skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
to make it crystal clear, the examples were:

- Dorsey was putting it all on the line with Square -- at that point he had his personal wealth secure thanks to twitter (already raised quite a bit of VC money and already paid himself).

- Bill Gates had family money in the form of a trust before microsoft was conceived.

- Mark Zuckerberg's parents were in the position to kick in money to Facebook (and in some accounts, they actually did, though I know neither of them and everything on the topic is hearsay)

- Bill Nguyen was already an accomplished entrepreneur by the time he started Color

In half the examples, the money was self-made, and in the other half there was familial support.

"That's completely different from VCs who really have FU money and are not affected (or marginally affected) financially when their investments don't pan out."

You are playing games here. Many VCs (especially some of the newer ones) don't have a track record and work hard to establish one by researching, picking whom they think are winners, and providing support. It's obvious today that investing in Facebook or Twitter at the pre-1B stage would be profitable, but it wasn't quite as obvious back then. And if a new VC has a string of losers, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll have a very hard time drumming up the next vintage.

Back to the poll, given the context (which I thought was self-explanatory) the option "You have enough saved up so that even if things blew up you could last a year or more" -- 169 votes at the time of this comment -- is the one that unites the aforementioned examples.
Note that "free speech" is aimed at the government restricting your speech. Individuals and private venues are not required to provide free speech. (In your home, your newspaper, your website or your hotel you can restrict speech in any way you want.)

> ... yet this person was allowed to be offended and seek retribution for a comment that she heard.

The conference had a clear well thought out policy which they followed. Someone making derogatory comments about religion (yours or anyone elses) would also have been relevant to the code of conduct. Note they want the conference to be for everyone and encourage contacting staff. I have yet to see anyone faulting pycon. https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/code-of-conduct/

Generally everyone has the right to be offended for any reason. The issue is what they can expect others to do about it. You would have every right to kick people out of your house, the supermarket could use their own discretion and pulling Fox News from the air would be a dangerous precedent. On the whole I think the US is better off because of free speech, but like with things that can be used for good it can also be used for bad.
I don't know, but they could be selling the extra capacity from serverstack for cheap.
APK teardown shows a way to spam arbitrary G+ user Gmails
already existed, then pulled
> Writing off people who want or provide a diamond ring as mentally ill (as many people in this thread seem to be doing) is silly

No, wasting money on a valueless shiny rock is silly. But let's just keep advocating people 'keep up the tradition' instead.
I'd argue that a lot of us in the "Apple fan community," including Marco, understand that there are negatives to Apple's approach to, well, nearly everything. It's apparently very easy for people to pick up on the approval we give Apple while glossing over the criticism, I suspect in part because we don't tend to see iOS's locked-down nature as the existential crisis that, well, Hacker News readers tend to sometimes see -- and because we don't see a problem with something that they see as a deal-breaker, then, well, we must never say anything bad about Apple. In fact, we often do.

Having said that, there's at least a practical difference in the kind of "monoculture" that the iOS App Store represents and the kind of monoculture that Google Reader represented: while Apple may change the terms, it's highly unlikely they'd ever make the App Store just go away. I'm not sure there are any commercial products that were in the App Store and were then removed because of a change in Apple's TOS rather than for a violation that they should have been aware of when they submitted it. There are some high-profile cases of stupid rejections, to be sure, but that's not the same thing.

And, it's at least worth noting that a major difference there is that Apple derives revenue from their services. Say what you will about them, but that's a pretty good incentive to not just take their ball and go home. Google Reader didn't bring in any revenue, and that's what ultimately doomed it. (as in beer) does work, but not indefinitely.
>If you're educated, high-IQ tiger parents and want to raise highly successful children, statistically you're better off having your own kids than adopting

This is the most depressing thing I read in this whole thread. The idea that one should view raising "highly successful" children as some kind of outcome they can control or influence through "high IQ tigerness" and cold economic analysis is humorous and sad all at once. Coupled with encouragement to not buck a pointless social tradition because it may make (shallow, deplorable) people judge you as less worthy and thus may negatively impact your future prospects of becoming more like them seems like a rather sad way to live life, but I guess we all have our own goals. The fact that after thousands of years our species is still mesmerized by shiny rocks we dug out of the ground is also odd to me, but apparently not others.
The timing of this link almost seems karmic. After only 6 months of trying, failing to learn coding, a competitor beating me to launch, less than $1k left in the bank and living a broke ass life for what seems like an eternity, I was thinking of throwing in the towel today. This gives such great perspective. I'll try harder.
My grandfather ran a grocery store throughout the Depression, and he accumulated a large selection of diamond rings from cash strapped customers. When my father and his brother were getting married, they had their choice of the rings.

I've always wondered how other diamond rings get recycled or removed from the market. Diamonds are forever, after all, so why doesn't the price collapse from being awash in used stones from three or four generations of dead women?
Here's an idea for a non-profit start-up:

1. Produce man-made diamonds and sell them at the same price as De Beers diamonds.

2. Use the revenue to fund education and health-care in poor African villages.

3. Market your diamonds as 'clean diamonds' and label the De Beers diamonds 'blood diamonds'.

Would that work?
I moved from Germany to Australia in 2007 where I was able to save some money from my day job. Then moved across the ditch to Wellington, NZ about 6 months later with ~$10k cash in the bank. I started running out of money after 9 months which was exactly the time our little domain registrar iwantmyname could afford a small salary. Most exciting time of my life (in a good way) with moving countries and starting a company!
As did I... I replied tongue-in-cheek and the kid sent me what appeared to be a pretty heart-felt apology. Probably just saw a quick chance to get some upload credit, and didn't pause to think he was spamming a list of professionals in high-tech :)
Same thing. The baby cravings (i.e. need for security) hit almost all women by age 24, many earlier... I don't think of that as old.
“From birth to age 18, a girl needs good parents, from 18 to 35 she needs good looks, from 35 to 55 she needs a good personality, and from 55 on she needs cash.” --Sophie Tucker
> To be fair, a lot of people thought Flash was going to be better on Android than it turned out to be.

As part of Adobe, he should have known better than the outsiders.
reminds me of a quote... 'It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?' —Stephen Fry
Github down?
An Open Source Author's Lament
You're right, looks like a Timing Attack might be the only solution that satisfies the spirit of the test.
Millennials, Gen Y, Gen X — Can't we all get along?
You reached the max nesting with your last comment so I'll continue here - I'm not playing any games. If anything, I would say you are by not specifically saying "FU money" or something equivalent (i.e, being rich) in your poll and then claiming that being able to last a year qualifies. What does "blowing it up" means? it can mean a hundred different things. You obviously had something in mind when you wrote it, I read something completely different.

Anyway, I digress, this argument is getting nowhere. I got from your post and examples that you believe most founders do not put anything on the line when they're starting up. That's your prerogative. Lets just agree to disagree on that and move on.
My experience has been that, while planning meetings are quite painful, they're the most valuable part of Agile. Forcing yourself to sit down every week and decide what really matters is extremely valuable and keeps teams focused.
That's a great analogy. I think you need a high-functioning team that really understands the Agile manifesto and its principles to roll-your-own solution.

If you are going to roll-your-own solution, start with retro and build from there. Retro is the most important part of the process. There's a reason it's the only explicit activity mentioned in the manifesto. As long as you keep reflecting on past performance and continually try to improve you'll probably end up with a good process.
A really interesting question!

I was in the "You have enough saved up so that even if things blew up you could last a year or more" bucket myself, and luckily things worked out and we got (small) salaries just before that year was up.

I would be interested to hear folks' stories on transitioning states. How did you make the decision to go from "have money saved" to "living on welfare"? What state was your company in to convince you that you just had to hold on a little longer?
The implication, in this context, is that the man and the woman would have very unequal shares of financial responsibility (or expectations). That's why she would be perceived as a gold digger.
Agreed. Does anyone know a reliable place to buy man-made diamonds? I never found one during my search.
Year runway + money to pay for rent, I assume :)

I realize it's a bit late in the process, but I'll add "Personal Asset Sale"
Your service is very simple and straightforward (i love it) and the customer service is among the best I've seen in the industry.

Great job building something so awesome.
A gradual rate of deflation didn't stop world markets when they used an international gold standard.

Very few people forgo buying something they need because they could get 2% one year later if they hold on to the currency.

I think deflation IS economically inefficient, but the negative effect of slight deflation has been exaggerated in the popular economic literature.

For a peer-to-peer currency network, a fixed money supply could even be beneficial by creating an incentive for bitcoin holders to invest in the technology.

Bitcoin is working, has created the most powerful distributed supercomputer in the world, and is processing an increasing number of instant global transactions every month.

It works in practice, as a medium of exchange, and that is a better argument for it working as a currency than theories about how deflation affects economies.
Personal Asset Sale (added 3 hours later): Selling your home or any other asset that would give you at least six months runway
South Korean Banks and Broadcasters Targeted in Possible Cyberattack
Legality/ethics of working for a competitor
After taking a year off to (unsuccessfully) explore creating my own startup, I am looking to return to the job market. I used to work in a startup and am debating the ethics and legality for working for a competitor in the same space. Since I have been away for awhile, my knowledge should be a little out of date so I am not too worried about accidentally tipping off the new company about my old company's plans. However, since I worked at the company for many years since its early stages as a part of a small dev team, I have a lot of knowledge of the full architecture and of the design tradeoffs that were considered along the way.

FYI, I am in California, so at least some legal aspects favor me. I also had a good working relationship with my old company (and left on good terms) and worry a bit how switching to a competitor might affect that relationship.
Why do people insist on citing outliers as if that somehow negates the trend? It really derails and otherwise productive discussion. Yes, for every general rule there are always outliers. It's so obvious that it serves no useful purpose to state it explicitly.
Works the other way round as well: If your spouse can't be talked out of a vain purchase with a rational argument, you won't be able to do that after it either, so there's no point.
Hmm, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.
What I do like in the Finnish schoolsystem is that it gives an equal chance for everyone from every background to aim for their individual dreams and goals. It does not rank people based on their welfare, but the equality in the schoolsystem gives every single child an equal chance to be whatever they want. You are not judged on your social status and income, but how hard you work for your grades and goals. Children and teenagers are not restricted when it comes to applying to schools and universities. You can even apply to the top universities of Finland if you have studied hard and have good grades. Tuition fees? Nope. And how's your income? - The schools don't care as long as you've proven that you're hardworking or talented. System takes care of the funding, students can focus on the studying.

Maybe in some countries, changing to this kind of system might be considered just an idealistic nonsense, but I believe that's what has made the Finnish schoolsystem as strong as it is - equal chance for everyone to be whatever they want to be and work hard for.
Guys, Fred Smith didn't go to Vegas to try winning the $27,000 gambling. Instead he went to Vegas hoping to see Howard Hughes and get an investment in FedEx (then Federal Express), and he won the $27,000 while waiting to see Hughes. Hughes didn't invest, but General Dynamics did, as I recall, $5 million. Check the story with Fred, Roger Frock, Art Bass, Charlie Brandon, Norm Waite, Leon Tyree, Mike Basch, and others.
>Women want diamonds not because of any symbolic reasons ("Diamonds are forever!")

The funny thing is that diamonds are one of the most unstable minerals when taken out of the conditions they were formed. Although, it would still take thousands of years for them to turn into graphite.
I don't think there has to be merely one single solitary reason for the popularity of diamonds. Whenever you see profound effects (in this case, a massive number of people people grossly overpaying for a useless rock), it's worth considering the possibility that you have several strong forces all pushing in the same direction. In this case, yes, advertising doesn't hurt. But there are plenty of other factors that may be contributing:

Social Proof, Envy - You're 28. Many of your good friends are married or engaged by now. All of them got diamonds. Your mother got a diamond. Your sister got a diamond. All of your celebrity idols got diamonds. Surely, it's a normal thing. There's nothing wrong with you wanting one, too, right?

Doubt, Insecurity - You're dating the man of your dreams. You love him and want to spend the rest of your life with him. Marriage is a big step, and you want to know he's committed. Sure, diamonds are useless and overdone, but it's expected of him to get you one. And a big one, too, if he can. You know it. He knows it. So if he doesn't, surely it's a subtle way of him saying, "You aren't worth it."

Fear of Loss - You've been looking forward to this your entire life. By the time you were old enough to consider the possibility that diamond-giving is a dumb and arguably immoral tradition, you'd already spend 15 or 20 or 25 years wanting one. You'd already accepted that you would get one. The fear of loss is a powerful force, even when you're "losing" something you don't have yet.

Inconsistency Avoidance - Refusing to accept a diamond would undoubtedly and repeatedly put you in the position to explain yourself. In a way, it's a silent judgment of all those who do accept diamonds. You've never denounced them in the past. In fact, you were right there with all your friends joking about how big of a rock you'd get some day. So denouncing them today will seem inconsistent, and you don't want to be inconsistent. Nobody does. (If you doubt this this a major psychological factor capable of influencing behavior, read Cialdini's "Influence".)

Etc.

Advertising spend in and of itself isn't a reason people buy things. Nobody ever said, "I want a Coke because Coca-Cola spent $3B on marketing this year." Instead, people want things for primarily carnal and psychological reasons. Because it's hot outside and you know Coke is cold. Because you're craving stimulation and you know carbonation tickles your mouth. Because you know your friends with their big expensive rings will think less of your relationship if you don't get one, too.

Good marketers understand human psychology and play to its weaknesses.
Agencia gubernamental en Australia
Yes sir, I plan on doing so!

I was only responding to the seemingly-odd assumption that only the "next ring" of investors is what Wefunder is going for--at least that's what I got from pg's response to why he/YC funded Wefunder. To me, there is no way to keep it to only this "next ring" and it doesn't seem that Wefunder is trying to do this. They are trying to appeal to those who are even several "rings" away.
Short of actually making (good, working) stuff, informed and merciless prioritization is the most important thing you can do in producing software.
"I'm working on two proposals right now, one with constant growth over time and one with a slightly increasing growth."

Such a coin has been created. Freicoin is a bitcoin-variant that devalues at a constant rate. It hasn't caught on, probably because people prefer currency that doesn't lose its value.

"It's not unrealistic that Satoshi could own 2% or 3% of all the money that will ever be made. That's a problem."

He owns 2-3% of all the money at one point in time. He can only spend that money once. Money circulates, and can only give value to its user when they circulate it.

Given a given unit of money will circulate indefinitely, the relative economic power of a holder of a particular percentage of the money supply at a particular point of time will decrease over time as a percentage of total economic power exercised throughout the currency's existence.
I've just updated the code repo with a complete competitive analysis of this platform that was performed - it provides some useful points, such as market research, price point suggestions, feature subset recommendations to maximize profit, etc. (https://github.com/andreioprisan/igroups/raw/master/vbx_busi...)
Screenshots: https://github.com/andreioprisan/igroups/raw/master/vbx_scre...
"Weren't the ads on those parked domains enough"?

Is greed limited?
Family can't give you funds but can let you live in basement if the startup blows up and you need to find the next thing

I selected this option, but really it's only the first part which is true: I started Tarsnap as a recent university graduate living in my parents' basement.

I still had some costs, mind you -- food, car, medical (type 1 diabetes is not cheap, and the Canadian health care system doesn't cover drugs) -- and I covered those from a combination of savings (I graduated with money in the bank and no debts, thanks to good scholarships) and consulting; but taking rent out of the equation cut my cost of living by about 70%.

The greatest asset a young entrepreneur can possibly have is tolerant parents.
SELECT "projects". FROM "projects" WHERE "projects"."user_id" = 1 AND "projects"."user_id"=5

This expected SQL doesn't really make sense to me. It would be better if your example didn't include selecting twice on the same column (not a join) with an equals clause, as I'd expect that to be removed (it's redundant and would always produce zero results). So the resulting sql makes more sense (replace where clause when new where clause uses same col):

SELECT "projects". FROM "projects" WHERE "projects"."user_id" = 5*

Looking at the github example, they used xx=1 AND xx IN(1,2,3), which makes more sense as it could possibly produce results, and I see why they were doing that.
Don't read this article either. Instead read the actual Agile manifesto. It's really short, but very insightful. After you've read it stop and think (we're programmers, we're supposed to be good at that) about how your current process, or a potential process matches the principles laid out.

http://agilemanifesto.org/

http://agilemanifesto.org/principles.html
How about a reverse signal: will she still love you without the ring?
Very nice!

It would be really cool to hook-up some git functionality.
I don't understand why a sudden closure. They were successful and were giving a tough competition to Amazon affiliates. Then why start an online magazine? They were receiving a massive amount of traffic just because they could earn better than Amazon affiliates. I might be wrong but were people writing articles? I mean who wants to be a paid freelancer when they can earn better thought a blog? Also, this Paid Freelance Contributor Program is kind of weird. We already have that!!
I don't think diamonds are really bullshit. People tend to add meaning to things that would otherwise be meaningless, and that meaning is compounded by the meaning added by the many peoples in society. I think that's pretty valuable, even if you try to deconstruct the dubious premises.

I mean, hey, look at language. That's pretty dumb. It was made by a bunch of poor dudes sitting in caves and squawking at each other? Who would buy into that shit, am I right?
Is there an option to generate PNGs or JPGs from a formula (without having to go through pdflatex)?
Did you try modifying step 2 to something along these lines:

"Great idea, I never thought about it, we really need <something>! Problem is, this particular model of <something> is not the best and will not do <something that something is supposed to do> very well. In fact I remember reading bad reviews about this. But fear not! We'll go home, spend some time reading review sites and will find a really good version of <something>."

This will buy you some time, and might even look that YOU want it, which might even make it less appealing to your other half. Now, find a really expensive model of something, but at such price point that the rationality wins, even in someone who usually does not listen to your arguments (step 2). YMMV, but sometimes this tactic works out quite well.
Hoarding cash does not destroy production, as the number of units of cash in circulation does not affect economic productivity.