146 karma · joined May 18, 2008
The idea behind the blockchain is interesting too. Looking forward to hearing more discussion from people in the blockchain space about whether we can actually do this on POW and POS chains and whether the critique of bitcoin here is valid.
The idea that a guy should feel grateful for the opportunity to take a girl who looks down on him out to dinner is pretty far up there if we're chalking up examples of self-entitlement. Makes me suspect the real reason for her reaction was surprise at not being in the traditional position of judging and rejecting the guy first.
If the company cannot move forward until a technical product exists, you are investing in the company at a much earlier and riskier stage, since in addition to bearing product risk (will it work) and market risk (will it sell), you are also holding team risk (are your cofounders productive) and legal risk (if they bail, will you be sued for salvaging your investment as necessary).
Higher risk should translate into higher pay/equity. Don't let anyone negotiate your ownership down on any basis other than that their own disproportionately large contribution to the company (i.e. cash investment).
So some cynicism is certainly deserved, but it is probably more accurate to say that the more political influence someone has, and the more dirt they hold on other countries, the more protracted the entire judicial process becomes.
Alnayyir isn't criticizing your desire to hire a friend. He is saying that the entire topic is judgmental and crass since it starts from an assumption of superiority over others. And I respectfully agree.
If the defining quality of friendship is wishing the best for others, it is hardly an act of friendship to think about one's friends in this fashion ("how can I dump them", "how can I exploit them"). The very possibility is paradoxical: how could a genuinely good person do anything but help his friends to the utmost of his ability? It is your conflating friendship with other dynamics that is being criticized, not your giving someone a job.
Asking for recommendations from people who know what they're doing is an entirely different matter. I'd guess that's what they're looking for -- social proof you are reliable and not/crazy.
Agree. We've had designers deliver good looking stuff to us that ended up being unusable because they put a lot of time into delivering what they thought we needed instead of just reading the instructions. Tech knowledge helps eliminate communication problems.
The approach that works for me is keeping things simple and only adding graphic detail when it improves the look of the service. It helps to give developers examples of existing graphics to work with when you want a certain look. When you're looking for something very, very specific you can get an outside designer to put things together. I'd be surprised if you don't get responses from this post.
Don't get trapped by socialized norms of what it means to be a founder or how one goes about starting a company. Simply launch the business and iterate towards profitability - identify issues and fix those one-by-one. If you need cash to fix some problems, that's a challenge in and of itself. Get a job. Unless you are getting a lot of cash taking investment can be a bad move - see the point above about lawyers.
In my experience dealing with other people is time-expensive and making commitments to others significantly reduces flexibility in how products can be positioned and sold. You will know how valuable your company is after you understand the problems and time needed to execute. And then you will understand that the notion of fairness is defined by what different parties bring to the table. If you can quantify this and know its value then you know your limits for negotiating. Treat people with respect but ensure you get results for what you give up and that you're trading resources for something that will get you growth and profitability.
But at that point there is little sense in taking funding unless: (1) the business model expects exponential growth in costs, or (2) the founder wants to diversify risk or stop eating ramen by trading some equity for immediate cash. So self-selection is working against the interests of venture capitalists. It is bringing them into contact with people who spend significant amounts of cash to focus on getting funding instead of actually rolling out a business.
There are plenty of opportunities out there. If I can see them and the VC industry can't that is their problem and it is their job to solve. One simple case in point: how many times has a VC actively solicited pitches from people on Hacker News? I can't think of a single case. Yet the comment section on Umir's site is filled with VCs whining about the lack of decent business plans? Wow.
It is the slow scream of death march.
More on-topic, I think the title is wrong. People who can write well tend to be better at social organization. Mao was - among other things - a librarian and poet.