skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I thought #1 was great and the rest felt like watered down or badly written versions of standard advice.

The focus on "algorithms 101" is pretty thinly veiled snobbery IMHO. If he knew math itself really well he'd probably claim that was of vital importance to all programming at Google too. Instead he falls back on what he does know that feels like "real computer science".

My experience is that most programming is usually pretty unscientific and that things like great taste in design are far more important than the scalability of any given algorithm.

I'd bet there are a 100 CS PHDs at Google for every truly challenging problem solvable by a more scalable algorithm.
It's funny, when he describes how he wrote Apple BASIC, it's exactly how a textbook compiler implementation works. His incremental symbol table is just a handwritten DFA. Then his noun stacks and verb stacks are basically how you'd write a parser, though they're usually just generalized into a single stack for a CFG.
I made this decision about two weeks ago: in my final year of an engineering/computer science double degree, I've decided to take a leave of absence and pursue some of the web startup ideas I have.

The decision was made when I saw other people successfully implementing ideas that I was trying to get done in my spare time. I still feel a bit reckless because I don't have the idea, just a lot of smaller potential ones, but the absolute worst thing that can happen is that I graduate one year later.

Lots of people told me that I should be careful that I don't throw away my degrees, but I can only see that happening in two ways: (a) I am wildly successful, in which case the degrees won't matter; or (b) I think that I'm on the verge of significant success right when the time comes to go back to uni. The latter is probably the most dangerous part of taking this path, so be sure that you can make a rational decision if (b) does happen.
Get a blog man -- they're free :-)

Funding is great for providing food, housing, servers, bandwidth, etc. If you can arrange all the practical issues yourself and can work full-time on your startup it definitely doesn't seem wise to take investment.

Taking investment is a huge risk and it should only be done in a calculated way. It has to be a net increase in your chances of success and for each company that calculation varies a lot. I don't think there is any right answer to this one.
Working for a company is bad for you. Some people need the safety and security of a job. They need someone to tell them when to be at work and what to do when they get there. They may be dedicated employees, they may even be great managers, but they have no desire to take the risk involved in starting something from scratch. They crave the comfort and security that comes from an established company and can't handle the very real possibility that if that start a company it might fail.
atlanta based co-founder (preference for Ga-tech/Emory folks)
Wall Street would hate them for it... but you know Google's fashion line would be just stylish enough to be a solid step up for your typical nerd.
I believe in small teams and people that has stock options...
I read something that could answer this on the hot or not blog founder few days ago.

http://james.hotornot.com/2007/02/on-having-balls-part-ii-staying-hungry.html
For all those who love to hear the word 'NO'
I submitted this manifesto by Hugh MacLeod (gapingvoid.com) for one reason and one reason only... it's a brilliant caption of what to do when YCombinator gives your spot away or when your prototype doesn't hit the fan after 6 months. Seth Godin has preached the same concepts when referring to his Squidoo project.

I think it's important that we all keep things in perspective. If I was a betting man (and I am), I would say that the first thing that ever drove an entrepreneur to write down an idea was not his visions of acceptance or someone else's money... it was to hold onto that idea forever and someday make it real.
Where you can find us all (if you're looking)
By that measure, neither is google.
ah duff's device.
YouTube doesn't really "do" full-length videos (30 minutes+). At least, that's not what I use it for. It gives me my diet of 2-minute-max vids of clips off of the news, silly crap, and, well, mostly silly crap.

So I don't really see this as a YouTube competitor as much as an iTunes competitor. And I'm okay with that. I'm curious to see where this goes, even though I really don't see it being a "game changer," as they state in the press release. BitTorrent was the game changer. These guys are just trying to save their business models.
I read some interesting comments by some of the contributors on this site, that made mention of how cool it would be if we could all meet up somewhere. I decided to see who felt like putting themselves on the map... literally.

I've driven 6 hours to meet a potential partner face to face. I've flown across the continent to "ask" for an interview with a dream employer. If anyone out there is as passionate about meeting the dreamers of today and leaders of tomorrow, please feel free to say so.

Let me begin: I'm Andrew and I'm in Toronto (yes, Canadians take risks too)

At the very least, many of you will find yourselves in the same city as others on this site and to me that's about as good an excuse to have a 2am coffee as any I can think of.

I've got a bit of a selfish motivation in that I'm looking for partner #3 and I think face-to-face is the best way to see how well the ideas flow and personalities mesh (and if we're lucky, clash!).
provide him the ownership and when they feel they too are the owners contribution and dedication automatically flows and that is what bind them together with the company.
it is not only about the funding but also about the network. Todays world information is wealth and information can be collected by network. Hence for network building funding is necessary.
Y Combinator only considers IVY League applicants?
I read an old RWW 2006 article that said if you're not from an ivy league school, than Y Combinator doesn't consider you. Anyone know if this is true?
This brings up a good point: choose your investors wisely.

While there are a plethora of non-technical investors that can potentially ruin your company, there's also technical investors who have been in the shoes of an early tech entrepreneur and have made it big. There's no guarantees of success, obviously, but it's important to take into consideration. I especially like Philip Greenspun's account of the tragic downfall of his company, ArsDigita: http://www.waxy.org/random/arsdigita/ (make sure to read it with a box of tissues handy, it's quite sad ;))
Does Panama fix Yahoo?
My name is Brandon and I live in Tulsa OK. While it's not on the list of top startup cities there are quite a few great tech people here thanks to the University of Tulsa. ;)
I think Ruby would be a great way to attack something like that. That fact that you can sit at such a high level with Ruby allows you to build great things. Besides, Rails makes you so much more productive than anything else I've tried, if it won't work at least you know quickly because you'll be able to get something done fast. That being said, just go build it! ;)
I live in Chapel Hill, NC and I am very sad - THE TAR HEELS LOST!
Zimbra announces desktop version of its web mail app
I was just thinking about this this morning - GMail and Hotmail are fine and all, but I've migrated back to a desktop email app simply because web interfaces don't cut it for complex tasks. This is the best of both worlds - desktop app for home and web mail for on the go.
Sure, I know. It's false (of course). Sounds like something written by someone we turned down. What is RWW?
Just stop to think about how fast those photos load on Facebook, and you'll know they're a tech-driven company.
As amusing as Philip's story is, screwups that spectacular are rare.
That these puzzles exist at all is the reason I don't use C for anything unless it's absolutely neccessary, like playing with CUDA, or highly desirable, like implementing a higher level language.

I mean don't get me wrong, I love the idea of such a thin layer ontop of assembler that with experience you can more or less compile in your head, but for a production environment? No thanks.
Read/Write Web.

I think he's referring to their profile on you: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/paul_graham_profile.php
Don't use Verizon EVDO for your Justin.tv clone
"The Unlimited Data Plans and Features MAY NOT be used for any other purpose. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) continuous uploading, downloading or streaming of audio or video programming or games; (ii) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; or (iii) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services and/or redirecting television signals for viewing on laptops is prohibited. A person engaged in prohibited uses, continuously for one hour, could typically use 100 to 200 MBs, or, if engaged in prohibited uses for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, could use more than 5 GBs in a month"

I wonder what they would have to say about Joost!

Does anyone have Sprint EVDO or EDGE with AT&T or Cingular and know if they have this same restriction?
Are you sure about that? We're on a network, and I suspect most of us are building networking tools. Networking is a lot easier now.

Plus, I think networking is a skill, not a service.

And think about the cost- not just the equity, but the strings. It would be cheaper to pay a highly networked individual a fee for making introductions than getting VC funding.

I understand the perspective of someone who has no entre into what seems like a closed community. But having had to learn the skill of networking (and still not being great at it) I've found that anyone who you should partner with, sell to, or do business with, is open to at least hearing enough to understand what your value is. Once I realized this, I started talking to CEOs of companies that I would meet at various places - conferences, on planes, cold calling, etc. A few have not understood, some were a bit put off, but this is the reaction maybe %5 of the time. Everyone else has at least thought about what I've said, and even when they've said "no", a good number of times they've given me a name of someone I should be talking to instead.

I think by itself, this isn't a good reason to pursue VC funding. Advice and introductions are much less expensive elsewhere.
Email verification? Email verification is no filter!
If you use an activation email, there really isn't a need for a captcha. Captchas are useful because users don't need to leave the current website, check their email, activate it, and come back -- they would have lost their thought inertia at that point, assuming they arrived at the verification step because they wanted to do something useful with whatever application.
If I am missing the point, do explain; I fail to see something to consider to add from that picture. That captcha is also terribly breakable.
I failed to make a distinction-- I am not opposed to funding, but think that VC funding is overrated.

If you are seeing your business as a 1-3 year affair- if you believe that in that time period you'll either crash or get bought or go big, and you don't have any resources... then taking VC funding to cover basics like food, housing, bandwidth, maybe makes sense. I would still say that angel funding is better. And if you're just out of college then its kind of a no-lose situation. You get funded, then you've won because you have a job until the funding runs out and even if you crash and burn, you'll still be well set up to do another startup.

But if you want to build something that lasts... you have to take into account all the costs of various types of funding. This I may not have illuminated as well.

After so many months, the VC funds turn into, effectively, a high interest rate loan with a lein against your business. If you go to sell, you may find that they get the entire proceeds. Sometimes they even put a 2-3x liquidation preference there... so even a success results in nothing to the founders.

The essense of these terms is that the clock is ticking, and you are put in a position where you have to hit a home run, or die trying. And the VC firm will guide you in this direction, and replace you if you do not make the choices that lead that way. They are only interested in home runs, not viable businesses.

This is also why acquisition is more popular now- the risk reward profile has changed, or at least people learned form the 1990s bubble.
I'm from Melbourne, looking for something interesting.
Portland, OR - Moving to the Bay Area ASAP though
1997 Paper: The special catalyst for Hotmail's torrid growth is called "Viral Marketing"
Some positive things that come from VC funding are:

-- Greater awareness of your business.

-- Their investment may validate your business in the eyes of potential partners, customers, etc.

-- Due Dilligence is a process that is always good. (In the same way that dental work is always good.)
Key from the article:

"In our next meeting, Tim Draper suggested that they should append an advertising message to every outbound email: "P.S. Get your free email at Hotmail. It was very contentious at the time. Would users balk at having this automatic addition to the content of their private messages?"

For someone who first touched the Internet in 1997, it is very interesting to have actually seen the evolution of viral marketing over 10 years.
I'm in Seattle. Have a co-founder, not really looking for one.

Always willing to meet for coffee, though.

Am not moving to the Bay Area.
Canadians take risks? Who knew!? (My personal porfolio, %90 of it is companies located in Vancouver and listed in TSX or TSX-V.) Canada is the premier public fundraising country in the world, I believe. (The US stifles innovation with onerous SEC regulation... so Canada, which has smaller population, is the place to do your reverse merger, or buy shelf companies, etc.)
Portland, OR. Maybe moving to SanFran.
Google is probably the best example of making funding work for you. They took angel and VC and built a company to last.

"...so even a success results in nothing to the founders."

No intelligent investor would create a situation in which the founders had no incentive to succeed. They want founder's interests to be aligned with theirs.

"...hit a home run, or die trying..."

That's not necessarily a bad thing. VC money can force you to move at breakneck speed to prove your idea is worthwhile or not. It's up to you to decide if its possible to succeed quickly like that, or find investors willing to build more slowly.

"...replace you if you do not make the choices that lead that way."

Again it comes down to smart investors. Bad ones replace people frequently and good ones are primarily investing in "the team", replacing you doesn't make sense when that is the case.

I think you might be interested in building more of a "lifestyle" business than what most people would define as a startup. I could personally enjoy doing either type of business.
For the next few days, I live in Padova, Italy, but we're moving to Innsbruck, Austria where my wife found a good job doing research(*), and hopefully I will have some time to work on my own ideas.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the bay area is the be all and end all for startups. Maybe for classic style VC fueled all or nothing deals, but for those more interested in living cheaply and bootstrapping something, as long as you have a line on the good tech people in your area, perhaps you can make a go of it. Perhaps it's even easier to get a few of them on board, because there are relatively less other interesting things going on.

Europe definitely isn't conducive to startups though, even registering a company is quite expensive. I think if I were to head back to the states, I might pick someplace... not too isolated, but sort of "second tier". Portland, Oregon would be great..maybe someplace like Tucson in Arizona, Boulder Colorado, and so on.

(*) Biotech/medical - now there is a field where high capital requirements and lots of regulations mean that startups really can't happen without massive investments and thus tend to cluster very tightly in certain areas - bay area, san diego, boston.
Serving massive quantities of static images is probably the easiest challenge they've (uhh) faced -- it's just expensive.
They're all going to have restrictions like this. They put these provisions in so that they can bust you if they want to, it doesn't mean they necessarily will. It's bad PR.

At worst the Justin.tv guys might have to get 10-20 EVDO cards under other peoples names and hop around to avoid trouble. Or better yet: make a deal with one of the carriers -- maybe loopt can help with that :-D

I ran into this at one point with Sprint's old data network. I was only able to make them back down by threatening to cancel our entire ~250 phone shared plan if they didn't leave me alone. Would have been tough had it not been for that "clout".
I had intended to be fecicious but thank you for pointing out some oft-overlooked truths.
"It would be cheaper to pay a highly networked individual a fee for making introductions "

Do you really think a bootstrapping company could pay someone like PG what his time is worth? Letting him invest is a way of paying him, but it's even better because he doesn't collect unless you'r successful.

I'm not convinced being funded is necessary either, just that you have to weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and do the best with what you have.
How about people with no university education?
So, is the claimed "early 20s" requirement also false?

I know its a theme, but I didn't think it was a requirement.
Top 11 reasons *not* to move to the Bay Area.
To clarify, that was a popup to subscribe for email delivery of an RSS feed via Feedburner. I suppose they put the CAPTCHA in place in hopes of lowering the ability to abuse that feature for flooding.
I live in a small town called Golden in Colorado. I will be moving to the Bay area this summer. I don't think you have to live there to start something brilliant, but there are some great funding opportunities. I hope to go to Florence, Italy one day :)
Napoleonic Lessons for Google and Microsoft
Currently Tokyo with "strong ties" to Southern and Northern California. No one else is here, right?
It's not deception. The great thing about start-ups is that we determine the company culture. With mine I'd like employees to enjoy more autonomy than in corporate where it's laid back and everyone has a voice for the direction of the company.
He referred to EBay as "not a technology" company, because they don't have many technical people in management. Just because Facebook has technical people in management, doesn't make it a "technology company" either. At least, not yet. Facebook is a great social networking site but certainy not a technology company. My examples of technology companies include Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, BEA etc.
Bias against older people?
It's my perception that less spectacular versions are repeated frequently. Every time I see a story about a new investment followed by an announcement of a new CEO I have to wonder.

Gray Haired Suits and Hackers aren't exactly a match made in heaven. Few VCs seems truly comfortable with young technical people running the show. I'll admit that most of the time that might be because the founder lacks the confidence-inspiring "assertiveness" of people like Zuckerberg.
My guess is that the Y combinator partners evaluate each team themselves, rather than having an Arc program do it. So while they may have an average they gravitate towards, they probably would be willing to consider teams outside of that if they're impressed. Being a team does seem to be one of the 'rules' that they aren't as flexible about.
This must be what Hotmail founder Sabeer Bhatia meant when he complained in Founders at Work that DFJ had claimed they'd invented his idea.
I think all my life I've been trying to figure out what I love to do and even though I liked technology, I was never convinced that I loved it. Now I'm 32, but my resume is w/o any startup experience/personal ventures. At the same time, I strongly feel like I want to start a start-up (yes, I'm aware that many fail and that I have to support my wife).

Assuming I come up with a convincing idea/prototype and a co-founder, what are my chances of getting funding from Y Combinator? Will there be a bias against me because:

(negatives)
1. I'm 32
2. My experience is no start-up experience
3. My experience has mostly been in enterprise s/w, which according to PG is not software :)

(positives)
1. Determined
2. Reasonably smart :)
3. Willing to risk my career/lifestyle

I would love to get Y Combinator funding because, it will give me the connections and credibility I need for VC funding.

I know that eventually it depends all on my idea/prototype/team, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Startup school did nothing but deepened my fear that 30s are not so welcome. At least not the ones who haven't done anything significant in their lives before.

Is it too late guys?
shudder

I just don't get people who use segway without trying to make a joke. Is walking so hard?
Yes, we've funded people who've never been to college,
along with a large number who didn't finish.
Yes; we've had several people in their 30s. We get a lot of people in their early 20s, but that's probably just because more of them are starting startups.
Google-- they did, and they also seemed to take their time doing it...

"No intelligent investor would create a situation in which the founders had no incentive to succeed. They want founder's interests to be aligned with theirs."

I responded to this, but its been said, and better:
"As things currently work, their attitudes toward risk tend to be diametrically opposed: the founders, who have nothing, would prefer a 100% chance of $1 million to a 20% chance of $10 million, while the VCs can afford to be "rational" and prefer the latter."
http://www.paulgraham.com/vcsqueeze.html

"VC money can force you to move at breakneck speed"

You cannot predict the future- you cannot predict the level of success you will have in advance. Thus, signing agreements that put a ticking clock on your business is never a good thing. You can work at "breakneck speed" anyway, without increasing the risk of breaking your neck.

There is a fundamental limit to how fast you can go. Google was able to take their time and was fortunate in that regard. Netscape killed themselves with their speed. In fact, this forced breakneck speed is one of the killers of startups -- all the billions that were burned up in the space of 2 years between 2000-2001... much of that money, if spent more wisely, would have resulted in viable businesses in 2003.

"I think you might be interested in building more of a "lifestyle" business than what most people would define as a startup. "

I'm not sure what you mean by a "lifestyle" business. I consider the word "startup" to apply to any business. But since I am building a high tech startup that is a web based platform, I'm not taking the relaxed approach of someone opening a hair salon, or whatever.

I'm looking to increase leverage, growth rate, and viability.

In looking for a citation, I cam across the Paul Graham essay cited above- which I think makes the same essential point I'm trying to make. (So I'm sure I'm plagerizing him to some extent, mixed with my own experiences and stated less eloquently.)

In summary, many costs are now lower, thus leverage has increased, and so VC funds under traditional terms, are less desirable and less needed.