How to find startup ideas that make money - <AUTHOR> http://www.paraschopra.com/blog/entrepreneurship/how-to-find-startup-ideas-that-make-money.htm?src=hn <comment><USER2> Just a note on (b): ease-of-use can also disrupt an industry, by making it accessible to people with less skill/time. It's not that it becomes less tedious use for existing users, but a step-function, that it becomes _possible_ to use for non-users.

[The reason this (and low-cost) are potentially disruptive is because they target non-consumption: people who aren't customers of incumbents, and so acquiring them doesn't provoke a competitive response, while you grow strong enough (e.g. improve product performance/features) to potentially defeat those incumbents. The same effect also makes it easier to get started.]

<comment><USER3> This is a _huge_ factor in uptake of SaaS at smaller firms. Project management software existed before Basecamp, for example, but Basecamp is one of the first packages which put it within the reach of e.g. firms with size 1 ~ 10. It is quantitatively and qualitatively a different experience than the bespoke consultingware monster PM solutions that e.g. a division of Toyota might use, but Basecamp customers can still have LTVs in the four figures very easily.

That is a very nice place to be as a startup -- you can potentially acquire and service customers at a place in the solution space where competitor's cost structures make it impossible to enter. (e.g. if a large competitor needs a sales rep or custom programming, forget it, $2k of LTV is impossible for them to address -- but break that into $50 ~ $80 per month and it is within the authority of a single decisionmaker at the client firm in response to a low- or no-touch sales process.)

Also, when the competition is non-consumption, sometimes your value proposition can get just _amazing_ , because the delta in experience on even a minimally featured software solution versus paper or "we'll just deal without" is substantial. (I've got a client who says AR practically pays for his mortgage. He's, understandably, quite happy.)

<comment><USER4> AR?

<comment><USER5> AR is patio11's new project: <http://appointmentreminder.org>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I really like the strategy layed out in MJ Demarco's Millionaire Fastlane. A lucrative startup idea should have five things:

Need - There has to be a need for what you're delivering. Don't blindly do what you love or are passionate about, do what the market requests. The market doesn't care at all about what you love, they care how you can solve their needs.

Entry - It shouldn't be easy to start the business/to step in the market. If it's to easy to get into the market, it's probably way harder to succeed in that market. There's a reason why it's almost impossible for blogs to earn serious money, it's simply too easy to start one. Everyone can start one. If everyone can start up a clone of your business, it's not likely to succeed. However, if it takes some real work/investment to startup your business, it's probably a better business.

Control - You must be in control over your own business success. If somebody else can shut down your business, you're not in control. If your business is relying on API access or affiliate income from somebody else, it's not a very substainable business.

Scale - The business must be able to scale to the masses. If you're running a sandwitch cart, it doesn't matter how good your sandwitches are. You can't suddently sell 100 000 sandwitches in a day in your neighboorhood. However, if you're selling access to something online the whole world is your market and it doesn't cost you much more to sell 10000 subscriptions than it does to sell 10.

Time - The business success needs to be seperated from your time. If the business can't grow seperated from your time , it's not really a business. It's just a job you have created yourself. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't spend a lot of your time on your business, it just means that what your business earn shouldn't be connected to how much time you spend running it.

Read the book, it's really good (71 five stars/1 four stars/0 three-two-one stars). [http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Fastlane-Crack-Wealth- Life...](http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Fastlane-Crack-Wealth- Lifetime/dp/0984358102)

<comment><USER7> I don't think you need scale...there are plenty of successful companies with few clients, that make a ton of money because they are charging $100K/mo for their services.

<comment><USER8> But you give up a certain amount of "Control".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm extremely grateful to entrepreneurs like Paras who've been in the trenches (and stumbled several times, only to pick themselves up and dust themselves off each time), lay their cards on the table and share tidbits of actionable insight (Non-esoteric, actionable insight being the operative words here).

I think this extends PG's classic words, " _Make something people want_ " to something that sounds like:

 _Make something people want that

1) they're ready to pay for / you can monetize

2) is in an expanding / sufficiently large market

3) has precedents / incumbents that validate the need

4) you're sufficiently well leveraged to execute on

5) you and your team are passionate about_

While there will always be outliers / exceptions to the rule, I'm convinced this is an excellent heuristic to filter the several hundreds of ideas that course through the average entrepeneur's mind in any given year.

</comment><comment><USER10> After reading this, I've spent the past 2 hours perusing the Inc. 5000 list that he links to. <http://www.inc.com/inc5000/list/>

There are some mind-blowing/boggling entries there, like: <http://www.inc.com/inc5000/profile/chasing-fireflies>

Take some time browsing through, you're sure to find something you'll be scratching your noggin over.

</comment><comment><USER11> Great perspective from Paras in the article. No doubts the way his business has grown is actually a story of how determination and simplicity in an established industry can lead to great businesses.

However, using a blanket statement to characterise the potential of a startup might not be the best way forward. From what the author says, it would be impossible to see Twitter, Foursquare, Square ever be born. I for one would not be happy if they did not exist.

Just because one has never seen an idea getting successful might not always mean it is impossible. It often means no one has tried hard enough. I know the pragmatists would thrash me by saying the contrary.

The truth is that there are many ways to go about founding a company. One is to actually set off to found one because to you the joy of founding and working for yourself while solving a real pain is what is of prime importance. The idea or the sector you are in might not be the closest thing to your heart. (Though it must not be too distant too). This is the way that Paras speaks of and for most of the folks it is great.

Another way is to just work on something that solves a real problem for you. It might be just a simple app that tells you all the cool places in a city maybe just your city but something that you want to do and feel there is a real need for. A point to be noted is that by now you have not thought of how it will make money or how the server bills will be paid. Well do not worry you are not the first person to go this way nor the last one.

The other route is to just come up with a crazy idea that everyone who hears has just one thing to say: "Why won't I use this with that or why do I need that". Don't worry if others cannot see what you clearly see. In such a case the final product is already in your head and you can see hundreds of uses for this. Every day you refine it in your head till the reality and vision of the product converge. Chances are that if you actually stayed around to see them converge then you have something going on for you. Either you actually believe in the product and it is a great product that the world did not see the need for till they started using it OR you were just being delusional. I would say the chances of being delusional if you stuck around till a final MVP are not very high.

Each of the above 3 paths are for different types of people. So before you follow any advise as a rulebook, step back and do some soul searching. You already know what way to go for.

<comment><USER12> Yep, correct. My approach is not the only approach. The reason I documented is because I wanted a manual for doing a startup from scratch if I had to do it.

I usually get goosebumps thinking what I would be working on if I had to start today! Now I am relieved that I have a blog post to read whenever I need to do it.

<comment><USER13> I am also going to use this as a manual. I use the market-first approach for any app i want to build while i wait for the "EUREKA" moment when the great idea strikes and by then i would have money to build it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This, to me, boils down to "triangulate, differentiate, execute better, and compete", in fewer words. Or even more concisely, "be realistic".

I don't think this is invalid, but at the same time, it seems like it's suggesting that, rather than searching for a need you want solved and framing it in terms of a realistic goal and whittling it down to a compelling product, you should be identifying someone else's need and building _that_ product.

A fun idea without a plan may need some serious thought and modifications to make it a compelling product, but I think that perhaps a compelling idea with no fun is pretty difficult to _make_ fun.

Perhaps my core philosophical objection can be summarized in contrast to this:

> Any sufficiently big market will give you tons of interesting ideas. Why do > you need to come up one of your own?

I don't think this is a market-driven approach, in the sense that the market is merely setting the context, and it's still interest-driven, and you're still searching (and hopefully coming up with) ideas you find interesting. Just identifying exploitable needs isn't necessarily going to expose something you're going to enjoy.

<comment><USER15> This is a very subtle distinction.

You say "...it's suggesting that rather than searching for a need you want solved and framing it in terms of a realistic goal and whittling it down to a compelling product, you should be identifying someone else's need and building that product."

But "framing it in terms of a realistic goal" and "whittling it down to a compelling product" both sound like code to me for "making something that other people want / need".

One key part of customer development is that creating a new market (for something that you exclusively need) is extremely expensive. You have to educate your customers on why they need your product and push against a massive amount of resistance.

I think it's pragmatic then to accept that working with an existing market in some shape or form is inevitable. So, why not embrace it? I think that's the market-driven approach.

You can still come up with novel and fun ideas that you own, but ground them in an existing market that you've researched.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Great article (which I reposted on swombat.com). One comment I'd have is that the "growing" characteristic is very important! I followed this approach for my first startup, and thought it would be a walk in the park. However, the industry we started in (audio on the web) was tanking in 2007 and that was one of the important issues amongst the many problems we hit...

<comment><USER12> Interesting. So you are saying you picked a growing industry and it tanked?

<comment><USER16> No, quite the opposite! We picked an industry that was making money for others, and which we were interested in, and it turned out to be a fast- shrinking industry (who wants to pay for audio broadcasting products when they can get YouTube videos for free!) and at was one of the numerous reasons why the product didn't work out. There were others for sure, but this was a factor too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _> a lot of things in life that appeal us but we've got no chance (for geeks: most obvious example is dating a hot lady!)_

I resent that! It's downright mean and untrue.

But anyhow, the whole article smells a lot like a concept I developed a few months ago that ideas are a process. You start doing something and on the way you get better ideas as you gain a better understanding of the problem. Just sitting on your arse will never get you a killer idea. Never.

<comment><USER18> to add to that i would also say that if you dont put yourself out there,go out meet people and the ideas(in the context of this post) will flow.Sitting at the office or at home waiting ideas to flow wont help one bit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> So in short.Instead of trying to invent the wheel just invent tires. I like this approach,but its very tempting for us young entreprenuers to Invent (idea) .

<comment><USER19> Cool Idea will just have to wait until Money Idea can support its development...

<comment><USER18> Sometimes one hopes to that some fool(the last one) will fall for the cool idea and buy it while you know very well its not going to make a single dime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This advice aligns with my current views so much that I wish I could send back this advice in time to my younger self.

</comment><comment><USER7> the best way is to find an industry where people are already making a ton of money, and carving a piece of that.

Inventing the wheel is a recipe for disaster...because not only do you have to convince them to buy from you...but you also need to convince them to buy the thing in the first place.

<comment><USER21> If everyone took that point of view, then no new industries would ever get started. It may be much more risky, but sometimes if you can "invent the wheel" and execute extremely well, then you have the potential to make a lot of money even before any competitors enter the industry that you have created.

<comment><USER7> take the risk after you get your first 10 million

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Startup ideas don't make money.

Startups make money.

</comment><comment><USER23> +10 Couldn't agree more! Paras, you're speaking my mind. Just followed up with a post here: <http://bit.ly/hToZoZ>.

Thanks for sharing.

-Alex

</comment><comment><USER24> Agree with the points of article, but one question remains open. Who's going to make the innovative products then?

<comment><USER12> People who don't agree with my point of view! I am sure a large % of people are willing to take risk and make innovative products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Idea doesn't make money, delivery makes. Just like looking at the finishing line doesn't make you win, you have to run and run fast.

</comment><comment><USER26> Really good info.. Can surely be a one stop link to get some insight into starting up a Startup.. Cool Paras..

</comment><comment><USER27> I posted this on his site, for those that may have missed it.

 _Hey, just a small quibble, but there are no companies on that list growing 1000% per year for 3 years. 10^3 equals 1000, or 100,000% after 3 years of compounding growth.

That said, great post and nice data find._

</comment><comment><USER28> I think this was posted a few days ago, but it has led to a mildly interesting discussion so I have no issue with it.</comment>


Nice little W3 toolbox - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3dt.net/ A nice little toolbox thats helpful for all webmasters. Also if you have a suggestion on a tool don't hesitate to tell me about your ideas. Either here or at the sites forum. There are already a couple of tools in development so stay tuned and query away! <comment><USER2> Need some ssl tools</comment>


Ask YC: Is distributing your source code a stupid idea? - <AUTHOR>

A lot of web apps these days are hosted, but there are  still some that are licensed (haveamint.com, fogbugz, warehouseapp.com).
I'm thinking about making an app to sell cheap, $30, but should the source code be included with it?  The application is meant for anyone with a shared hosting account or VPS, so the source code might be useful for hackers who want to change things for their own needs.
But at the same time, giving away the source code feels like you're giving away your hard work.
What do you guys think? <comment><USER2> Open Source (or available source) and business is a tricky combination. We (Virtualmin, Inc.) are predominantly an Open Source based company, though we also have some proprietary products--but even the proprietary products include all of the source in a non-obfuscated form. We have not had significant problems with folks absconding with our source...but we have such a strong brand and awareness of our product and Open Source projects that we aren't afraid of someone launching a competitor based on our code.

That said, I suspect you won't gain much by distributing source in a wholly proprietary product. Customers might occasionally find a bug or two, and might have some interest in modifications...but you can solve the former by fixing problems quickly, and the latter by providing an API. So, while your particular fears are unfounded. Why would someone steal your code, when there is probably better-documented Open Source software to do roughly the same things from a developer perspective? Where proprietary software can win is on usability, UI, support, and sometimes more rapid innovation if the field doesn't have thousands of developers.

As slashcom mentioned, you need to be very clear about the terms of use of your software if you include source, and if you mention inclusion of source code on the website as a feature. Like izak30, your customers may wrongly assume you're talking about Open Source software. We still get occasional users who find ways to misunderstand our license terms because we offer an Open Source version of our product.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks SwellJoe, I guess it doesn't sense that other people would steal my code and release their own product based on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It depends on your market. Some markets would consider source-availability an advantage; most wouldn't. Are your competitors making source available? If you have no competitors (which I really doubt) find a comparable product selling into the same market.

A related issue is license enforcement. Lots of shrinkwrap (meaning, not hosted by the copyright holder) software incorporates licensing code to discourage installing the software on multiple servers without paying for it. Again, this decision must be made with sensitivity to your specific market. If your competitors don't protect their code, you shouldn't either.

Obviously, all licensing code relies on security through obscurity. If you offer customers the source, and choose to enforce licensing, you have an interesting technical challenge on your hands.

The only positive I can see to source-availability is a hedge against your company going out of business. A technically proficient customer such as an ISP can then continue to maintain their instance.

A big negative, both for you and for corporate customers, is that customer employees may modify the code, leaving it in support limbo.

I recommend laser-like focus on the market you plan to serve. Incidentally, such a focus may cause you to reconsider your $30 price point.

</comment><comment><USER4> You could make it available upon request, see the reasons for the request, then decide to remove the option if people aren't taking it for the right reasons.

My guess is that few would ask, but those who would are the ones that could help you improve the program. People trying to take your market won't beat you just by tweaking your source and selling it.

I've been thinking about a related idea: opening the security code, at the very least.

How do you make the security of a web app public so that smart people know about it, but control it so that if not enough people are looking, exploiters see the holes first?

I think it's the kind of thing you wait to do when you're bigger, but we don't see much openness on web security like we do for most FOSS.

</comment><comment><USER5> > The application is meant for anyone with a shared hosting account or VPS...

FWIW, I'd never allow installation of a non-"open source" app on our servers. I put "open source" in quotes since our definitions might differ. You can release a commercial product with source available for your customers to see but the product can be under a non-open source labs certified license. Providing the source, in your case, doesn't mean your customers can give the thing away or show the source to someone else. Just specify it in contract.

If there was absolutely no way that we can have the source and the app does something absolutely amazing so we must have it, then we'd install it on a separate slice away from all other apps. I'm not saying that open source apps are somehow safer but at least with open source apps I can go in and try to see what it's doing and what the quality of the code is.

But seriosuly, why worry about source? Rely on social contract, copyright and legal contracts to enforce your ownership. If someone wants to copy your app, they'll find a way no matter what. When people deploy their web apps, they allow anyone to see their source (JS, CSS, HTML) anyway.

Another option is to obfuscate but that doesn't solve much.

</comment><comment><USER6> A lot of companies have to deal with this. vBulletin and Red Hat both immediately come to mind. I don't see how it would set you back. You know all the people you give the source code to, so you know who to go to about leaks. And most clients won't care about the source code anyway. What's most important is that you be clear about the terms under which your code is released.

Probably should consult a copyright lawyer.

<comment><USER7> If you are condisering making any real amount of money off of a thirty dollar product, then you probably won't know all the people who have it; on the other hand, if making money isn't the goal, then by all means, give away the source, OS projects are often a tremendous help to the community

<comment><USER7> BTW, whoever downmodded this, it wasn't sarcasm;

Sometimes I don't understand what gets somebody downmodded around here.

<comment><USER8> I'm confused too. If that point was worth downmodding, it should be worth discussing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What makes you want to sell individual copies rather than collect a monthly fee by providing it as a hosted service? If it has to be hosted anyway, and unless it's going to be tightly integrated with the buyer's website/server, selling a hosted service might make a lot more sense since you can collect $x/month instead of $30 just once. And you keep your source code, and releasing updates is far simpler.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm on the fence for software as a service. It might make sense for small/large businesses, but the software I'd like to make is consumer level software. It's mostly for web hobbyists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The scary thing about giving away your code is certainly this: You put in months, maybe years of development and now a competitor of yours just grabs your code, puts in slight modifications and starts to sell. You, as you don't have the money, cannot file a lawsuit (if your competitor would be google or M$ for example).

But: being into software development for more than 25 years now, I can honestly say: if a piece of code is longer than 300 lines, it is easier and faster to rewrite it yourself instead of trying to understand and modify someone elses code.

That said: generally I would not say its bad to open source your code. On the other hand, if you really have something in it that nobody else has and that makes your app better than others, keep THAT part for yourself, at least for a while.

See Apple. Aqua is closed, darwin is open. Good example, IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER11> You can open-source it and insist upon them registering their site with you. If you happen to Google a non-authorized use of your software, you can quickly check it against your customer database before sending a nasty e-mail.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think the answer will depend on a clear definition of your goals, such as your revenue goals, how you see people using your software (and what you want to allow them to do with it) and exit strategy.

You may just want to build a good API to make it easy for hackers to customize and extend if you decide not to release the source.

</comment><comment><USER13> What are you trying to achieve by releasing the source code? Improved quality, by having it scrutinized by lots of other coders/hackers/devs (if you are lucky and release it under GPL).

Good will and Trust?

Perception of "more for the buck"?

<comment><AUTHOR> The web language/framework I would like to use (Python/Django) doesn't have any sort of source code protection for it. There's no compiled byte code or source code encoder product.

But if it's an advantage to release the source code, that shouldn't matter. If it's a mistake to release the source code, I would probably use PHP (I'm still comfortable programming with PHP from my day job, but I'd be happier with Python).

<comment><USER13> Actually another startup patient/kind enough to talk to me (:D) is in a very similar predicament to yours. They are infact building a CMS by aggregating several open source tools (eg word-press and so on). Their main reason for open-sourcing their CMS itself was so the increased scrutiny. However the main concern is how reproducible is your idea? If you are still at the very young stage, and your main strength really is in your IP. But having said that, if your customer base is such that they would be happy to fix problems themselves given the source, that could save you a lot in support-mullah. But that may depend on the kind of license you release your source code under.

What do you folks think? or am I thinking about it the wrong way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think your agreement should say that they have access to the source code if they want it. However, they must not resell any modifications and may submit their modifications to you for a discount.

</comment><comment><USER15> Make it available to customers, even users that don't read source code will get a "warm and fuzzy" knowing that other users can and may have.

</comment><comment><USER16> it depends on what terms it's given under.

probably if you distribute it with scary language about "intellectual property" and derivative works anyone with half a brain would avoid even looking at the code much less reusing it in a new product in order to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit.

(IANAL.)</comment>


Ask HN: What's up with retro sound chip programming? - <AUTHOR> In recent threads[0][1], there has been expressed interest in retro sound chip programming. Why are people attracted to these rather than MIDI or other alternatives? Is there a scene for this sort of work? Where did it start?<p>[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12080871 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12074096 <comment><USER2> There exists people who think that if they program a demo for an old system like a Commodore 64 using the Sid chip to generate a song that it is something that hasn't been done before and pushes the C64 to its limits to show that it still has use and potential in modern times.</comment>


iKeyboard: 33 days left, already 440% funded. Why? It's a very cool idea. - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1030552097/ikeyboard-0?ref=live

<comment><USER2> Yes, it's a very cool idea. Just better hope that Apple never changes the key layout on you...

<comment><USER3> Why would that be a problem? Products become obsolete all the time, especially in the gadget world. The answer would be to add a new model for newer hardware / OSs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just put in $55; this is a really slick idea.</comment>


Seed 'extensions' are becoming the new normal in fundraising - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2015/11/07/why-seed-extensions-are-becoming-the-new-normal-in-fundraising/ <comment><USER2> Granularizing rounds seems like a good idea until you realize how much work it is to raise. If a startups path goes from seed, A, B, Exit to Seed 1, Seed 2, A, Bridge, B, C, Bridge etc then the founders have significantly less time to focus on their product and spend more time playing the game.

Anyone have any advice on raising enough on the seed round to match your needs without having to create an absurd valuation that will crunch you in A?

<comment><USER3> > Anyone have any advice on raising enough on the seed round to match your > needs without having to create an absurd valuation that will crunch you in > A?

Grow extremely quickly by doing everything else right? There's really no shortcut or trick, that's just what it takes.

To raise <$1 million and be ready for a Series A is just brutally difficult. For example, my brother just raised his A and he said investors were looking for a $1.5 million run rate and 3-4x YOY growth. So in ~18 months with ~5 people you'd have to build product, make that many sales and still have compounding growth.

That's set up to find the companies that are doing _extremely_ well. It will happen, but that's not something you can really brute force (it didn't happen to my company, even though we're on a very promising trajectory).

Now, say you raise a $2m seed extension. That gives you an additional ~18 months to hit those same metrics, while hiring a couple more people. That's just _so much more_ doable. Especially considering most first-time founders (myself included) spend the first six months making mistakes around building the right team. (One way to help make it to a series A on your seed is to have all the people you want/need ready to be plugged in.)

I think either the Series A expectations will come down slightly or "seed prime" rounds will become the norm, as they already are becoming. Not many are ready to go to the NBA after playing in High School. Simple as that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting. Due to the seed explosion (which is absolutely a good thing, more entrepreneurs trying new stuff) Series A has indeed become very challenging -- extremely challenging, even.

Rather than raise more seed, we decided to buckle down and try to fund through paying customer growth. Slower of a curve than a 2 or 3 million dollar injection, but no strings attached either. And I figure you need to develop your billing and customer chops eventually anyway, so why not start building those skills now?

<comment><USER5> Bravo! I occasionally mentor at startup events and I can't tell you how crazy it makes me when first-time entrepreneurs look down on getting revenue as some sort of grubby detail not quite worth their attention. I love it when people go after actual customer money; it forces them to pay careful attention to the heart of the business.

There is a risk, though. (I'm sure you know it already, but I mention it just to balance out my enthusiasm for others.) If a company's revenue is $0, investors can imagine anything they want. But if revenue is $1.39, investors may be subject to an anchoring bias [1]. I don't think that's a huge risk for companies that have a well-understood business model; if you are selling annual software subscriptions, it's pretty easy for investors to imagine scaling that up. But I think Twitter and Facebook were smart to avoid revenue for a long time because it let them sell the dream.

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

<comment><USER6> > "What, revenue? no, no... no revenue! Why would you go after revenue? No, if > you show revenue, people will ask "how much?" and it will never be enough. > The 100x'er or the 1,000x'er will now be the 2x dog. But if you have _no > revenue_ , then you're _pre-revenue_.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo)

<comment><USER5> Wow, that's a little too good. I'm think going to save watching _Silicon Valley_ until I'm retired so that I can experience it as comedy rather than horror.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > ...most seed companies aren't actually burning that much money. A lot can be > done today with a small team and $50,000 a month.

> In many of these cases, the founder simply didn't raise enough to hit the > milestones they promised. Product development often takes twice what was > anticipated, and many early stage companies simply didn't have the capital > to achieve what they hoped in advance of an A round.

This is contradictory. On one hand, the author claims "a lot can be done today with a small team and $50,000 a month" but on the other he's admitting that many of these companies aren't able to do what the founders "promised" they'd be able to do.

> Valuations tend to be flat or flat-ish.

> In the end, however, the entrepreneur benefits because they usually see a > step up in valuation from the first to second seed.

Which one is it?

> These differ from your classic seed. They tend to have new participants, > unlike the more classic extension, which is merely the insiders injecting > additional capital into the company.

This is the perfect demonstration of what happens when there's too much money chasing too few opportunities. _New_ investors are willing to put _more_ money into a company that underestimated its funding needs, missed its targets and can't raise a Series A, and do so at the same or slightly higher valuation as previous investors. Insanity.

The "seed extension" phenomenon also demonstrates why early-stage startup employees should be skeptical about equity. These "seed extensions," which look like dumb money bridge rounds, can be really destructive. Just do the math on what happens when a company raises $1 million at a $10 million valuation, and then raises a $2 million "extension" at a "flat-ish" valuation.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your concerns about the article, but I'm not so worried about the phenomenon. The new money in a seed extension could be dumb money. But it also could be real validation of a pivot, where the first idea didn't work but the second, better informed one could.

I'd certainly prefer people taking multiple seed rounds to them taking a ton of money up front. Too much money is startup poison.

<comment><USER8> >I'd certainly prefer people taking multiple seed rounds to them taking a ton of money up front. Too much money is startup poison.

Is there any reason that a large seed round could not be drip fed to the company? As an investor I would rather the company get on with building and stop worry about fund raising, but I would not just want to give then a huge amount of money that they blow on a hiring craze trying to hit some ludicrous growth number. Something like "here is $3 million, but we aren't going to give it to you at more than $100K a month - now get on with building and stop worrying about fund raising. If you hit all your targets early come back and we will talk more."

<comment><USER5> I've heard of people who have tranched funding and it seems like the worst of both worlds. Pricing is locked in up front, so founder upside is limited. Plus, getting tranches is conditional on continued investor approval, so the risk hasn't really gone away.

Honestly, I've never heard of investors saying, "Hey, slow down on the spending." I'm sure it must happen, but the stories I hear are all the other way, encouraging investors to spend faster and get bigger to establish market dominance. Founders are in some ways naturally more conservative, in that they have exactly one company to gamble with, while investors are just hoping for a couple big hits in their portfolios.

<comment><USER8> >I've heard of people who have tranched funding and it seems like the worst of both worlds. Pricing is locked in up front, so founder upside is limited. Plus, getting tranches is conditional on continued investor approval, so the risk hasn't really gone away.

Couldn't the valuation issue be solved with SAFE? Also if the funding was locked in and handed to some third party to administer then the founders could stop worrying about investor approval changing?

Maybe I think too much like an founder, but the last thing I would want to do as an investor is give some 22 year olds a couple of million dollars and let them go crazy. Having personally been through a similar situation it is all to easy as a founder to convince yourself that getting more money in the future is going to be easy.

<comment><USER5> Well if the money is locked in, then all we're talking about is a prearranged spending limit, right? But I've just never heard of investors wanting that. They already have a lot of influence. And the whole goal is to get to the point where the startup will need (and spend) a lot more money.

If it were my money, I'd certainly be concerned with young founders overspending. But I'd solve that just by energetic board meetings and occasional calls with the CEO. And with VCs, it's not their money anyhow. Their constrained resource isn't cash, it's time.

<comment><USER8> I am more trying to think about ways to try and remove the pressure off founders to bb raising money all the time, while at the same time not just handing over a massive check. Having to work to a budget might solve both problems.

I agree VCs are trying to create unicorns rather than maximise the chance of the founders succeeding. If you are an early stage investor with limited funds to throw around then you might be better off not chasing unicorns and instead concentrate on minimising losses.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Surprising Appeal of Products That Require Effort to Use - <AUTHOR> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/nature-and-technology/surprising-appeal-products-require-effort-use-86567/ <comment><USER2> This seems appropriate given today's news of Trello investment. Trello is a good example of a product that is not necessarily simple to use for any specific use case, but it's very easy to adapt to your needs, and leaves you in complete control over decision making. To echo gigawhat's comment, one could compare Trello to a manual transmission, and tools like Pivotal/JIRA to an automatic one.

</comment><comment><USER3> An even better real-world example might be manual transmissions, which are now both slower and less efficient than modern automatic counterparts. Some people (like myself) prefer them regardless.

<comment><USER4> They are pretty standard here in Europe. It takes more effort to learn, but not much once you have learned to use one. I guess I feel the same about Linux. More effort upfront, but far more control afterwards.</comment></comment>


Common Systems Programming Optimizations and Tricks - <AUTHOR> https://paulcavallaro.com/blog/common-systems-programming-optimizations-tricks/ <comment><USER2> A discussion of systems programming optimization that doesn't start with single-writer ring buffers starts on the wrong foot.

Those other tricks are excellent, and I use all of them, in cases where they work at all. But, e.g., seeking a way not to need to take a lock at all should come before discovering a low-contention locking protocol.

Readers should note that packing spare bits into the bottom bits of suitably aligned pointers is more portable than using high bits. Any page-aligned pointer has at least 12 bits free at the bottom, and any malloc'd pointer has at least 2, often 4.

Ring buffer counters into a power-of-2 sized buffer can be incremented without bound, enabling use of ordinary arithmetic on them, and high bits masked off cheaply on each use.

Probably the most neglected primitive data structure is the bitmapped set. A `uint32_t` gives you a universe of 32 elements; a byte is enough for the days of the week. The popcount native instruction is very valuable here, usually expressed as `__builtin_popcount` in source code. C++98's `std::bitset` provides Standard, portable access to it, but C++20 offers `std::popcount` directly.</comment>


Ask HN: I am a felon who went from homeless to millionaire. How to tell my story - <AUTHOR> I am a felon convicted of a violent crime who has had substantial success following my release from prison, such as:
- I've made a million dollars on three separate initiatives.
- I've bootstrapped a startup worth > $1M
- I was a very early employee of a company that had an IPO
- I've gone through Techstars, immigrated away from my home country, and was recently pardoned of my violent crime all those years ago.
I've gone from homeless convict that owed $20k+ in debts to being financially independent and so, so thankful that I was given a second chance.
I want to tell my story in a way that has maximum impact. How should I go about this?
Proposal: Write a series of blogs that lead to a release of a book. Follow the book with speaking engagements in prisons through the help of an NPO (thelastmile.org).
Is this thinking big enough? Should I do a traditional publisher or just self publish?
Lastly, not everyone knows that I am a felon. I've never spoken about it publicly. While I am fearful that people will view me in a different light, I'm determined to tell this story because I feel like it will benefit many of those out there who are in a dark time in their life. Can you think of any reason why I shouldn't tell this story? <comment><USER2> If you do, stay anonymous.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't see how I can. I can see the benefits of staying anonymous (simply living my life as is), but staying anonymous wouldn't be as impactful.</comment></comment>


The Downside of Baseball's Data Revolution–Long Games, Less Action - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-downside-of-baseballs-data-revolutionlong-games-less-action-1507043924 <comment><USER2> What is oddly absent from the time comparisons is the practice of video review (not just explicit _challenges_ , but the pauses for internal reviews of close calls to decide _whether_ to challenge). This is not inherently a bad thing, IMHO.

What _does_ need discrete limits is the number of player (not coaches -- which are already limited to once an inning without removing the pitcher altogether -- just catchers and infielders) visits to the mound. Some teams, like the Dodgers, will do multiple such visits _within a plate appearance_.</comment>


Virtuoso's progression from SF Opera to middle-school classroom - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Mr-Wilson-s-second-act-Virtuoso-s-11089738.php <comment><USER2> What a beautiful article this is. I hope it helps the school find a new music teacher.</comment>


Book of the Day: Effective JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mediumequalsmessage.com/book-of-the-day-effective-javascript

<comment><USER2> Dave Herman is great. I had so much faith in Dave that prior to even seeing the book I purchased a copy for every person in the company who ever deployed JS (~2,000 copies):

<https://twitter.com/apaprocki/status/289839413733781504>

I only received positive feedback and most people said they learned at least one new thing from the book :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've read it as well, it was at least as good as Effective Java.

One thing that's interesting about the book is that while he mentions things like "don't use feature X, works strangely in some browsers", he never explicitly states which browsers. He also doesn't make a lot of mention to frameworks etc, or the DOM. Just the common denominator javascript as it is implemented, and the language features. So don't expect it to teach you the latest tricks in your favorite MVC framework. It's written in a very timeless way on purpose, and he very deliberately avoids making reference to "current events" in javascript.

</comment><comment><USER4> > The history is convoluted, but it boils down to a matter of

> copyright: For legal reasons, the standards organization,

> Ecma International, was unable to use the name "JavaScript"

> for its standard."

(from the sample chapter PDF)

He must mean "a matter of trademark" rather than "a matter of copyright".

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the erratum report. I always mix those two up! :-/ I've added it to the errata page:

<https://github.com/effectivejs/site/wiki/Errata>

(Let me know if I got your name wrong for the credit; I followed links from your HN profile.)

Thanks, Dave

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm currently reading secrets of JS ninjas. Has anybody read both and would mind posting a quick comparison?

</comment><comment><USER7> How did this become a discussion about referral links. My co worker bought the book and brought it to work. I read two chapters and went to get a copy for myself.

There, no referrals.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is it a similar concept to Effective C++ or Effective Java? Or is the similar name a co-incidence?

<comment><USER9> Yes to the 1st question - [http://scottmeyers.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-esds- book-effect...](http://scottmeyers.blogspot.com/2013/01/new-esds-book- effective-javascript.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's a great book, well-written. Anyone touching JS should get it.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have not read this book, but I can say that javascript powerful when you ask the question: what can I do with a closure?

</comment><comment><USER12> While this book sounds good, to me this looks a little like a shady attempt to make a quick buck off of Amazon referrals. Reassure me?

<comment><USER13> Don't buy it if you don't like it.

I don't understand what exactly problems people with referrals.

Would you prefer it he had an under the table deal with the author which you could not see?

<comment><USER12> You say you don't understand the problem? Allow me to explain.

Referral links in book reviews are a problem because of the conflict of interest they create. If the author of the review chooses to put a referral link into it, they create a financial incentive to bias their own review in favour of the book. Rather than a means of helping people determine which books to buy, reviews become a hollow call to action with a conversion rate measured in referral dollars. A review with a referral link in it has absolutely no credibility.

On top of that, they call the very purpose of the review itself into question. Is the author of the review really reviewing anything at all, or are they simply writing reviews as a means of generating cash? This particular blog is brimming with glowing reviews of Javascript books, each with Amazon referral links inside. Are there really so many must-have Javascript books on the market? If so, do we really need the dubious help of a blogger to find a good one?

<comment><USER14> I understand the point you're making - but let me propose another way of thinking about it: Amazon pays a referral fee regardless of what item is purchased. Whether you buy that book or Goodnight Moon or the Kardashian Family Coloring book, a referral link will pay.

So I actually don't think this creates a conflict of interest regarding this book at all. Why would a "conflicted reviewer" point you toward this book vs any other book that he could be equally compensated for?

The conflict arises in two cases -- if the OP insists you should buy this book _that's only available on Amazon_ vs another book that's widely available. Or if this book happens to be significantly more expensive (and hence pays the OP better) than other books.

I don't think either of those is the case here, so I think your dismissal is perhaps unfounded.

<comment><USER12> Actually, I think the fact that the referral is payable after any purchase is a red herring. The review author is incentivised by their Amazon Affiliate status to choose words that will make me click on their link and get that money-making tracking cookie into my browser. Criticism of the book would not be conducive to that goal.

I think this blog is an egregious blurring of the line between content and advertising. I urge you to go and look at its archive of posts. Every post somehow contrives to include at least one Amazon referral link. Svbtle is a business looking for a long-term business model, and I sincerely hope this isn't it.

<comment><USER10> Out of the half-dozen or so Svbtle network articles I end up reading in a week, this is the only one I've noticed with a referral link to Amazon, let alone the repeated history of them like this author has. I think if anything it's this one author, not Svbtle as a whole.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How would you invest $50,000? - <AUTHOR>

I am in a financially secure position. I have no debt, I am single, no mortgage to pay, and no need to work (although I do it anyway because I enjoy it). I am not "super" wealthy either. Rather than having money sitting in the bank, I've decided to invest $250,000. $200,000 will go into vanilla/convserative investments. But with the remaining $50,000 I'd like to try something a bit more interesting. I have unlimited risk tolerance for the $50k, provided the investment has "home-run" type upside.
1. Excluding angel investing, what would you do?
2. Assume you have zero experience angel investing, but have a capable technical background. What do you do? How would you build an angel brand for yourself? <comment><USER2> I imagine that becoming an angel is difficult.

1\. You need to be situationally positioned well to get decent dealflow.

2\. You need to invest in many deals; I have been told that profitable angels do 10+ deals a year.

3\. Low-end slices are typically $25k and up. It's a lot of work for companies to wrangle a large number of investors so minimizing that number is to their advantage.

4\. It can take YEARS to return anything at all. I've invested in 24 startups since 2007; one exited so far.

<comment><USER3> I have a few friends that do angel investing in the 5k - 10k range regularly. Unfortunately that's still only a handful of deals and might not be enough to get a good reputation or good deal flow.

<comment><USER2> In what kind of companies? With what kind of success? In what region?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Be careful: If you're in the US, to do most angel investing, you must be an accredited investor, per SEC regulations. To qualify, you must have a net worth of at least $1M or have made >$200K in each of the last two years (>$300k if married). Almost any company with a good lawyer will require that you sign something certifying that you are accredited.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do meet the SEC's accredited investor criteria

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> 1\. Excluding angel investing: If I were you, with 50,000 and unlimited risk tolerance, I'd buy a foreclosure. If you take some time, do your homework, and make the right investment then the payoff could be quite good.

2\. I understand your frustration. There's just nothing out there for the beginning angel. As you can tell from most of the answers here-- there really isn't a good answer. You're too rich to have the money sitting in a bond fund, and too poor to be Paul Graham. You're stuck in the middle, and the investments market (right now) doesn't have a home for you. You're also a prime target for some get rich quick investment schemes, so you ought to be careful.

</comment><comment><USER6> Invest in a small tech firm from a country where labour is cheap. India. Ukraine. Philippines.

$50,000 = annual salary of 3-4 employee team.

Get them to make iphone apps, android apps, facebook games.

If you go with a 4 people team, the division should be: 3 developers and 1 marketer. And one of them handles everything for a bit higher salary and a very small equity stake.

If you had $100,000-$200,000 to invest, I would get the team to flip websites. You buy the websites (with the remaining $50,000 to $150,000). They make it better with new features / redesign etc and then increase traffic to it for 4-6 months. You then re-sell the websites.

In this instance, I would go with: 2 developers and 2 marketers.

</comment><comment><USER7> Simple:

\- $40k into an Index Fund tracking the S&P 500

\- $10k into a Six Month Trip Around Southeast Asia

Chances are you're not going to hold onto that Single, No-Mortgage thing very long. If you haven't done much traveling, it's probably best you get out there now to see what you're missing.

You definitely have the right idea with getting your debt sorted and starting the retirement investment stuff early. You're never going to be in a place where excess money comes in so fast, and it's physically impossible to get into a place where your investments have longer to compound.

But then you're also in a place where you can afford to squander a bit of that advantage to go have some fun. Send us a postcard!

<comment><USER8> I went around most of Southeast Asia, plus Japan on $12k for exactly six months. Three of those months were in Japan.

Totally worth it. I'd go back now, if I wasn't dead broke.

<comment><USER9> I go to Thailand in just over 4 weeks, after Indonesia last year ive got exactly the same bug. Though I think my anti love of commercial epicentres was further developed by the fact we spend 3 days in Dubai on the way back home..seriously everything that is wrong with anything is there! Nasty...Rant over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Find a startup that interests you personally enough that you'd go on board as a founder who conveniently has $$$.

<comment><USER2> board experience is a super big plus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I would post on HN and ask for people to share with you what they're working on but for the love provide some sort of template or format you want to be pitched with. Whether you want to see wireframes, a demo, or a slide deck with 5 slides etc.

Pick what you like best and dive in - in whatever capacity you choose.

<comment><USER12> I might respond to something like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd say come join my company.

We're operating in a $15 Billion industry with no real market leader (yes, there are still a few of those around). We've made ourselves profitable in less than 6 months with about 3,000 customers.

This is my ninth business, I'm tech and marketing oriented, and a fourth generation entrepreneur.

I'd love to speak with you, get to know you, and hopefully help each other make some money.

Send me an e-mail, lets talk.

blalock.matt AT gmail.com

<comment><USER14> While I'm not calling you a liar, why don't you either:

1\. Post your company name, or 2\. Post an email address that isn't AT gmail.com

It just gives you a bit more reputability, which I think is important when you're fishing for $50,000.

<comment><USER13> I've posted my contact information here several times. I really wouldn't call myself fishing, but here's my contact information in full.

And I can understand how my post may have seen somewhat fishy (no pun intended!).

Matt Blalock Tickle Industries, LLC <http://myticklespot.com> firstname.lastname@example.com 336-231-3744

<comment><USER15> Out of curiosity, why 'women and couples'? I know guys don't like to talk about that sort of thing, but speaking as a guy who has spent more time single than I would perhaps like, I imagine the market for things like the fleshlight is rather, um, large.

<comment><USER13> Ha, yes. That market is large, the gay male market is large, and the lesbian market is large (not trying to stereotype, but each of those demographics require different approaches in this sort of product).

We are developing sites under the same style and philosophies for each of those markets (hope my competitors aren't hanging out here...) but we believe a "one size" approach simply wouldn't work - the customers are simply too different.

Women and couples was what we understood most, so we began there.

<comment><USER15> what do you need investment for? Are you doing manufacturing and not just retail?

<comment><USER13> Investment would allow us to do more promotion, grow our catalog, bring a designer onto the team and seek out another developer.

There are several things I want to do, but I get so caught up in day to day things (answering the phone, responding to customer e-mails, etc.) less development gets done.

Further, we write every description on our website, writing isn't cheap. We have over 1,000 products now, but have about 5,000 in a database we want to carry. Everything needs photos, often they need to be cleaned up, photoshopped, the specs found and fact-checked. Basically, each product we add costs us about $20. New products come out every week, so a lot of money goes to that. The ability to increase our catalog quicker would be awesome.

Beyond the investment, the expertise the person has, the contacts, the outside interest he/she could bring, would be far more beneficial for us than the money.

To answer your question directly, we are not doing manufacturing, but we could. And probably should. Not yet, anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Err, the first question we should be asking you is "why don't you have a mortgage".

Unless you were given a house and have a chest full of gold bars, you are probably living off the income of interest, so you're still paying income taxes.

Get a mortgage. Its a tax write-off, along with the fact that RE is a pretty good overall investment, and very 'cheap' money. Hell, if you have to, HELOC your place and put that money into a higher yield investment.

<comment><USER17> _Get a mortgage. Its a tax write-off_

Not so much, if you're in AMT-land (and it seems like the poster is).

But even so, I don't understand why people (you're far from the only one) say this. For every dollar you save in taxes, you're paying two dollars to the bank. How can that possibly be smart?

Whether to invest in Real Estate is an entirely separate question. And one that I also think is a poor choice in this age. I base that on the current price of homes relative to their historic levels. They're still expensive.

<comment><USER18> _But even so, I don't understand why people (you're far from the only one) say this. For every dollar you save in taxes, you're paying two dollars to the bank. How can that possibly be smart?_

That plan is to take the money you have invested in your personal dwelling, and leverage a government subsidized low-interest loan (mortgage with deductible interest) to re-invest for a higher return. Obviously it doesn't make sense for everyone - it requires that you have a low enough paper income that you aren't in AMT territory (and can thus deduct your interest) and that you are comfortable investing that money in something higher-return and presumably higher-risk, though the last few years have shown that your personal dwelling isn't necessarily a low-risk investment either.

The short answer is that for every two dollars you pay to the bank in interest, you should be making more than two dollars in return on your subsequent investment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I would make a list of lesser known sites that I am impressed with, then sequentially contact them for an x% stake. If all say no, I would try and join the angel list on venture hacks. If they didn't let me in, I'd go to the angel investment network.

</comment><comment><USER20> Have you considered becomming a creditor? You can lend via sites like lendingclub.com. Annual returns are approaching what you'd expect to get on the stock market in the long term.

I haven't tried this investment myself yet (insufficient funds) but I'd be interested if I had the money spare.

Warning: I'm not sure about how this works in the US, but here in the UK I'd have to obtain a consumer credit act license for lending more than 25k.

</comment><comment><USER21> I was/am in a similar situation. The rule of thumb financial advisors tend to use (and you should take any advice from them with a few grains of salt...) is to put around 10% of your portfolio into high-risk investments.

The 'typical' route you'll be steered toward are real estate investments. There's a whole world of exotic financial instruments I had never heard of before coming into money, but real estate is probably the most popular, since it seems so familiar to most people. This is what we did. In 2007. Yeah... =) It paid off in the end, surprisingly, but it was a close thing.

The best advice I can give you is to invest in things you understand. If you have enough experience with startups to judge them critically, angel investing may be your best option. Putting your money into something you don't understand is little better than gambling.

</comment><comment><USER22> Invest in green tech - but I'm not speaking stocks. Install solar panels on your home, or maybe a vertical wind turbine. Insulate your home better, research if it's financially worth it. After doing that, you can even reuse your experience for others - for charity or profit, as you like.

</comment><comment><USER23> Invest it in something that will directly and non-financially benefit at least one other person, not including yourself. I guarantee that it will give you the greatest ROI. You already sound much better off that 99% of the population. Good luck with your investment!

</comment><comment><USER15> Invest in something you know. For me, that meant becoming an ISP, buying servers, virtualizing them and renting 'em out.

Knowing what you invest in is a huge advantage, one that you will certainly need if you only have $50K to invest.

<comment><USER24> How is you investment working out for you?

<comment><USER15> pretty good. I'm probably not quite in the black if you take all the money I spent before I figured out what I was doing into account, but it's supporting me and paying for two new servers a month, so I'm happy enough to call it a success. But yeah, there were, ah, a few years of failure to slog through before I got to this point.

Note, I didn't have a big wad of cash going in; I've paid for it renting myself out as a contractor. (But then, OP only is spending $50K, and, uh, by the time the project was able to support me, that was maybe 4-5 months of contracting. $50K is not a big wad of cash by "I want to start a business" standards. )

<comment><USER24> Good to hear, thanks for replying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the responses. I appreciate the feedback. The discussion here gave me a few ideas.

Perhaps if anyone is interested, I'll do a blog post within the next few months explaining what opportunities I chose to pursue and why.

</comment><comment><USER25> Invest in New-Space, or "Space 2.0". There's a private space travel revolution happening in Mojave, and Texas.

Look up:

XCOR Aerospace

Scaled Composites

Armadillo Aerospace

Masten Space Systems

Unreasonable Rocket

Blue Origin

SpaceX

Check out the arocket-list mailing list for detailed engineering discussions on amateur rocketry, including comments by some of the people involved in the companies I mentioned.

It's not clear who the winners will be here, but some of them will be billion dollar companies.

</comment><comment><USER26> <http://www.secondmarket.com> for private company stock that you expect to go public within a year or two. I haven't tried it.

</comment><comment><USER27> Find somebody who wants to start a company in the hardware business. They don't have the luxury of building something for free and $50k might be enough to get a prototype.

</comment><comment><USER28> For #1, are you looking for a 1 in 10 chance of a 5x return, or a 1 in 100 chance of a 50x return?

For #2, if you don't want to spend the serious time and money (because you will lose some money while learning) becoming a angel investor, consider investing in a fund that does angel size investing. David Cohen of TechStars runs a small fund that does seed stage investing, and I'm sure you can find others as that is a hot area.

<comment><USER29> For #1 You can beat those odds by going to Vagas. It's not hard to get a 1 in 10 chance of 9.5x return or a 1 in 100 chance of a 95x return. What you want is a 1 in 3 chance of a 30x return within 5 years.

PS: This is also why most VC funds make so little money _for the investors._

<comment><USER28> > It's not hard to get a 1 in 10 chance of 9.5x return or a 1 in 100 chance of > a 95x return Does 2x on $100 leave me a total of $200 or $300.

> What you want is a 1 in 3 chance of a 30x return within 5 years Obviously, > that will be hard to find. If you did 100 of those, you'd be getting a 10x > return in 5 years.

My original question to the poster stands. Are you looking for a real long shot, or something with a decent chance of paying off?

<comment><AUTHOR> To answer your question. My original thinking in setting aside $50k was to expose myself to "positive black swans." I'm looking to place a series of improbable bets such that if one pays off in a major way...

I do like the idea of investing in an angel fund to get my feet wet. I'll consider that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Here's something you can do even with small dollars and without being an accredited investor: find some public firms with lots of "toxic assets" on their books, e.g. mortgage REITs. See if you can find some that most people are afraid to touch, yet you think they'll pull through. Buy their stock.

I have a lot more research to do before I pull the trigger, but I'm planning to throw a couple grand in this direction myself.

<comment><USER31> Sounds like somebody was watching 60 Minutes last night.

Here's a full article about one of the guys they profiled: [http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/04/wall- str...](http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/04/wall-street- excerpt-201004?printable=true&currentPage=1)

<comment><USER30> Nope, coincidence. Been looking at this for a few weeks. Thanks for telling me, though: I'll take into consideration anything that looks like a spike from the media attention.

<comment><USER32> See if you can implement an improved information system if they have a really bad one. Their cause of failure: bad information. On the other hand maybe they have some good information that can be useful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Think about how you can differentiate yourself in the angel market. What do you believe in the potential of that you don't think is shared by a lot of more established names? What do you think everyone else is missing? I bet there's something.

Track down the most talented people you can find working on that unfairly underserved idea and make it your cause.

</comment><comment><USER34> All on black.

<comment><USER35> Or 8 or 6 on the craps table... Heck even the pass line...

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I would advise against anything like angel investing. You're not in a position where liquidity concerns wouldn't pop up, so having access to your money (should you need it) is important. Angel investing means tying down your cash for years...

I personally suggest you follow Nassim Taleb's advice (he of Black Swan fame), which you seem to be doing by keeping the majority in conservative,safe investments and looking to score big with the remaining. If you're looking for home-runs, I suggest options trading. There's a lot of volatility in the market, and if you time things right you should be able to generate a handsome return.

Good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm a fan of Taleb's philosophy. I've actually dabbled in options trading with straddles.

<comment><USER36> Hmmm, very interesting. Are you doing it based on arbitrage, for mergers or when earnings come out? Which sectors do you dabble in? I'm curious to how your strategy has worked out so far!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Don't ever buy a variable annuity.

1\. Some forms of oil and real estate investments, in some states, can be a significant tax deduction. Otherwise consider saving this money for future tax benefits or new opportunities.

2\. Get involved in the community where you want to work with angels. It looks like you've already started. People make angels, not a brand.

Go to YC demo days <http://ycombinator.com/dday.html>

If the $50k is more than 1% of your liquid assets you should consider short- term investments until you're in a position where angel opportunities find you.

<comment><USER38> What's wrong with a variable annuity? Just curious b/c I don't know anything about annuities but they sound good for the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> 1) I wouldn't, but you could do real estate, franchising or futures/options trading.

2) If you want to consider angel investing alongside me, email me.

<comment><USER7> Angel Investment? Seriously? For a guy with $50k in the bank??? Surely you must know how Angel investing works, right?

You might as well advise him to take his money to the dog track. It's better odds and more fun.

<comment><USER39> He's the one talking about it. I'm just offering a way to think about it in a more focused manner.

<comment><USER7> Ah, in which case your answer should have been "No. Angel investing only works if you invest in dozens of companies, since chances are any one of them will go under."

Or better still, "No. You should take it all out in twenty dollar bills, box it up and send it UPS to that Expat Software guy." I'd back you up on that one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Enter in contact with other angel investors, sometimes they group together in a fund and they will be happy to help you invest the $ 50,000.

</comment><comment><USER41> Not so much an investment...Come up with some crazy idea to do with the money, do it, then write a book on it.

Anyone remember the guy who sold everything he owned, went to Vegas and put all the cash he had on black, then wrote a book. Might have been a documentary too.

Then there was KLF who burned a million quid but I don't see how they made their money back.

</comment><comment><USER42> I would invest half of it in low risk mutual funds and then take the other half over to my friend Asadulah who works in securities...

</comment><comment><USER43> 1) bootstrap a company....get products out the door.....try to find product/market fit

2) best starting point is to go through the cycle yourself....if you haven't, refer to response to 1)....this investment in building a company will pay off down the road when you want to invest in other startups (and have accredited investor status, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER44> There was an idea floating around the blogosphere a few weeks ago about investing in individual rather than an specific company. Where you would pull in a percentage of that persons net income for the rest of your life...could be interesting.

<comment><USER45> That sounds like slavery.

<comment><USER46> No, slavery would be _forcing_ someone to work for you (rather like what the government does when it forces people to pay an income tax.) Contracting with someone for a percentage of their income is rather like investing in their startup with the agreement that they will work for the startup for a long time.

<comment><USER47> No dude it is slavery, it is called indentured servitude (classified as a form of slavery) and it is illegal. The reason being that if allowed it is easy for the rich to drive down the market until you sign up for service or you starve. If allowed, the vast majority on this board would be indentured in less than 15 years. The worst part is that it never becomes enough, fathers have to enlist there sons, before they can consciously accept or reject just to be competitive. If they ever legalized this in America, I would revolt the day it was passed, it may be a revolution of one, but it would be a revolution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> You could loan it out over Kiva, or at least a part of it. Just be sure whatever you choose, for any of your investments, that they at least beat the rate of inflation, else you are better of spending it.

<comment><USER49> Kiva does not even pay interest, so I don't see how this fits the description of a potentially high-risk investment with the possibility for a large payout.

<comment><USER50> That's not true; Kiva often charges extraordinarily high interest rates. See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiva_(organization)#Interest_ra...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiva_\(organization\)#Interest_rates_2)

<comment><USER51> It charges interest to borrowers, but it doesn't pay interest to donor- investors.

<comment><USER52> Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?

<comment><USER51> I lend on Kiva, and I don't have a problem with it. There's a lot that has to happen between my Paypal transfer to Kiva and the money being distributed to the local entrepreneur...and even more that has to happen to collect the payments.

I'm happy to set aside a small amount of money as a catalyst for progress, and thankful that others are doing the heavy lifting.

(Apologies for continuing this off-topic line of conversation.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Buy 50 servers and start leasing VPS for $19 a month. 1000 clients will leave 20k a month enough to pay a sysadmin and pocket some cash while you monitor everything from hawaii.

<comment><USER54> I don't think shared hosting has the "home-run" type upside that he's looking for.

<comment><USER15> the difference between a 'vps' and 'the cloud' is little more than an API layer. Many people seem to think there is much upside in the cloud.

(that said, I'm not saying you are wrong; owning infrastructure and renting it out usually has a reasonable and predictable (and not huge) upside.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Invest in India via <http://money.rediff.com/mutual-funds/high-risk>

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm in a very similar situation - I don't have any great advice, but I'd love to discuss "offline" and hear whatever conclusions you come to.

</comment><comment><USER57> I'd ask myself how much time I'd want to spend in growing the $50K. An angel requires time to help cultivate an idea. Do you have time?

</comment><comment><USER58> I would say: get your pilot's license. It seems that you pretty well set, it should be pretty fun to fly. Also a cool conversation point

</comment><comment><USER59> Nothing beats Greyhounds: <http://www.thedogs.co.uk/Ownership.aspx>.

</comment><comment><USER60> What's your definition of a home-run.

1x return a success or multiples? and in what time frame?

Invest in me :)

</comment><comment><USER61> Though one. Are you willing to spend significant time on those angel investments?

</comment><comment><USER62> Give it to charity. Sounds like you have more than enough.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm a programmer I typically make ~72k a year. But for 50k, I'll work for you for 1 year. The catch, is you have to let me work on whatever I want (provided you agree it has profit potential) we can discuss further details if you're interested.

hey its worth a shot :)

</comment><comment><USER63> Buy/get a dataset, such as images or audio or biological data, and spend the money on computing time to do machine learning/genetic programming to create a classifier from it. Sell/rent out the classifier for big bucks.

For example, label smiling/unsmiling faces on 10,000 images using mechanical turk, run an algorithm (neural net,svm,genetic programming) on it using your own computer cluster or amazon ec2. Once you have the classifier, allow people to use for a small payment each time.

There are almost infinite number things to do in this way, some examples

accent identification in audio ; telling the gender/race of person from photo ; labeling person attractive/not attractive

<comment><USER64> I'd be really interested in working in machine learning, so if you know an easy way to make money from it, I would be interested to learn more. You think such a classifier would be an easy sell?

<comment><USER63> It's use is already sold (rather expensively) in inspection/robot systems in factories and in automatic license plate recognition.

I imagine it would be easy to sell. Create a classifier that rates a user's attractiveness and many dating sites or individial users might interested in paying for it.

Call centers might be interested in paying for accent identification, they can route a call based on accent to a employee with similar accent.

Microsoft will release project natal later this year and probably make billions from it.

As far i can see the opportunity is absolutely huge (trillions and trillions of dollars) since it is so commercially useful (unlike the web industry which has been based around selling eyeballs).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Right now you don't have funds to be an Angel, usually it requires $250,000 or higher in income and proof of yearly investments. That means you barely made the minimum requirements.

However, you could join an Angle VC investment club where they pool resources including doing fact checking on deals.

An alternative option might be do the startup yourself rather than attempt to become Angel as you already are at zero debt and security/retirement taken care of..in which case a mobile app might be ideal as a startup

Non Angel wise..municipal bonds

</comment><comment><USER66> lottery tickets

<comment><USER67> 50,000 $1 scratch-offs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I just wrote a program to trade stocks. The testing makes around 30% annually. I don't believe it since I know myself too well but can't see where the error is. Put your money in an account, let me trade for 6 months live and see what happens. I can send you "testing proof" except the code for review. Would automate it if it does work. One last thing, taxes on this might be the killer but compounding after a few years might make it worth it..

<comment><USER69> You just wrote a program that loses money.</comment></comment>


Why one in five U.S. adults don't use the Internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/13/tech/web/pew-not-using-internet/index.html <comment><USER2> This seems to be normal in most other countries as well. For example in Japan, UK etc Internet penetration grows to about 75-80% and then stops.</comment>


Feedback on new Fantasy Football Social Community - <AUTHOR>

My name is Evan, and I am the original founder of Pigskin Boss - fantasy football's first true social community. We just launched 4-5 weeks ago at the start of the football season, and was hoping to get your guys' feedback and thoughts about what we've built thus far.
We're currently building an automatic team import so all you have to do is provide your ESPN or Yahoo! login and it automatically pulls your roster from that site - something we're excited for.
I look forward to your thoughts! <comment><USER2> Should I Make this trade

Is it possible to see the Full Rosters of the teams invovled? For example, if someone has Romo as a QB2 then Romo +CJ2K for Lynch becomes a good trade.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, you can actually click on their username and it takes you to their office which shows their full roster. We're currently working on adding a link on the poll to make it easy that says "See full roster". Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Go to www.pigskinboss.com to test it out.</comment>


Use Hulu, Netflix, Pandora and Rdio from any country - <AUTHOR> http://www.mediahint.com/

<comment><USER2> <http://www.mediahint.com/terms>

"in any way that breaches terms of service or any other regulations of use of the websites you access;"

Look, if you want to run a site/service violating copyright agreements, do it properly and post funny replies to the DMCA requests. Or whatever. But don't try to hide behind this pathetic pseudo-legalese bs.

<comment><USER3> I believe a appropriate way to handle this would be to say something like:

"In order to use this service, You must have obtained a waiver from Hulu, Netflix or Pandora that allows you to waive paragraph X of their terms of service. If you do not have express permission, You may not continue."

Not sure how well it would hold up but in theory it would put the responsibility on the consumer and not the supplier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been using <http://www.unblock-us.com/> for the last year. It's been a great service to access Netflix/Hulu.

<comment><USER5> Same here. I have no problem paying the $5/month if it means the service stays up and runs flawlessly.

<comment><USER6> I use unotelly personally, but I completely agree. The fact that it works on my iphone, ipad, appletv, etc is completely worth the measly $5 a month.

This app seems nice, but it a) only works in chrome and b) is free, so I wonder how long it will stay around, or if they're going to start selling my eyeballs for compensation.

<comment><USER7> There are a few options when it comes to geo unblocking dns services and I agree with harisenbon - although I am using <http://playmo.tv> (happily for over a year now)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would assume Hulu et. al. restrict based on IP address. So is MediaHint running a large number of proxy servers? It seems this was put together at a hackathon... if so, how are they planning to get it to pay for itself?

</comment><comment><USER9> They are routing this through Azure, their bandwidth bill is going to be through the roof.

<comment><USER10> Nah, if you read the PAC you see, only page requests are been routed through the proxy, actual media streams are connected directly.

Which makes sense. IP detection is done on web page, not actual media CDN servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> As far as rdio is concerned, there is no requirement for a proxy server. They actually allow "US users" to travel abroad and listen to rdio. So, what you need to do is get through registration somehow.

That works pretty well if you:

a. Have a credit card with a US address

b. Can go through Amazon payments with a US zipcode

I have a credit card with a US address and therefore was able to sign up with no problems at all. Been using rdio for over a year and really enjoying it :)

For those that do not have a card with a US address, it's still possible to get through using one of those pre-paid debit cards/asking an American buddy to help/something else.

TLDR; rdio does not do IP based filtering.

<comment><USER12> It should also be noted that rdio is available in Canada too. So I guess the above would work with Canadian info/payment methods.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So how is this any different then linking to a torrent tracker? I mean, I get it, I live in New Zealand and it sucks that our only legal option for viewing media is by paying for SKY and waiting 6 months - a year or more for shit to reach us.

This is still copyright infringement though, you are not authorized to view the media because you live outside the countries that these companies have the rights to broadcast to.

I can't help but feel this sort of shit is just to make people feel better about piracy. You may as well just be honest with yourself and go ahead and download torrents, at least then you aren't actually costing Hulu, Netflix, Pandora etc money by using their bandwidth.

<comment><USER12> How is giving Hulu ad impressions or paying for a Netflix account costing those companies money? I don't see this as being much different than importing DVDs from the US. With this method someone gets paid, just not the local distributer. But why do they deserve the money anyways if they can't get you the content sooner?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What I do: Use <http://netshade.com>, pay for the proxy service and get 4-5 high quality proxies in the US (plus some others)

Works like a charm for Netflix and others.

</comment><comment><USER15> You can always just set up an SSH tunnel into an EC2 instance (or your home computer, if you don't have an EC2 account). Tell Firefox to route its traffic through your local proxy and use that for streaming.

<comment><USER16> EC2 is blocked by Hulu and, I think, Netflix. I know I tried that here in Vietnam with no success and went with VyprVPN instead.

<comment><USER15> Worked for me in April on Netflix from Spain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder how long this will last before the proxy is banned?

</comment><comment><USER18> What I would love is a walk through on how to get the new cable-less HBO Go, now offered in Scandinavia for $10 a month, to work in the US.

</comment><comment><USER19> Canadian here.

Pandora and Hulu flag me as a non-US resident, Rdio worked although I didn't proceed with signup. Netflix I already get but very limited compared to the US.

edit: nevermind I'm a dumbass. It's like unblockus I understand now.

<comment><USER12> rdio is already available in Canada.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Scary that it wants access to all websites. Is that needed? Beyond that, I have to say it works really easy: Install the extension, and nothing changes but Hulu works here.

<comment><USER21> Chrome warns about many plugins wanting access to all sites. IIRC it's a problem with Chrome's regex matching rather than any plugin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It works! I finally can listen do Pandora again.

</comment><comment><USER12> So where is the traffic being routed through?

<comment><USER17> I just downloaded the proxy configuration file - <http://mediahint.com/default.pac>

It seems to be running through us.mediahint.com</comment></comment>


Chrony – A versatile implementation of the Network Time Protocol  - <AUTHOR> http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/index.html

<comment><USER2> I've been using chrony to sync 18 CPUs in a realtime application. I've found it to be a mixed bag. Once it gets syncing, it's really good. I've got it set up so I'm accurate to w/in a few microseconds on my LAN. But getting the initial sync fast is extremely unintuitive, impossible, poorly documented or some combo of all three. I don't think it was designed with the thought that the machines would get rebooted every night -- which is our case. I had to write some upstart scripts to perform the initial sync and then let chrony take over from there...

<comment><USER3> chrony maintainer here. If the initial sync is slow, it probably means the initial offset of the clock is large and chronyd is correcting it by slewing, which may take a long time. You can use the initstepslew or makestep directive to step the clock on start. A configuration optimized for a fast and tight sync with a local NTP server could be:

      server ntp.lan minpoll 2 maxpoll 4 iburst
      makestep 0.1 1

<comment><USER2> Thanks! I'll try it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used to use this and then just switched to systemd's timesyncd. It's already integrated and less dependencies.

[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd- timesyncd](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-timesyncd)

[http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd- time...](http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd- timesyncd.service.html)

<comment><USER5> Not sure i would consider being part of the whole systemd blob as having "less dependencies".

Maybe if your chosen distro has adopted systemd already, but then the dependencies are masked but that fact rather than reduced in a real sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> djb's clockspeed is amazingly simple, straightforward, and reliable: [http://cr.yp.to/clockspeed.html](http://cr.yp.to/clockspeed.html) . I prefer it to the more complicated ntp daemons because I can make it do exactly what I want in weird situations.</comment>


EU plans 'right to repair' rules for phones and tablets - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/11/eu-brings-in-right-to-repair-rules-for-phones-and-tablets <comment><USER2> This looks like a positive step in a healthy direction. Attacking the garden walls, upgrade ratchets and incompatible proprietary formats and protocols would also be positive steps with related benefits. Locking customers into one platform and then changing the software and protocols that form the foundations of that platform in ways that break backward compatibility results in a lot of unnecessary wastage in all of physical equipment, user data and the financial costs paid by users.

</comment><comment><USER3> they should focus on making rules around product obsolescence. phones and computers should work with latest OS for 10 years or more

<comment> 0-_-0 They should also have a replaceable battery if you want them to work for 10 years. And an SD card slot to keep up with storage requirements. Not many decent phones like that in the last year:

[https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2019&nDisplay...](https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?nYearMin=2019&nDisplayResMin=2073600&idCardslot=1&idBatRemovable=1)

(I also included at least FullHD resolution in the search)

<comment><USER4> You have to keep in mind that that removable battery has disappeared from devices for a reason: it's inefficient. Even having a case around it and providing the connector and latch means you're making the battery smaller and the device bigger.

That said, I do feel like there's a reasonable middle ground to be had: not a swappable battery, but a very easily replaceable one. No special hex screws, etc. Sure you can't carry around six of them, but if you can replace it once a year you probably won't need to... and you can always carry a power bank with you instead to recharge it on the go.

I think the SD card requirement is short sighted. As often as storage (and cables, not to mention other things) change I think the added space requirements in something like a phone, even for something as small as an SD card (plus the adapter and the spring mechanism, housing, etc.) is a waste. In a decade you may not be able to even find the same kind of storage anymore. Even if you can it's not like the latest game that rings in at a bazillion gigathings that would so totally easily fit on your new SD card is actually going to run on your 9.5 year old phone - the processor, memory, etc. simply wont be up to the job.

<comment> 0-_-0 I guess the SD card thing depends on your requirements, but I like carrying my music library with me and a few movies, so I don't mind if the volume of my phone is a few cubic millimeters more.

I would be fine with an easily replaceable battery though... but again, I don't mind a little more volume.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I fear this will end up being big on inefficient recycling instead of reuse and actual repair.

<comment><USER6> Why?

<comment><USER4> Not OP, but I'm guessing they were referring to the drastically higher costs involved in actually opening, diagnosing, and replacing a part in something as complex and intricate as an iPhone.

Since it will be prohibitively expensive to take your phone to a store and have someone actually do that (ie: repair it), instead the rule will amount to some complex and less-than-ideal alternative where you can turn in your phone and get a refurbished one instead...

They then "recycle" your old broken phone - ship it back somewhere with significantly cheaper labor (and less strict disposal regulations) where they do some very basic component harvesting (such as screens and storage for those refurbs) and then melt down or simply trash the rest.

In the end you still can't actually repair your old device (and really, that's often just an unrealistic expectation this day in time, they're just too small and complex) and we've just institutionalized a wasteful system to make ourselves feel better.

<comment><USER6> That's absurd. The plan is to _make_ devices repairable. Current devices not being repairable is the problem being solved. What you've described is the status quo.

<comment><USER7> Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via government force, we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable.

Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway people from buying ones that are not repairable, and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays.

Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open? Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are entitled to and need to have protected by law?

<comment><USER6> > Instead of dictating an arbitrary and likely unrealistic featureset via > government force,

Strawman.

> we can all vote with our wallets and not buy phones that aren't repairable.

"Voting with one's wallet" just doesn't work.

> Clearly, the demand for repairable phones is not sufficiently high to sway > people from buying ones that are not repairable,

Yes, that's the problem.

> and, more importantly, it may not be possible to make a phone meaningfully > repairable with how small delicate technology in phones is nowadays.

Then the technology has to get bigger again. It's called a trade-off.

> Not to mention, how do we determine what level of repairability is > sufficient, and by what metric? What parts should be interchangeable? > Battery and camera? Should we merely make the phone's case easy to open?

It's almost as if making decisions involved making decisions. What's your point?

> Why is any one or a combination of these things something that consumers are > entitled to and need to have protected by law?

That's in the article. Besides, "because they (resp. their elected representatives) want" is a perfectly valid and sufficient reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I guess this will had nothing to do within the availability to use good Nokia Lumia Phones within them extraordinary 42Mp Carl Zeiss camera within a Linus' based Operating System.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wondering what Louis Rossmann thinks of this EU plan. He has been big on promoting right to repair in the US.</comment>