etothepii

As a home owner that was only able to afford to buy a house because we were able to rent out the spare rooms on AirBnb I find fault in your logic.

I think you'll find that zoning/planning permission is the real bad guy here. That and a failure to understand Adam Smith and implement the ideas of Henry George.

Bermuda is trully wonderful. If you read HN you can easily figure out my e-Mail, feel free to drop me a message if interested further. Bermuda is the place to be if founding an insurance related start-up and probably of doing anything fintech related.

The weather is delightful, the taxes acceptable, the digital infrastructure ok. It can be an expensive place to live but a single person with no dependants could live here on $4k a month. The path to permanent residence is difficult but manageable for those who bring real value to the place (think jobs or significant capital). The people are generally friendly (though as with anywhere there are exceptions) and the Premier has at least some Software experience.

It is a very interesting question, in my humble opinion, As to Bermuda's relations with the British crown. So far as I am aware there has never been a law passed by the British parliament and enforced through the privy council which was not passed by the Bermuda Parliament before commencement. Importantly (and uniquely for the OTs). Bermuda was established prior to the Act of Union and so has a relationship with the "crown of England" rather than the "crown of Great Britain" having been settled in 1612.

Do you have a source for this? I am not aware of any practically significant way in which the crown dependencies are different from the OTs. AMA 7.5 year resident of Bermuda.

For me it was to do with Rugby Football.

This translation guide is usually helpful.

https://polish2english.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/55551980-...

I'm afraid I don't know what RFC English is and neither does Google.

Don't forget the rules of British English that make it very clear that the grammatical construction: "you should consider" means "you must in all circumstances save for the immediate alternate outcome being a genocide."

I don't have a source. Probably a YouTube video. Having deployed it my anecdotal experience supports it is a heuristic. I now treat it as a ceremony.

Perhaps, but this is where the body language part comes in. Don't walk up to those evenly distributed circle around a circle.

I can't read the article as I'm on my phone but would have been interested. As a Founder of a small B2B SaaS company I am often at events where I know almost no people where I would like to get to know lots of people.

It's probably blindingly obvious to others but the following rules have served me well.

1. Never approach a group that is evenly distributed around a circle. So if 2 people are opposite or 4 or a square don't engage. Do multiple loops until you find a group you can approach.

2. Have a good magic trick. I have a very nice one that involves a pack of playing cards and then involves a lot of eye contact while I "read your face" to work out the card.

I have found 99% respond yes to "would you like to see a magic trick?". It works equally well on CEOs as it does students.

I'm always curious about affiliate programs. I can absolutely believe that someone who can generate $100k of sales for you may do so for 40% but I find it hard to believe that anyone will bring their one or two friends with the same problem as because they get $4 (though I'm happy to be proven wrong on this with data).

Finally, "just get 2000 users" seems like a bit of a hand wavy exercise. Getting even 5 paying customers is in my opinion, no small feat.

Errrr, what? He might have been born in India but I don't think we can claim he wasn't British.

What do you want people to do?

Same in the OT of BMU.

I give lots of advice but I always caveat with: "I don't know what I'm talking about; get as much advice as you can; in the end, make up your own damn mind."

I'm interested in why you want to do this? What is the goal you are trying to achieve? Why would you not do this with salaries? Will there be some people paid more than others that do different roles? If so, why would their profit shares be the same? Who decides on war chest size? Ownership is an interesting word, because as you say if it was ownership then when an employee leaves they still get a share of profits and surely they could sell (otherwise it's not ownership). I've wondered myself about whether I should have some sort of union but what I really mean is an alternate reporting line to hear about problems. My suspicion is that there's a lot of what founders think of as profit that isn't really profit. My founder salary is probably around 25% of what I'd need to be willing a job. I'd everyone at the company did this we'd have a lot of extra "profit" to share out but it isn't real profit.

I think you are near certain to be right.

Apologies, I was referring to the specific thing one is doing (and giving up on) as a node below the "do something great" headline.

That is you don't give up on the overarching objective "do something great" because you have realised that the something you are doing is not helping you achieve that headline goal.

Why does UK have no place there?

The islands were uninhabited when settled by the French and following a peace treaty with France were transferred to the UK.

Does the answer to this lie with the tree PG discusses. If the goal is, "do something great." Then one should never quit.

I think what you are actually describing is that you should value equity at zero. If to work at a startup you would need 28% equity you are describing a founder. That's fine but there is an enormous difference between these two things. There is also the question of where the $125k comes from to pay your base.

This is a great point. 10 requests per second is likely to be sufficient scale that you are noticeable to people that might want to attack you. The ability to validate the key before doing anything with it could be a huge time (and resource) saver on AWS.

It's not forcibly; a company is a group of people that sign a special type on contract (often called memorandum of association and bye-laws but other terms exist.)

That contract can govern all manner of different circumstances including the circumstances in which the allocation of shares are transferred.

Sometimes only a motion of the board is required, sometimes additionally a motion by a general meeting with various options for requiring super majorities across and within the different classes can be required too.

Fiduciary duties often require the Board to act in the objective best interest of the members.

In my opinion it is better model to think of a company as a club (hence shareholders often being called a Member) rather than something that you own.

It depends what you mean. In the UK our institutions are centuries old. Heck the working class house my grandmother lived in until she died was older than the state of California.

The constitution is only as strong as the institutions that defend it. The U.S. is not there yet but the political nature of the courts and the judiciary are an anathema to a Brit.

What do you mean by "choosing".

The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. --Thucydides

I was as young, arrogant and naïve as you once.

This advice is for 14/15 year olds. I think the advice would be different for 22-year-olds. It would be different still for 35-year-olds.

22-year-olds have a hard time selling to enterprises, 14-year-olds will find it impossible. Whereas if they build something cool that they and their friends love they will gain many of the skills that might be useful later on.

PG has made the point many times that the superpower 22-year-olds have is that they can live on ramen and work 16 hours a day. The superpower that 14-year-olds have is that (in many cases) they don't even need to find the $1,000 a month to survive.

I am definitely a human, and I think that only a human would have deliberately got so many of the answers wrong. However, the computer was convinced of my non-humanness because I wouldn't play its silly little games.

The key point is that the value of the land is almost exclusively a function of other people's work.

The issue surely though is the comparator.

Your analysis misses the "what can you achieve without a degree?" part of the equation.