skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not sure what you mean by "sharing" in this context but I did note your mini-autobiography above:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47588

Here's an example of what I mean by there being no generic "good" team:

Give me the top 5 athletes in the world. Maybe you pick Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Roger Federer, LaDainian Tomlinson, and Wayne Gretzky. Or maybe you pick Barry Bonds; or a top marathoner or sprinter or a boxer. Then I tell you we're playing basketball. And you get beaten by Venezuela.

> Again, thanks for sharing your experience.

I think you're taking what I'm saying the wrong way.

I'm pointing out that if you don't care what you work on, your results won't be as good. Thus, you should figure out what you do care about, and work on that.
I hate when websites store my password. It's quite irksome when, if you forget your password, they send it to you plain, in an email, instead of just sending you a reset link. When I get these emails, I know they are storing my password, and in all likelihood, they are storing it in plain text. The worst offense was when I once ordered some business cards: Packed in with my shipment was an invoice with my password on it. Huh?

We never know our users' passwords. There's a brief moment, during registration, when we technically have their password, but it is immediately thrown away after we store the hash of it in the DB.
05/11/01. When did u know you wanted to do  a startup? (for me..)
For me it was somewhere between reading that article and December of 2005.
http://news.ycombinator.com/jobs
I can't speak on C# vs Python or C# vs. Lisp, since I haven't coded in either of those languages. I can speak on C# vs. php - I just finished a job with php and started C#. Originally,I thought I loved it because of the library (ie dataset, dataview,gridview), and garbage collection. Then the object orientedness of it all got really, really hard to implement rapidly. I may still use it to write sockets and hwnd stuff for windows (I'm a game dev), but for web stuff, I'll stick with php and maybe learn py.
Once someone told me about a guy who invented the disk brake, he went to a racing team to offer it, but they told him "we're looking for something to speed up our cars, not to slow them down."

At the end, disk brakes helped a lot in racing because drivers could reduce speed in less time which gave them more time to accelerate.

(I don't know if this is a true story or just a joke, but its a great story!)
I do agree with the article's point. Money is an abstract representation of wealth, a way to procure wealth -- the things we may want. Now, that said, money and wealth both tend to have strings attached. Investment, at least, is honest about that. On the topic of "acquiring" freedom, its been my experience that unspent money, potential for wealth, does more for providing freedom, because it provides the flexibility to react to a changing situation in a way that allows one to take the path with the fewest consequences. Not always the path that costs the least or that requires the smallest effort, but there are opportunity costs in everything.
Q: How does startup by two hackers get a well-designed website? How much does it matter?

Paul Graham: Matters different amounts depending on the application. The solution Google uses is just to make pages very bare and functional. They have no design sense, but they try not to need it.
Yep that's still the name. Sort of keeping low for now.
Obviously, you're not a typical user (unless the website in question is geared toward security enthusiasts, maybe). We admire your conscientiousness, but your preferences are more or less irrelevant for someone who wants to figure out what users want.
>Reddit did it.

Yeah, exactly, and created a massive privacy breach for themselves and more importantly their users when they were exposed.

Storing plain text passwords is a symptom of bad programming, end of story.
>to figure out what users want.

Most of them prefer secure systems.
It has nothing to do with programming. It's a design choice that has only a few downfalls which basically coincide with huge security problems.

If a user has the ability to run a query on your DB, I doubt the dangerous one is to log in as a user... Same goes with swiping your laptop.
They are labeled as ads. Is "grok" really the world you were looking for?
Thanks, i know a couple of guys who will appreciate this. ;-D
04/18/2007
That's a meaningless statement. Are you implying there is a definite line between secure and insecure systems? That's false. Are you saying that given a choice between a security feature and a convenience feature, most users will choose the security one? That's false too. Are you saying that if you ask a user, "do you prefer secure or insecure systems?", he'll say "secure"? That's true, but irrelevant. There are a dozen more ways that could be interpreted.
Is that the day they emailed me back that rejection.
12/22/2005
dbosson@gmail.com
Besides being ugly, what do PlentyOfFish, Ebay, Craigslist and MySpace have in common? They are sites which are built entirely around user-created content - the more of it, the better.

Ugly works well for these sites because it's inviting. There is no shame in posting blurry pictures, poorly spelled prose, or badly edited movies on an ugly site. After all, ugly is the norm there.

It's kind of embarrassing to see your own clunky prose and ugly photos stuck in the middle of a beautifully designed page. Unless, of course, you are a troll or a vandal, but what site wants to attract those?

Would you feel comfortable holding a yard sale in an upscale mall, a few steps from the Apple Store? Probably not. The junk from your basement would look pretty shabby by comparison. The clientele is all wrong. People might laugh at you. You would feel better - and maybe have better sales - if you set up shop at the flea market, or on a street corner. PlentyOfFish, eBay, and Craigslist are in the flea market business.

Of course, if you're trying to sell your legal services, attract paying subscribers, or encourage your users to contribute only the highest-quality content, ugly is probably the wrong design for your site.
Lots and Lots of Google Phone Rumors: HTC, Android, and even Yahoo in the mix
Sprint Sucks And Their New Website Is Stupid
Boing Boing New New Look Look
Wall Street Journal Discovers Social Networks Other than Facebook
You're asking me to resolve ambiguity by presenting more ambiguous choices. I think you intend "solely dependent on" when you say "dependent on".

A decision is both likely to be affected by, and dependent on, multiple factors. In YC's particular case of selecting among many young, first-time, unproven, possible entrepreneurs, there likely isn't much of a track record to go by so the decision has a very large subjective component. Not only can they not predict the market performance of what you're building, but they want you to be "flexible" with the idea, even to the point of throwing it away and switching to something completely different. In those cases it means they can't possibly objectively evaluate your plan, because you don't have one yet.

The greater the lack of objective data, the more subjective preference comes into play.
I said I don't care what project I take on as long as I'm with a great group of people, but you quoted me saying that I don't care (careless). That's a big difference.
I have not looked at the software exams and if your assessment of them is a common one then there are likely problems with the current exam.

I have looked at the EE FE/PE exams and I thought they were decent and fair. I suspect that most practicing non-PE EEs would agree with my assessmet. EE is a much more mature field however.

If the exam is done correctly requiring an ABET degree is probably not necessary. But frankly if math and physics majors want to pass the exam they should either take some engineering classes or be prepared to do some additional work on their own time. Truly talented people will be able to learn what they need to without much effort.

The apprenticeship is probably valuable.

Being required to produce evidence of significant engineering design work is critically important.
I'm saying that if you gave the option to users about whether they would like the site to store their passwords in plain text or encrypted, most would choose the latter.

The argument that "we can give the the same password" is bunk. You don't even know if that's the user you're giving the password to!

The password could be reset and the user could change it back to the one they were using previously. Clearly, if they've forgotten it, I'm not sure why you figure it's so important for the password to stay the same.
Iminlikewithyou.com is invite only. If you've been invited, it's not undiscovered. If you haven't been invited, then discovering it does nothing for you. This suggests to me that either pcmag people aren't very clever, or (more likely) this is work of a PR firm.
This was really annoying. The residents were also practically staging a revolution, with flyers asking to file complaints about violationgs against the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Only upside: When you're doing laundry, this is quite a workout (3x up and down).
>It's a design choice that has only a few downfalls

One of those downfalls is exposing your user to a host of vulnerabilities should one of those other "security problems" happen.

Why would you figure that the user is only using your DB? Websites are plentiful, and the "typical" user has one password for many sites. If they don't, they're hardly attached to the current one - they forgot it after all!

It's understanding that your app doesn't exist in a bubble and looking out for the best interests of your users that leads to storing passwords in a hash. When you have "design decisions" that put marginal convenience over security, I honestly question the integrity of you as the owner operator.

Why exactly do you need to see my password anyway?
Safe from the Losing Fight: A day in the life of a software engineer
And if you gave the option to users of being able to retrieve their old password or have a new one generated, most would choose the former. And if you explained the drawbacks and advantages of each approach and made the user make an informed decision, most users would just click the Back button.
I think retrieving a password is more than a marginal convenience for some audiences. And again, off all the things in a database you don't want the world to see or manipulate, a user's password is pretty low down on the list.

No matter what, as the operator of a website, you'll need to make your own decisions about the various tradeoffs involved.

edit: If, as you asserted, a user forgetting a password means that they're not attached to it, that's all the more reason to keep it around, since they aren't using it elsewhere. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that people won't break in and see the database (short of you screwing something more important up).
>And if you gave the option to users of being able to retrieve their old password or have a new one generated, most would choose the former

Do you have any evidence at all to support that?
>off all the things in a database you don't want the world to see or manipulate, a user's password is pretty low down on the list.

Clearly, we disagree philosophically on this point. I just hope my bank never starts thinking like that.
If I were your bank, I wouldn't even be relying on passwords alone. Like I said, per application decision-making is the only 'right' approach here.
Yeah, great. That just made me feel worse.
That's a misinterpretation. Maybe this quote will explain it better:

"I'm convinced that the only thing that kept me going was that I loved what I did. You've got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle." -- Steve Jobs

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-06150...

(You can also find it on Google Video)

> as long as I'm with a great group of people

Except how are you going to know that until they do great work? Which is very unlikely if you're not all working on what you love. If you don't care what you work on, then you haven't found what you love -- otherwise you'd work on that.

Merely being "great" without reference to a particular context isn't very useful. Take your favorite 5 entrepreneurs, stick them in a room, and probably nothing gets done. PG and Max Levchin we know; maybe Marc Andreessen; take your pick. They probably couldn't even agree on a language, and they're all used to being the one in charge.
"Subjective preference" and "whim" are two completely different things. Let's look at the post that started all of this: "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's whim". If you replace that with "Don't leave your fate up to someone else's subjective preference", that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it? Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the subject.
No, i don't have any evidence, other than anecdotal. It's what I would prefer, because changing the password from random to something that I might remember is an extra step, and an unnecessary one unless security really matters (e.g. money is involved). I took it as given that people prefer less work over more work.
No, there's no "misinterpretation." I hope you respect that I choose to follow more credible sources. It's very hard to take somebody's advice who we don't know. Maybe you care to share your background? Thanks for the discussion!

I DO want to work on what I want to work on, but with investment and other people (which might not be exactly what I or my team envisioned, of course.)
I have no experience in PHP (nor Python). What makes the two easier (or more rapid) to implement in OO way compare to C#?

I think the tools for .NET makes it better than others.
Open Education Search
Psychology of risk-taking
He made something lots of people want: "Adobe Hires Co-Inventor of Image Resizer Technology"
One Laptop Per Child - a demonstration
You might find it helpful to check the definition. Amer. Heritage: whim: "Arbitrary thought or impulse". Arbitrary: "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference".

> that doesn't sound quite so undeniably prudent anymore, does it?

Good thing it's definitionally equivalent and I used the form that would provoke a stronger visceral response, in order to get the idea across more forcefully.

YC should just be one possible tool you can use. Keep in mind that if you do actually have something valuable, you're doing them quite a favor by letting them get a percentage for such a tiny investment.

> Especially considering that the "someone else" in question is highly authoritative on the subject.

You're a bit mixed-up there. Starting your own investment company doesn't make you an expert on people and ideas any more than starting your own record label makes you an expert on music.

It's also fairly apparent that no one person is going to be a good filter for all ideas or people. We've all been surprised by various start-up successes.
Some recommendations for intro to econ books :)

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2007/08/for_introductor_...
Hey, the great economists are the ones who get really good at just making shit up.

Check out Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nJFFrLX-924C

Isohunt also shows me the book and audio book is available free online.
Yes, math and physics majors will most definitely have to do a lot of study outside their fields if they want to get involved in software, as will civil, electrical, or nuclear engineers. However, I don't really see why math majors should have to learn properties of materials to demonstrate that they are prepared to write reliable software, any more than engineers should have to figure out how to pass an exam on real analysis, group theory, and topology in order to get licensed to write software.
I created this section in a hurry, so if there any bugs, just let me know.
> I DO want to work on what I want to work on

That's funny, you just spent several messages reiterating that you didn't care what project you worked on.

To me, "please give me money and great people to work with" is not a convincing pitch. Plus, if I already have a group of great people working on something, why would I want to burden them with an additional person who had no particular interest in what they were working on?

On the other hand, if you were really interested in a particular problem domain and had expertise or at least enthusiasm for it specifically, then you're giving investors a more compelling reason to put their money behind you. Remember that investors aren't only the VCs and angels, they're the people you're working with. They have a lot invested, too.
> Starting your own investment company doesn't make you an expert on people and ideas

True, but advising dozens of startups, some of which became highly successful, does. Especially when your investment money came from the sale of your own successful startup.

"Whim" and "arbitrary" have a connotation of carelessness; I don't think they fit here.

Still, there's truth in what you're saying: The large number of applications necessitates that they use heuristics and gut feelings to choose whom to interview. Their rejection letter admits that the process isn't perfect, and it would be unwise to give up on an idea on the basis of a YC rejection.
I'm not sure why this is inspiring. Have you seen the site?
The word "arbitrary" has several meanings, but for each instance of its use, there is only one meaning, and the context determines which one it is. In the definition of "whim", the meaning of "arbitrary" is not one you mentioned, but this one: "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle". Unfortunately, that makes it a bit circular. Let's try another dictionary. Webster gives "existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will", which I think is suitable in that context.

Of course, your judgment of what is suitable in the context may be different from mine, but there is at least one thing that speaks in my favor: your very own claim that your version "would provoke stronger visceral response". Why would it, if its meaning was the same?
I'm going to buy General Mills shares.
In the last round, we got an e-mail from PG back within hours. It said, basically, "Too many uncommitted founders. Ditch some and hire them back as employees when you have money." We had submitted one day before the deadline (I'd thought it was half an hour actually...I misunderstood the deadline), and he encouraged us to resubmit if we could deal with the founder issue.

We ended up getting rejected anyway, but he turned out to be right. Basically, if there's an obvious problem with the application, he'll point it out to you. Don't expect him to write volumes or fix something that's so far out in left field that it's hopeless, though. Maybe a paragraph or so.

I also got back a long response from Trevor when I applied to SFP05. In retrospect it had a lot of good points, though I wasn't ready to hear them at the time. I doubt they have time to do that sort of detailed fixes/clarifications now, though.
The beginning of the end of Sequoia?
It's not completely impossible to do good work on the .Net platform.

But it is very, very unlikely.

.Net teaches programmers to write code to .Net, to Microsoft rules. It teaches its victims to use the excreable "viewstate" and POST when they mean to GET and pass volumes of unnecessary and poorly-encoded data back and forth between the server and client. .Net programmers learn to drag and drop things onto forms which Visual Studio then clogs up with layers of absolute-positioning tags, ensuring that the resulting pages will only display correctly on certain browsers with certain window-sizes and absolutely will not print properly, even when the planets are properly aligned. But that's okay, with .Net you can use Reporting Services to design hundreds of divergent "reports." .Net teaches programmers to code to Microsoft's api, not to web standards, fundamental principles of math and computer science or, frequently, to common sense.

It isn't to Microsoft's advantage for developers to consider other options and thus they try with great success to prevent .Net developers from realizing those options even exist. Microsoft documentation almost never refers to RFCs, even when doing so would be helpful. They hide the browser object model as much as they can and instead present the .Net wrapper for the browser object model as the only truth, with a Microsoft registered-trademark character after every thought.

It is possible to do good work on the .Net platform; it's just very, very unlikely.

Perhaps I've gone too far with this rant. As you may guess, it results from great frustration with well-funded idiocy in the wasteland of corporate American IT. Also I just tried to pay my property taxes online and the lovely .aspx page blew up with a CLIENT-SIDE VBSCRIPT error.

Good grief.

But here is a final and positive thought: quite a lot of business in the world is run on very poorly-designed systems, whether .Net or otherwise. Perhaps there much opportunity and advantage to be gained in creating better systems to replace them.
Wasn't plentyoffish the first free one? After that, network effects is all that matters.
I don't think that's what you said in the other posts. I find it very hard to follow your posts because you've made about 30 different points. At this time, there are more credible resources than yourself I choose to follow. I hope you respect that. If you would like to share your credentials and background like I have, then by all means.

I wish you well, and thanks for the discussion.
You can blame the tools if the only kind of intent they let designers get closer to is misguided intent. I can't think of a single use for non-standard fonts. In that, they are much like flashing images or control over the LEDs on your keyboard. Would you like designers to have that at their disposal, too?
So does Warren Buffett, but you wouldn't claim that the Chinese economy is partial Buffettism, eh? ;-)
> In the definition of "whim", the meaning of "arbitrary" is not one you mentioned

It most certainly is:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whim

> Why would it, if its meaning was the same?

You may as well ask, "Why do words matter?"

You're unsuccessfully trying to argue an academic point while ignoring the basic gist of the decision, which is de facto one of considerable extrapolation. There simply isn't enough data in many cases to make a decision based on reason; that leaves whim. Even in cases where the data is obvious, whim comes into play, which is why Cisco had to go to 70 or 80 venture capitalists despite doing hundreds of thousands a month in business already without outside investment. Other VCs' stories of "the one that got away" involve a long-haired Steve Jobs.

This is merely human nature. It's no particular indictment of YC, everyone does it. I'm advocating for not leaving your decision of what to do with your life up to any single investor, or indeed, a series of 70 or 80 of them.