aashaykumar92

Not to be the pessimist out of this batch of comments, but the accelerator sounds less promising than I would have expected from AngelHack. I have to imagine they have enough money to at least provide housing and living expenses for the teams they choose so the teams can be in one centralized location. The mentorship will probably have less value when the teams cannot meet in person and there is of course the lost networking aspect as well.

Although they do provide a chance for the startups to pitch in the final two weeks in SF, it seems that this accelerator, even if not formed with this intention, will be more of a feeder to the bigger and more established ones like YC, TechStars, 500 Startups, etc.

I wish the central idea here resonated across VC firms. Caring about the team and what they will bring should be prioritized but it just isn't among many VC's. Most VC's, if they even care to look at the individuals before the business plans, financial models, etc., only really look at the founders. And it's funny that more don't prioritize looking at the entire team considering the one's that are known for doing so are the one's at the top, year in and year out...a16z is a great example.

Running a company is like being a good coach, at least that's the way I like to look at it. Herb Brooks (coach of the 1980 US Ice Hockey Team) was known for saying "I'm not looking for the best players, I'm looking for the right ones". Likewise, you can have the 8 best engineers in the world but unless they work well TOGETHER, your company isn't going to go very far at all.

Bottomline: More VCs should pay attention to the entire team--not just the founders--and especially way more than the 5yr business plans, financial models, etc. because these will most likely change a fair amount, the team won't as much. If the brains are there and those brains work well together, you've got a recipe for success.

Benefits, or lack thereof, is your central point. I'm not quite sure that by comparing a YC-startup to another startup in the same round of funding, especially in the later rounds, it says much about YC or their founders. In fact, I'd argue there is no correlation. When a company has been backed by several investors, the founders don't usually carry a huge weight in deciding the benefits of each of their employees...they most likely listen to their advisors/investors.

If you think a company should offer a higher salary and/or better benefits, then best is to be frank and tell them. Especially since you are experienced and you've been given offers, a simple email or call saying "Hey guys, I think what you're doing is great but there are other companies at the same stage as you giving much better salaries/benefits", I like to think they'd be open to listening and looking to change. A illogical correlation + complaint on HN is not exactly doing yourself or anyone any good.

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.

I think we'll start seeing more deals like this. It is no secret that the government(at least the Obama administration) is, rightfully so, moving in a forward and open direction regarding technology. They are starting to accept the fact that government solutions can be found externally, and many times through citizens' softwares/ideas. If you don't agree, look at these facts: President Obama hired a CTO, the CTO opened up a fellowship program that is an applied-to program which purely looks to solving government problems. Now a CIA deal with Amazon. To me, this is all positive and forward-thinking...they can use everyday citizens and companies to enhance their operations securely and quickly.

And yes, we just have to hope it is not used to spy but hey, I'd take the risk in trusting that they care more about our safety than spying on us all the time.

Ok I see your point and agree with it, but Wefunder is metaphorically opening up to nearly the entire universe by eventually allowing anyone to invest--it doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop 'amateurs' from investing.

I'd like to believe that there are many people have a couple thousands dollars that they'd be willing to invest in a startup that seems promising. In the next year, I will theoretically be able to invest in startups via Wefunder...and I am in college with just one startup under my belt. I like to think I understand startups well but given my age and experience, I bet there are people who understand them far better than I do...and far less as well.

I'm a bit confused by this...why did you fund Wefunder then? "Amateurs" are exactly the people that will be funding startups on Wefunder...

Holy crap, this is true visionary...great idea and excellent execution! Hopefully everything goes through on the government-side so that anyone can invest in these startups.

Question, though: Is the plan to allow any company to sign up in 2014 or will there still be some moderation in which companies can sign up?

Don't look at whether its acceptable or not, look at the implications. If those names were to be publicly released, the MIT employees would not exactly be safe. In fact, I would be pretty scared for them myself. Given all the emotion in the aftermath of the suicide, it's not fair to put those people in danger. Mr. Reif couldn't have said this better: "But I believe that openness must be balanced with reasonable concern for privacy and safety"

What is important, however, is that those people are self-accountable. And they realize their own faults and look to improve in the future. You might say this is awfully altruistic, but it is better to hold the employees accountable in this regards instead of jeopardizing their personal privacy and safety.

This is awesome, thanks so much for the link! I am currently in the process of building an application that can greatly utilize ScanPay.

1) What if your company is indeed growing but not scaling at the rate that it needs? An investment would boost that ability correct? An owner would be able to hire more employees, perhaps buy more necessary technology, etc.

2) I don't think that is good advice. Zuckerberg had built things previous to Facebook but never anything that made money. I am not as familiar with Twitter and Pinterest's founders but I don't believe they had money-making businesses before. If a service is good and attracts people, why not build it??

This is reassuring/relieving.

"Do not take funding...For most new entrepreneurs, investment is a cushion that delays their learning. If you're thinking of raising investment to cover your personal costs, don't - instead, learn to make money. It's really not that hard."

You said this was controversial so I don't feel at all bad for refuting this. I'll start by agreeing with the idea that making money is a learning experience and entrepreneurs should do whatever it takes to make money...but don't forget these two things:

1) An investment is way more than the money. If you accept an investment round from a reputable investor, you are accepting mentorship--in the form of recruiting help, connections to other companies or industries, not to mention an investment is made to help an entrepreneur to scale so the company can make money at an exponential rate.

2) Some companies do not strive to make money initially--their goal is to create a great product for their users--but for their service to continue, they need money to operate and scale...this is has been especially true in social media, case in point with Pinterest. Pinterest has raised a shit ton of money, but haven't started monetizing to a great extent. If they had just gone for the money from the beginning, whether through ads or what not (and this applies to even Facebook), their service would probably have been far less attractive and usage significantly lower. Many times, monetizing is about timing. Pinterest WILL monetize as Facebook did and Twitter is figuring out, but it has come after a while of being in establishment. Without investment, these companies would again, not be where they are today. That money is absolutely necessary to keep operations going, whether its through labor, scaling, office space, etc.

So your companies may have been revenue-generating from the beginning, and if that's the case then by all means, making money and not taking investments is decently good (still controversial) advice but that advice is not applicable to companies that aren't revenue-generating in the beginning. You can't forget about these companies as they actually tend to be what consumers move towards and is exactly why when companies like these do monetize, they are able to.

some backup to my above comment: http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/13/andy-rubins-next-moonshot-c...

New Pope, New Head of Android--a wonderful correlation...just kidding.

It's an obvious move to try and blend Chromes OS with Android more seamlessly but I think it also means something else BIG at Google is coming--and not their everyday-'big'. As qualified as Pichai is, it doesn't make sense for Rubin to go anywhere UNLESS he truly is upto something groundbreaking.

My bet is that Rubin has a vision, perhaps a "moonshot" as Paige said, that impressed the execs at Google so much that it made sense for him to move on from his current position. It'll be interesting to see exactly what this is, but I have to imagine Rubin is upto something the masses (most of us) have not yet heard about...and his ingenuity will be absorbed by Google themselves.

Some people with hindered vision will let out a sigh of relief after reading this...

Seeing this makes me more curious to see Google's attention to style--pressure is on, Warby Parker.

But don't you think Facebook is something that is being picked up by the younger kids and will continue to be through the next generation?

Hmm I guess that makes sense but there are two options I see:

1) The comet hits Mars, has negative effects on the planet but we end up learning a lot about what happened to Earth.

2) We deflect the comet, learn how to protect ourselves from such things in the future, and we can still visit Mars in the future and hope for life on there.

Now obviously I demonstrated a bias above, but I definitely think it's more worth our time to look into the future than what happenED--especially in this situation. Right now, there are more discussions/plans of humans visiting Mars than there ever has been. A comet hitting the planet would most likely cancel or severely postpone many of those plans.

Learning how to protect ourselves should be prioritized, then discovery should be close after. Both of these may become delayed processes if we just allow a comet to hit Mars. Let me know your thoughts.

Relatively speaking, there is very little data to go off of as of now. The comet hasn't been tracked long enough for them to truly see if it will even be close to Mars.

I do think, however, that if it does look well on its way to hitting Mars, it'd be worth while to send a large chunk of mass and try to push it in another direction. It could prove to be a trial for a future, Earth-threatening instance. So far the ability to deflect a comet/asteroid is only a theory--putting it to practice is a great way to test it.

The YC W13 cycle must be keeping him busy!

let me know if im missing something, but where do they mention specific programming languages? I don't seem to see any reference to it. Furthermore, Objective C is taught like the others--for example, CodeSchool has an entire section on iOS app development and an Objective C tutorial to go along with it...

I'm not so sure if I agree with the self serving push. I mean sure, these guys want great engineers--in fact, Zuckerberg explicitly states that.

But also remember that Zuckerberg is now investing in young medical research and Gates has been a philanthropic investor for a long time--these guys are looking beyond their companies and show that they truly care about the world and solving the BIG problems that exist. They are literally world-serving through these investments.

I am not saying that a degree is not important! I'm just saying that just being a CS major does not make one a great programmer and likewise, a great programmer need not be a CS major. I believe a history major can become a great programmer...as said in the video, learning how to program just takes determination.

I was an econ major and learned html/css in a few short weeks pretty darn well. At least enough to land me a web developer position with a rising startup. I have decided to change my major to a more technical one purely because I enjoy learning both HOW to program and what I can do with it--which I'm learning is just about anything :)

If you can learn to program on your own and become proficient in it, build great projects, and keep up to date with the languages, why does it matter what major you are?

Granted I'm 20 and still in school, but just being a CS major doesn't make someone a great programmer. I like to think that employers care about projects you've worked on as that is the best way to see a true programmers talents.

I think people are shifting away from the point of the video and that's fine, and I don't mean to be "that" guy, but it is important to realize what these accomplished programmers are trying to say through the video.

If you listen carefully, most of the interviewees are simply attesting to Steve Jobs' quote at the beginning: "Everybody in this country should learn how to program a computer...because it teaches you how to think." The second part, the ability to think, is a skill that people must have AND use in their everyday life to be successful in whatever they do. Zuck, Gates, Dorsey, Houston, etc. are all encouraging people to learn to code for this reason, and because programming is an extremely empowering skill--not just in one field but in all...if you want it to be. The fact that programming can be used in all fields is why there is such a huge push for people to learn. It is a self and world-empowering tool that is simply being encouraged to be taught/learned by the incoming generation.

The current generation needs to realize that programming exists everywhere, just as we are taught that subjects like math, biology, chemistry, physics, and history are. There is a HUGE distinction between learning to code just for the sake of getting a job or improving the economy and learning to code because it can empower us to THINK and then DO. Not to be philosophical, but part of societies' problems has been always knowing what problems exist, but not actually doing anything to solve it--until now. Programming, more than anything, accelerates our ability to solve problems, little or big.

In a world where so many problems exist, programming is many times the means to achieving the solution. And that is why these successful programmers are pushing everyone to learn.

I wonder if they've looked into adding an NFC chip into MYO. It may seem crazy for a gesture control armband but it could add potential functionality to the armband and also improve communication among the masses.

Thanks for the inspirational comment and for the amazing article/story!

And this is why I love HN. Thanks a lot, I will jump in on one of those!

I like to think I have a hacking mindset, a non-technical one of course, but it is a big factor in my determination to become a proficient programmer. Thanks for the advice though!

Yeah I guess because I read the TC article first, I had a better idea of what Padlet was before getting to the site.

After seeing the above comments, I went back to the site with a 'blank slate'. I actually don't think too much needs to change as a bit of vagueness can allow people to freely decide what the service is and can help you guys out as well.

However, I believe there needs to be some sort of central mission statement--something as simple as a googledocs for websites--so that first-time visitors know the main goal. From there, they can surf around and make the site what they want but at least you guys have stated your message clearly. Hope this helps a bit. Good luck!