1,183 karma · joined August 12, 2011
For example, if Tesla.com was running automotive content, it would give Tesla Motors a strong argument that Tesla.com is confusingly similar to their own.
This happens sometimes with parked domains because the ads come through a feed from an ad network. These networks have some basic keyword targeting, so a generic domain owner can accidentally run ads for the exact company they are trying to not infringe on.
Introduction from last October: https://influxdata.com/blog/new-storage-engine-time-structur...
Does Todd Persen talk about durability testing in the video or is more about performance benchmarking? I haven't watched yet.
Getting a higher hit rate probably means investing in fewer less-young companies, like a traditional VC. The companies that attract VCs are more proven, but investing like this is antithetical to the accelerator model.
Personally, I think it's great that YC is growing by trying new things (like YC Fellowship and YC Research) rather than only trying to do a better job at existing things, like being VCs.
Still, .com domain names continue their march up in value. It's been a ~20 year fad at this point.
You can search for GPV in the S-1 to see the specifics: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1512673/000119312515...
Sama's point is that because so many people are saying tech stocks are expensive then there isn't the mass delusion required for a bubble.
https://twitter.com/SourceDNA/status/652247709655547905 https://twitter.com/SourceDNA/status/652247927289544704
"CocoaPods is less popular in the top 100 apps than the long tail. We see ~180K apps with AFNetworking."
"CocoaPods more popular in apps that aren't top 100. Top apps more customized, less third-party code."
Also, there is a secondary market for private stock. It's possible for YC to sell some of their position in the big successes that haven't yet IPO'ed.
In the early days, YC raised money from VCs to fund their seed investments. That ended because YC doesn't need the money anymore. This continuity fund might be different in that regard.
For example, imagine an ad campaign spending $30k/month at a rate of $5 per 1,000 impressions. The customer may want their budget spread evenly throughout the month, so the software sets a daily budget of $1000. But this really represents 200,000 daily impressions, each of which is a transaction that subtracts from the available balance in real-time. The buyers software is talking to an ad exchange and keeping track of the budget every time an individual impression is won.
To add some more complexity, the impressions are probably billed as second-price auctions, so they aren't all exactly $0.005 each. Some are $0.00493, some are $0.00471, ect. Each one of these numbers is reported back from the exchange to the buyer's software in real time and the buyer is responsible for managing their budget.
This is just an example, but hopefully it illustrates how it can become impractical to account for this kind of thing using something more traditional like PostgreSQL. It would be reasonable to log all the impressions to something like Hadoop for the analytical piece of the software, but there needs to be something more real-time for budgeting to prevent overspending. The big ad exchanges can host hundreds of thousands or even millions of auctions per second, so not turning off bidding can be very costly.
This process of auctioning ad impressions across many buyers through an API is called real-time bidding.
We are a YC advertising startup. Right now, all of our mobile ad inventory comes from middle-man exchanges, but we’d like to start sourcing some of it directly from app developers.
We have build a proof-of-concept iOS app that loads our ads directly from our servers. Now we would like to take that concept and turn it into an iOS SDK we can distribute publicly to app developers.
Does this sound interesting to you? Please email me to learn more: cyrus @ lean period com
I don't think it's vertically integrated in the classic sense. This isn't oil company buying supplier. It's a tech company building the complete experience including non tech parts. The end result looks more like a company that we wouldn't call vertically integrated. E.g. Uber competes with taxi companies but I don't think we'd call taxi companies vertically integrated.
Most users also aren't able to withdraw fiat from Gox, so there isn't a liquidity advantage to selling your coins (which would raise the supply and lower the price). The 50% discount is probably because users believe that if Gox dies, they will have better odds of eventually recovering dollars rather than coins. These users believe the coins may have been lost, stolen, or end up unrecognized by the bankruptcy court.
Also, there is lots of speculation about price manipulation at Gox. Some users believe that Gox is artificially lowering the price to help fix their insolvency.
The "times" means countable units of sex rather than multiplication.
That kind of money would usually be put in by a larger fund. Most angels write checks for $25k-$100k.
* One difference being that the demo day investors will have preferred shares upon conversion and YC takes the same common shares that the founders and employees get.
They made a promise to deliver bitcoins at a certain price and on a certain date. The original poster's issue is equivalent to Amazon promising 2 day shipping but the book came a few days late.
For example, Twitter employees can quickly ballpark the dollar value of their shares with the $26 number. It's also easier for tracking movement (e.g., $20 last week, $26 this week).
It's the same reason that all ticker prices are in per-share value rather than market cap. $XOM at $93.22 means less to me personally than "Exxon Mobil is worth $400 billion," but the per-share value is probably most relevant to people with business interest in Exxon.
Being accepted to YC actually means being funded. With YCVC it's ~$100k.
Mark Zuckerberg is worth $20 billion after 7 years. That's about the same as 25,000 engineers working for 7 years. There aren't any singers or ballerinas with that kind of outcome.
That's part of why seed-stage startup investing exists even though the capital costs for startups are so low. The investors are paying the founders' salaries for a couple years in exchange for a small chance at seeing a huge return. No one invests in ballerinas like that.
Better data would be the same product sold in .99 and .00 versions. I imagine the conversion rate differences wouldn't be so dramatic in that chart.
Does each user decide them for their own application, or does Anomalous try to figure out when something weird has happened?
First, I imagine most HNers probably analyze prices as the most rational and analytical consumers in the world. It's good to get a reminder that the rest of the world doesn't do that.
Second, I thought it was interesting to see a VC (Harrison Metal) put together this kind of informational video. I would have liked them link to the reference material underneath the videos, but still pretty cool.
Also I think Facebook was originally a partnership and then converted into a DE c-corp. I don't think they were ever a CA company.