the quiet office, not from the confessional booth.

If I would be an investor in this guy's company, I'd be really pissed off.

<comment><USER28> No one so self-aware that they can openly discuss their shortcomings and their fears is "mentally still in high school".

Discussing them openly does have consequences, though. Especially for those following you who may not see it in the same light. As shown in the comments of this thread many are vicious against it and see it as weakness. In my experience, though, those who do share the same frame of mind as the OP (Many of whom are very successful leaders) see it as a strength.

So I partially agree in that perhaps it's wise to keep it to close confidants I disagree that this is something that needs to be rallied _against_.

It's lonely at the top in a startup. Figuring out where to go can destroy you if you let it. It's like guiding a ship through a thick fog (The doubt) and the only thing getting you through it is the lighthouse (Your determination to never give up and belief in the idea) and the skills you've developed to steer the ship away from the rocks to get to the lighthouse. I'd doubt anyone's ability to get through that if they _weren't_ unsure and constantly questioning themselves. Over-confidence is the killer of great performance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Another developer here - I found the post honest and refreshing. Will soon apply for a job at Svpply.

</comment><comment><USER30> And ironically, they're currently down because they forgot to renew their domain.

<comment><USER31> Works for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Best of luck Ben, I know you'll make it. You're awesome bud.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'd love to hear PG's take on this.

</comment><comment><USER34> At least the site itself confirms the CEOs statements - [http://svpply.com/search/products/a%20ceo%20who%20knows%20wh...](http://svpply.com/search/products/a%20ceo%20who%20knows%20what%20they%20are%20doing) :)

Seriously though, refreshing to hear someone be so honest about what we all go through. Who didn't have panic attacks when they first started out?

</comment><comment><USER35> Bait and switch article of the year. If I was linked to svpply, I would give him a phone call and a stern conversation would commence.

<comment><USER36> If you were linked to them in any significant way, wouldn't you already know this? I'm sure his co-founders know he's inexperienced, investors certainly should, so it's probably not a surprise to any of them.

I do appreciate the humility and openness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Bubble Alert!

Nothing says _bubble_ more than this:

A guy with no experience, no vision (at least none he's shared -- perhaps the entire article is some kind of viral PR experiment), gets funded!

<comment><USER38> Nah. 500k investment for a product as great as Svpply is fine. And Ben has loads of vision, he created the site!</comment></comment>


CapitaineTrain Cookies Explanation (French) - <AUTHOR> https://www.capitainetrain.com/fr/cookies

<comment><AUTHOR> You even got a cookie recipe at the end!

Don't read French? you should learn! It explains which cookies are set / used on their website with a comparison with a lobby boy</comment>


23andMe Provides An Update Regarding FDA's Review - <AUTHOR> http://admin.blog.23andme.com/news/23andme-provides-an-update-regarding-fdas-review/

<comment><USER2> _As we work with the FDA to get clearance, there will be some significant changes to the site. Customers who purchased kits on or after the FDA's warning letter of November 22nd will not have access to health-related results. Those customers will have access to ancestry-related genetic information and their raw data without 23andMe's interpretation of that data. They may receive health-related results in the future, depending on FDA marketing authorization._

This paragraph is by far the most disappointing with regards to the short- medium term future of 23andMe.

</comment><comment><USER3> "23andMe will comply with the FDA's directive and stop offering new consumers access to health-related genetic tests while the company moves forward with the agency's regulatory review 23andMe_Logo_blogprocesses."

And that means 23andMe can't follow its business model of crowd-sourcing lots of personal genomic and medical history data to number-crunch its way into having actual information to offer consumers years after they have paid to send their DNA to 23andMe.[1] That plan looked clever to some investors just a while ago, but now investors are finding out that 23andMe is clueless at the top, and trying to make its way in a heavily regulated industry for which the regulator is not about to cave in to cute marketing campaigns.

After it announces its service changes, the company lets us know, "This is clearly a much different service than in the past, so we are offering customers who purchased kits on or after November 22, 2013 a full refund if they wish. Those customers will get an email from 23andMe with details on the refund policy. Eligible customers who do not receive an email are encouraged to check their spam email folders for the email with their personalized instructions or contact our Customer Care Team."

A funny detail is that the blog post on the company blog itself has an ad linking to signing up to send in DNA for $99 from the DNA donor, but following the link leads to an announcement that the company is out of that business for a while.

[1] [http://www.fastcompany.com/3018598/for-99-this-ceo-can- tell-...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3018598/for-99-this-ceo-can-tell-you- what-might-kill-you-inside-23andme-founder-anne-wojcickis-dna-r)

<comment><USER4> Maybe you haven't seen what "clueless at the top" looks like.

It doesn't look like a successful company that's torn down by heavy handed regulators.

<comment><USER3> What's successful about 23andMe so far? (I'm asking genuinely, as the company is new, and I wonder what the benchmark for success that you have in mind is.)

<comment><USER4> That's a fair question.

They created a product/service that people willingly pay for and they do it on a large scale.

A clueless company looks like the guy that sent me a kickstarter link last week with copy that says, "The Next Big Thing" and it was a photo sharing application.

The leadership from Exhibit A tend to build companies like Google, McDonald's and Walgreens. You would have to be daft to consider them clueless.

The leadership from Exhibit B don't build anything of significance but do occasionally luck out, reinforcing a massive selection bias that fuels the next 100 startups that are just like it.

I just think that rhetoric is important on a site like HN. Calling someone clueless that did what we all want to do with our own endeavors seems pretty harsh. I know I personally feel for the management team tonight. It has to be hard to spend so many years building something great only to be smashed down by regulators.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel really sorry for them too, but from the FDA's letter I got the impression that 23andMe just stopped working with the regulator altogether, even though they were given the opportunity to do so. If that is the case, that's really what I don't understand.

Bummer, I was almost ready to order one of the kits. Would have been fascinating.

</comment><comment><USER6> I downloaded my raw data and took screenshots of my results just in case they get shut down. :(

</comment><comment><USER4> I think this means I can scalp my pre-Nov 22nd, unused kit.

All kidding aside, this is pretty disappointing. I bought one for myself a year ago and it was a life altering experience. I know that 23andMe have come under scrutiny with regards to not only the accuracy of their findings but the manner in how they communicate it but I have not had problems with either.

I hope the FDA allows this company to continue what they are doing. It's rare that such an opportunity exists for the layman to understand their genetics.

EDIT: I've verified the more dramatic findings outside of 23andMe. I never saw 23andMe as an authoritative source, but it is a great guide.

<comment><USER7> It's only life-altering (in a good way) if the analysis 23andMe sent you was accurate, and many professionals in the field of the genetics say that it often is not. You say you haven't had problems with the accuracy of their findings, but unless you've had the test repeated by a research university, I'm not sure how you'd know.

Don't get me wrong - I want all this data for myself - but I don't want to be misled or falsely worried.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well, that's ridiculous. I just bought a kit two days ago. I wonder if I should send the kit back _then_ ask for the refund, or just send the kit back unused.</comment>


EU eCall: mandatory microphones in cars - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECall <comment><AUTHOR> It is currently unclear how much control car owners will have over the activation of these microphones, or if indication is given that they are active.

Given that eCall has been mandatory for over a year, I'm surprised at how little coverage it got, and how little information there is on it.

<comment><USER2> "Interpol, which co-ordinates police intelligence across 190 countries confirmed that some of its members are using the eCall system for surveillance operations.."</comment></comment>


Migrating cdnjs to serverless with Workers KV - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cloudflare.com/migrating-cdnjs-to-serverless-with-workers-kv/ <comment><USER2> The benefit of this sort of public CDN is getting lower and lower because of cache-partitioning within browsers to prevent fingerprinting, smarter bundling if you are using a good bundler and packing critical resources into an initial bundle.

IMO these sort of CDN's should not be used. If you are a small player but with a global audience you should not include heavy JS/CSS libs (really, nobody should). If you are a reigonal medium-sized player then your users are probably closeby your server or you are already using a CDN for your main content. If you are a large player then you should already have a content delivery strategy or you have larger problems than loading the libs cdnjs have.

If you do SRI and proper bundle optimization of your own app and your users browsers do cache-partitioning you loose almost every benefit and only get the downsides of being reliant on another point of failure.

This is besides the fact that centralizing more of the internet to cloudflare, google, amazon, microsoft and so on is just plain "A Bad Idea".

<comment><USER3> _If you are a small player but with a global audience you should not include heavy JS /CSS libs (really, nobody should)._

That seems like a foolish thing to say, why should a small player with a global audience arbitrarily restrict themselves to not using "heavy" JavaScript or CSS?

<comment><USER2> Because if you are a small player you have a smaller team and can more easily take those decisions.

This is partially based on personal experiences, when I have worked in small organizations I can get a change through by just proving it works but if it's within a large organization then there are a lot more people to convince and the processes take a lot more time.</comment></comment></comment>


New Law Would End 500 Shareholder Rule, Let Facebook Stay Private - <AUTHOR> http://www.betabeat.com/2011/06/14/new-law-sec-facebook-remain-private-500-shareholder-rule-2011-06-14/

<comment><USER2> > _"it would be a fantastic outcome if the SEC decides to allow the general > public to be a more active participant in the value creation that happens > while companies are still privately held."_

That sounds like a complete disaster. The general public isn't nearly sophisticated enough to make wise investments without audited public statements [1]. That's exactly _why_ we have such regulations in the first place.

[1] And even _then_ their capability is in question.

<comment><USER3> Well, as long as the risks and dangers are known beforehand, I don't see a problem. I hate it when some "authority" tries to prevent me from doing something "for my own safety" - NO, instead, tell me what the risks are, and how can I prepare myself to deal with them, and then let me use my own intelligent mind to make the final decision.

That's like saying, water is dangerous, lets require a swimming licence from anyone who wants to swim.

Besides, your [1] in a way negates your claim - if the availability of public audited financial statements makes no change in the investment capacities of the general average public, then it surely makes no sense to base the permission to invest on that variable.

<comment><USER2> > _"That's like saying, water is dangerous, lets require a swimming licence > from anyone who wants to swim."_

The problem with your analogy is that a potential swimmer's total knowledge of the water, the difficulty of swimming and so forth isn't held by someone who materially benefits from their ignorance and could materially benefit from exploiting that ignorance.

Caveat Emptor is a fine base-line. But practical experience has shown us that in certain sectors it's not sufficient. Snake oil salesmen can _ruin_ a market by destroying the public's trust.

So it is with investments. SEC rules are generally [1] built on the practical experience of how the market operated without them.

We threw Glass-Steagal away -- an expensively won bit of knowledge about the shortcomings of the 'invisible hand' when it came to people gambling with others' money -- on the assumption that intelligent self-interested experts wouldn't do exactly what they -- almost to a person -- then did. I can't fathom being so eager to repeat that mistake while we're still knee-deep in its debris.

[1] I won't dare use a universal; but I've yet to see a rule that wasn't created as a _reaction_ to a problem in the market. That said, I'm far from an expert on the matter.

<comment><USER3> I think I see your point, and mostly agree with it. And I think you don't quite see my. (Of course, I might be mistaken, and it might actually be the other way around.)

Consider this example: We have a nice beach. Part of this beach has huge waves, rocky, dangerous shore, and sharks. You, as the authority, have 2 options: 1) forbid swimming for everyone, and 2) warn about the dangers and let individuals decide.

I can see how different people might choose different solutions, but I, don't like others telling me what to do, for my safety.

Of course, if you just leave it like that, the public is going to loose confidence in that beach. But, if you put up warning signs, like "WARNING, very dangerous. Huge waves and sharks! 17 people have already died here this month alone!!!", which are probably going to deter anyone who isn't absolutely sure in what they are doing (or very drunk or very stupid), I don't see how the public might loose its trust. Especially if there is a very nice beach, perfectly safe, with a beach guard, quite near-by.

<comment><USER4> The problem with this analogy is that it is generally pretty easy to look at the beach and gather the information that there are huge waves and a rocky, dangerous shore (and sometimes even the sharks) and then you are informed. If the only people who can inform you are the ones that are trying to draw money from you, though, it falls under something more similar to consumer protection than it does under closing beaches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is stopping companies from maintaining fixed numbers of shareholders, perhaps with interceding intermediary entities. Example: Company A owns 1% of Facebook and the only purpose of Company A is to be a vehicle for Facebook ownership. Thus, another 500 entities can own Company A stock, in turn owning Facebook stock privately.

<comment><USER3> That's basically what GS tried to do earlier this year. I don't have the source (it was in an article on HN), and IANAL, but apparently the SEC rules would apply even in such cases, since the intended purpose and effect is the same.

<comment><USER6> I may be remembering the wrong context, but I recall the question of when somebody/company can be (legally) determined to be acting as an "agent" of another. If you are an agent, the rules continue to apply to the party to whom you are an agent.

One reason shell companies are instantiated abroad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder how much it cost them to buy this bill.

<comment><USER3> It's not such a bad bill, really. I personally would hate it if I created a company, got some investors, and then those investors would sell their stock, making the number of shareholders go above 500, and suddenly forcing me to incur all the cost (money and time) of releasing audited financial statements.

<comment><USER8> Well, as long as the company is private, you can stop that from happening. I have shares in a few private companies, some of which I've invested in, and some of which I earned through work.

Every single one of these had a "right of first refusal" clause in the investment / option / stock grant agreement; If I have a buyer, I must give existing shareholders the option to do the deal at the same conditions -- and they can either take it whole or leave it.

Doesn't make much of a difference for me (once a buyer is available, I'll get the same conditions), but it does let the company -- if it so wishes -- keep the investor pool small, if they pay to play.

Also, having been an entrepreneur and having raised money myself -- 500 shareholders is something you don't accidentally get to before your private company is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. And at that point, you won't care about the cost of releasing audited financial statements - the reason everyone avoids that at that point is that you can't keep your cards secret anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Glad to see Congress tackling the tough issues the US is facing.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd gripe about the lameness of the SEC, except that I can mention that back in... 2005, 2007, or so, the SEC was taking in approximately $600 million a year in fees, of which Congress gave them back approximately $100 million for operating budget.

Congress was milking the SEC as a profit center.

The SEC couldn't staff up to take on more workload, because Congress held the purse strings and (mis)appropriated the fees meant to pay for same.

Another example of our "pay to play" business culture.

<comment><USER8> > The SEC couldn't staff up to take on more workload, because Congress held > the purse strings and (mis)appropriated the fees meant to pay for same.

You imply the SEC actually wants to do their job, which is not true, as has been demonstrated by e.g. Markopolos in the case of the Madoff, and many others. The SEC has been captive (in the sense of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture> ) for decades.

<comment><USER6> I see what you mean about the implication.

It may vary somewhat between the career and the political members. I actually know a fairly senior SEC staff member (although I have my figures separately from news reporting, as best I remember them), and on that basis I understand that there are levels of management that would like nothing more than to be given the resources to be more effective.

As for some (all?) of the people running the show, in my personal opinion (not speaking for this other person), I agree with you.

They don't express it openly, but in my observation I've watched some of this person's hope, or at least enthusiasm when the topic is brought up, dim as the 1000 headcount bump that was promised a few years ago has continued to be delayed, and delayed... and delayed.

(The bump was orginally intended to boost the roles most needed to increase effective regulation. As described, it actually sounded rather positive. I don't know how that may have morphed, in the meantime -- aside from never (yet) coming through.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> How does facebook not have way over 500 shareholders already? They have thousands of employees who I assume all have stock... or do options not count? Not sure how they get around this even with their exemption...

<comment><USER11> "Staying at 499 shareholders or fewer is something Facebook has worried about since at least 2007, and sidestepped by creating a special kind of restricted stock unit for new employees and making small talent acquisitions that avoided, when possible, awarding start-ups and their investors with Facebook stock." [http://allthingsd.com/20110107/with-500-shareholder- concerns...](http://allthingsd.com/20110107/with-500-shareholder-concerns- gone-will-facebook-make-big-acquisitions/)

<comment><USER10> Thanks.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I Am Near Geofencing Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.iamnear.com/

<comment><USER2> Just refused geolocation and got stuck in a "user denied geolocation" loop had to kill safari to get off site</comment>


Xbox platform the new Windows?  - <AUTHOR> http://rjsteinert.com/content/good-bye-windows-hello-consumer-computing-xbox-and-linux-commercial-pcs

<comment><USER2> So I guess this means we can expect a MSFT Office for XBox? 95% of users really only need email, word processing, internet browsing, media playback (music, movies, etc). XBox does or could do all of these sufficiently for most people.</comment>


Active-Shooter Drills Are Tragically Misguided - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/active-shooter-drills-erika-christakis/580426/ <comment><USER2> It was pretty clear that teaching kids to hide under their desk in case of an atomic attack was utterly meaningless. We still did it, and now have the occasional laugh about it.

It makes the parents and school administrators feel better. "Something must be done" in action.

<comment><USER3> I encourage you to read up on the "duck and cover" before dismissing it. Many people feel as you do, but it is a deeply ignorant stance.

<comment><USER4> I think calling it deeply ignorant might be a bit harsh. It's a pretty common misconception, and it does intuitively seem like duck and cover would not protect against the most powerful weapon in human history.

<comment><USER3> You're right. That was an uncalled for. I'll leave the comment there for continuity, but apologies to the parent poster.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How Many Mulligans Does Color Get? - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/29/how-many-mulligans-does-color-get/

<comment><USER2> Ok- so I was one of the thousands near the Palace on Friday, and used it as an opportunity to properly test color in a public situation. It failed.

If you've ever tried to send a text message from a concert or football match, you'd understand the first issue: needing to be online to use the app gives it woeful performance when 500,000+ people are trying to simultaneously access cell networks in a confined space. The Facebook App ground to a halt and messages took hours to get through: real time photo sharing app? No chance.

As a consequence of this, we (I got my beautiful wife to use it as well, so we had a base group) kept getting dropped from the group. By the end of the day, there were five members of the group- but most of our photos were added to our solo group instead! So we saw few photos from others, even ourselves.

Not being easily connected also sucked battery life as the app seemed to be constantly trying to geo locate. We killed it half way through the day, when we had to turn our phones off to preserve battery.

I can see potential here- that's the mulligan on offer. At my next conference- smaller crowd and something stronger in common than our head of state- this could be useful. But sharing my photos through a confusing interface that doesn't work in big crowds and is supposed to only add value in big crowds? Not again.

As for the 500 photos- we ended up with 32 in our group and another dozen that ended up in our solo accounts. Did the app recognise and add them?

Sent from phone so apologies for typos, if any.

<comment><USER3> Have you tried searching for yourself in the BBC high hi-def crowd picture taken from the Palace?

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13200114>

<comment><USER2> Seems to need flash so will check from laptop next week- thanks for the link. I'm blurred in the background of one low-res BBC shot and also made the ITV news background, which made for a laugh at our after party.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pfft. Who has talked about Color since their launch? Absolutely nobody except HN and TechCrunch.

I'm going to tell you why no one in the UK used Color: 1) no one cares for another photo sharing app -- they have Facebook, and, 2) it's misspelled. :)

<comment><USER5> I know your quip about the misspelling is a joke, but I think their branding will be problematic throughout the Commonwealth (perhaps less so in western Canada), and French speaking nations -- it just doesn't look right.

Not quite in the same vein, but instructive nonetheless, many years ago our US born chairman insisted on branding a product with the prefix 'kwik', a relatively common misspelling in the US, instead of 'quick'. The product bombed, and market research suggested the brand simply looked wrong to the target market. We rebranded, and as far as I know -- I've long since moved on -- the product is still around and does reasonably well.

<comment><USER6> Interesting. As an American, the British spelling "Colour" always seemed classier to me than "Color".

So it's interesting to find an example of the "opposite": As a non-American, "Color" is strange to you in the same way "Kuller" would be strange to you.

<comment><USER7> If you really think about this, you may recognize the genius of Jim Meddick (of Robotman and Monty fame), in naming a compilation "Primary Crullers".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I agree with other commentators that given their initial raise, the company has a number of 'chances' to find the right mix which connects with their user base.

That being said, back when everyone was reading "Snow Crash" and trying to be the guy/gal who created the metaverse, there was some good research into just what sort of 'group event' you could reasonably hold in a network space. (sadly they don't pop up easily on citeseer but they were in the late 90's early 00's about network group meeting events and the people congregating via digital networks).

The bottom line of the research was that it was _really_ hard to build a workable mesh network protocol (basically which provided any to any connectivity / traffic amongst a modest sized group) in the presence of any traffic loss whatsoever.

One of the outcomes of that research was what most people think of as CDNs which push audio/video content amongst a number of servers and try to distribute the load of "Large" events. A more or less practical example was the 40 user 'raid' that the MMORPG World of Warcraft started with, provided co-ordinated events amongst 40 individual users located across the globe. It had a hard time pulling it off but was successful. 100 or 200 users in the same 'area' often killed the servers.

Color is shooting for 10's of thousands of people in the same space. This is P2P "gone wild" and not a solved problem by any means.

So kudos for failing fast, now to see what happens next.

</comment><comment><USER9> As someone who's never been able to get the attention of TC, this quote bothers me:

 _"The team here at TechCrunch will give Color all the mulligans it wants to get things right. They can swing and miss all day and we'll still be here in the stands, rooting them on."_

<comment><USER10> It seems to me this is a clear ploy: we'll speak nice of you if you start giving us access. Has the staff of color shut out TC in favor of major media outlets? Does that challenge the industry assumption that you have to be in TC to get traction?

Certainly we all know of companies that Michael has invested in or the staff otherwise favors that get no mention of blunders or a lack of traction significantly beyond what color faces.

Or maybe they should have let Arrington throw some money in to keep him from trashing them.

Techcrunch Editor Discloses Investments, Admits To Conflicts Of Interests: [http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2011/04/like...](http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2011/04/like_it_or_lump.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does Colour need a certain critical mass to even start to be useful? I tried it in Sydney, at some very busy places around the CBD and I only ever saw one other photo from someone else.

Of course, I could have been using the tool wrong because I really had no idea which symbol did what, but seeing that one other pic suggested to me it was working and getting nearby photos.

<comment><USER12> I guess a different question is, can you define "useful"?

Outside of maybe seeing immediate photos from people closer to the front row at a concert, I can't think of a use for color. But I could just be unimaginative about this kind of thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> TBH, I would be surprised if Color didn't "succeed" in some way. They have enough money to try at least 5-10 different ideas & approaches and that is an incredible luxury. And I don't mean slight pivots, I mean complete departures from what they are doing now.

Will they be successful? It seems obvious that they are fumbling around and actively searching for a model. I'm going to wager that if they do "succeed" some day it is because the VCs worked hard to find them an exit into some big company.

<comment><USER14> With that much money, they will likely have a huge burn rate and flame out much more quickly that expected. I've seen first hand multiple times what too much money can do to a startup. It's not pretty!

Personally, I'm expecting Color to have a similar fate to Cuil. I hope I'm wrong, though, just because being a winning cynic isn't fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> From where I am sitting color seems like the idea of a computing scientist that has gone out of hand. The premise would work brilliantly if EVERYBODY was using color, but unfortunately they arent. Right now they seem to be facing the problem faced by any social network start up. If you dont know anyone in the network, where is the incentive to join?

</comment><comment><USER16> It took me a while to realise the title of this article was about Color-the- app. Seriously, the name itself raises an eyebrow.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think the idea that a failed launch can kill you is (generally) bullshit. Unless the company is _weak_ it isn't the end of the world.

If they make their product great and it resonates with users it will be successful eventually, if they stick with it.

There are a billion people in their target market. Even if they spoiled their rep (for now) with 10 million (unlikely) that leaves quite a few other potential users.

Being cuil in Silicon Valley is not a prerequisite to success.

<comment><USER18> Yes, but it's harder to find that second 10 million users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If so many people who are willing to use the app are inherently confused by the use case, isn't THAT the failure point?

I don't remember being confused why Friendster was useful when it ushered in social networking. It worked because the use case was obvious.

</comment><comment><USER20> It was hilarious watching Bill Nguyen on This Week in Startups tripping over himself apologizing about how badly his app sucked. I think the lesson here is that you shouldn't put your app into the wild unless you're certain(and have beta testers confirm) that it's ready for prime time.

</comment><comment><USER21> _I say to Color, "SWING for the fences!"_

No rookie player (i.e. startup in this analogy) begins by swinging for the fences. Color are finding out that just putting the bat on the ball is a lot harder than it looks.

</comment><comment><USER22> I guess Michael Arrington _isn't_ an investor in Color.

<comment><USER23> Not to mention he basically seems to be writing blog posts during NBA playoff intermissions. Sports metaphors abound (and confound).

<comment><USER24> More likely UFC 129 <http://www.ufc.com/event/UFC129> ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "How Many Mulligans"? What?!

This is HN. This is where we have thoughtful discussions on how to improve ideas, projects, and companies. This isn't where we sit in our armchairs and decide as users which companies are going to fail and why we've given up.

What the hell, people.</comment>


Why Computer Science Undergrads Should Work for Start-Ups - <AUTHOR> http://www.stanford.edu/~pgbovine/startup.htm

<comment><USER2> Working _for_ a startup is a sucker's game. Even assuming it succeeds, with the amount of equity a typical employee holds and the size of an average buyout, the best-case scenario is that you'll emerge with a pittance after years of very long workdays. More likely you'll end up with nothing, and little professional respect for having spent years at a company few people have ever heard of. The odds are really only in your favor if you're a founder, not an employee.

<comment><USER3> The experience you gain at a startup can be pretty worthwhile, payout or no.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's misleading. There are web-startups that aren't tech centered and there are medium and big companies that solve hard technical problems that startups don't (or can't) encounter. Obviously there are also tech-centered start-ups and "business" centered big-cos.

A better dichotomy isn't start-up/big-co: it is is whether you're looking to do fairly simple, business-oriented programming or CS-focused programming. Or whether you'd prefer to work in an environment that's demanding in terms of output but flexible in terms of work-style _or_ one that's strict 9-5 (no overtime, but no flexibility either).

The stereotype is that big-companies are "9-5, business centered" and start- ups are "demanding but flexible, tech centered". Yet there are other combinations available ("9-5, tech centered" -- think Intel -- "flexible, business centered" etc...) -- in both start-ups and big companies.

Better advice is to work on something you're passionate about in an environment that gives you the chance to gain skills/experience you won't otherwise: once you find such a place, it shouldn't matter whether it's a start-up or not. You'll always have time to make gobs of money later (whether from options at a start-up or bonuses/salary/stock at a big-co).

Essentially: don't work at a start-up for the sake of working at a start-up. Starting your own is a different option -- and isn't the same as joining an existing one; joining a start-up will give you exposure to the "whole picture", but it may also not give you a chance to learn technologies you could put to use at your own start-up.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is basically an anthology of three Paul Graham essays. If you're here, you've probably read the essays, and if you've read the essays ...</comment>