If that's your worldview, how do you feel about income tax?
974 karma · joined February 11, 2015
Previously Gymhopper (acquired '17) and PostPerk (acquired '21)
Info //at// louisnicholls dotcom
Won't plug that here, but I think you'd get a lot out of this interview I did with Stephanie Hurlburt, cofounder of Binomial, where she explains how she learned to close 6 and 7-figure deals as a technical founder with no business background: https://anchor.fm/sales-for-founders/episodes/How-to-close-7...
But I was specifically asking the OP about murder because it isn't obviously a significant factor in this study (and I was interested to hear why they thought otherwise).
I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make.
No - you're off by two orders of magnitude. Much closer to ~1500 women/year.
That's still ~1500 too many, no question. But is it likely to impact this study in any meaningful way? Seems unlikely to me (to put it mildly).
> Among US women, fear/wariness-of and preparedness-for attempts at bodily harm and abusive behavior by men appears to be near-universal.
That sounds like a reasonable assumption and not one I'd argue against (as someone with no real insight here).
But the question was explicitly regarding murder. Not more general violence/abuse.
I welcome the well-meaning comment and think your contribution was valuable in its own right, but please don't move the goalposts.
Curious how this is relevant to the study?
Roughly 0.001% of women are killed by a male partner each year in the US and - while terrible in of itself - I can't see it affecting the results of this study in any significant way.
Since starting work on the course in May, I’ve been through 3 iterations and made about $40k.
The ‘final’ version of the course will open for sale in early November, and I expect it to continue to be my main source of income for the next year or so at least.
If you’re thinking about running a course (I was very sceptical at first) or want to hear more, you can check out my recent interview on the IndieHackers.com podcast.
Although the original host sadly passed away a few years ago, and many of the original cast are well into their 80s...
My main worry is how you can do this at a non-net-negative return for your fund while also not coming across as predatory to the people you're trying to help.
> We often talk about ‘bootstrapping’ but very few founders actually build a business with literally no outside capital, savings, or help. In our personal experience, from asking lots of founders in private, a large portion used their own accumulated savings from a high paying job, had a spouse that covered the bills, had a windfall or inheritance, or relied on loans and help from family members. Every one of these is systematically harder in some way for founders of color, female founders, LGBTQ founders, and founders from underprivileged geographies. Note, none of these are insurmountable and we all know folks in every one of those categories who has successfully bootstrapped a business, but bootstrapping as we know it is systematically tilted against underrepresented founders in a way that we believe justifies a countervailing strategy.
You seem to be arguing (and I'd agree) that underrepresented founders find it much more difficult to get to the point at which Earnest (and others) would normally invest. What with them not having access to the considerable personal or F&F capital necessary to get there.
So it seems like you'd have to invest earlier, when there's more risk.
Now, I'm happy to believe that - because these founders are underrepresented - you can find 'better' founders overlooked by others.
But still, at that early stage, the risk will be significantly higher than at the P/M fit, post-revenue stage.
So I'd love to hear how you plan to offer terms that won't be called out as predatory (or somehow taking advantage of underrepresented founders) by others?
There are multiple options available to people in your situation depending on your country of residence.
On re-reading, I understand how it may have come across as less of an "interesting observation" for others reading and more like nitpicking or point scoring. I apologise for that. It wasn't my intention.
Did you disagree with the point I made in some way, or was this just the most convenient outlet for some keyboard banging?
That's the thing about local maxima - when you're in one, it isn't obvious.
Instead, the burden is on others to notice and speak up.
You may not like the Nazi comparison, but it's apt...
Especially with the things Trump says and does as president, there's a real danger that staying quiet about "daily life type interpersonal stuff" could have disastrous consequences a few years down the line.
After all, just like with the Nazis, you'll never be put in a position where you're asked to ignore much more than you already ignore.
The only problem with that is it's the same excuse a lot of Germans used to justify not speaking up against the Nazis.
While it may make your life better, it's very much a local maximum.
No, that's not the problem.
Take this sentence from your last comment, for example:
> You don't have to research Stallman for long to encounter a whole bunch of people (women) who feel the misgonistic air around him actively drove them away from engaging in fsf style open source.
You're being deliberately vague.
You don't say "Stallman is a misogynist" or "Stallman drove women away from contributing to fsf..."
Instead, you say there are people who "feel" that a misogynistic "air around him" drove them away.
Do you not see how that's a problem?
What if I were to claim that people "feel" a "misogynistic air" around you is driving people away from Hacker News?
That could be true, it could be false. Difficult to disprove.
But more importantly, it might not be your fault.
What you're doing is being deliberately vague to get away with blaming/accusing someone of something you wouldn't be able to get away with accusing them of directly.
It's the equivalent of asking "why was that young girl out alone so late at night anyway?" when discussing a sexual assault case.
Stallman may be a very bad man. Maybe he is a misogynist. Maybe he drove women away from working on FSF.
If so, accuse him of it. Don't hide behind waffle and doublespeak.
I very rarely comment on these kind of threads, but this quote is a perfect example of an unfortunate epidemic I see ever more often online:
Using vague and virtue-signal-ey language to get away with making a point that - if expressed in plain English - would be instantly exposed as ridiculous (if not downright dangerous).
Or why do I think that's the most plausible explanation for an unlikely event?
I'm genuinely undecided as to whether that's a good thing or not.
I've been thinking about a way to solve the exact same problem on and off for a long time (I'm terrible at proactively keeping in touch with friends).
My original solution was the same as yours, but it quickly broke down for me because I just couldn't get all of the data (in particular when I last talked to someone) into the app. I imagine you'll face the same challenge.
Two approaches have worked well for me though...
1. a dumb version of Dex. Basically just a list of friends/acquaintances and a periodic reminder (weekly, monthly, quarterly) to make sure I'd been in touch
2. a weekly prompt to reach out to anyone who fits a certain set of criteria. For example, "send a message to the last person you met at a networking event" or "reach out to the contact you'd be most likely to recommend for a marketing role"
Weirdly, the latter version has been way better for me at maintaining and growing relationships outside of my closest circle of friends. Especially on the professional side of things.
If you want to chat more about my experience or the problem in general, my email is in my profile and I find this super interesting :)
Good luck!
Unfortunately I can't find anything about him in English, but here's a link in German:
https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/zuerich/stadt/der-koenig-von-zu...
A really interesting fellow. Obviously had some mental health issues but was tolerated (surprisingly and warmly by Swiss standards) by the public and officials.
This is amazing. I mean, you literally will be giving their writers superpowers...
Hope that's ok. I know the mods make exceptions in some circumstances... and the original version did make the front page before being rendered useless by spam comments, so it seems useful.
Posted to HN as an afterthought. Big mistake!
Firstly, sorry about the comments on the doc. I've deleted them and locked the doc so no more will appear. As of right now (and going forward), all links are correct and content is original.
Secondly, happy to answer any questions!
Pouring water on someone's head !== rape (obviously).
Saying that we can't do anything about extreme, widespread violence in the prison system because we haven't yet managed to completely eradicate the mildest forms of physical bullying in schools is a ridiculous argument.
If the problem really is the interaction between prisoners, then we should simply stop those specific interactions taking place (or change the circumstances, so that they don't result in violence).
I'd like to live in a society where we prioritise (funding for) that over pranks in schools.
Not arguing with your general point. But on this count, I think you're vastly better off than the average CEO in 1919. You have luxury they couldn't have even imagined.
- quality of medical care - entertainment - air travel - cars - food regardless of season - etc
> Being single founder has it's merit, but when things go south with your health or anything personal; you'll loose your company.
I've been a solo and co-founder before.
Yes, in the early days you can't afford to hire staff. It's all on you as a solo founder and the risk (incl. burnout) is high.
But, as soon as the company is doing ok, you can and should hire an employee to shoulder some of the responsibilities a cofounder would otherwise take on.
Just because their compensation is weighted more towards cash than equity doesn't mean they can't be just as effective.