thegenius

What's wrong with waiting 'many weeks'? Your idea is not going anywhere, and if it is, it's a bad idea.

If you want to do business before the LLC, you can go ahead. Then, once the LLC is formalized, transfer any assets you've created or acquired to it. For example:

http://www.newyorksmallbusinesslaw.com/new_york_small_busine...

As far as making mistakes goes, the paperwork is simpler than filling out doctor's paperwork on a new office visit. For any gaps, it's not hard to read NOLO, and the experience will help you grow as a business person as you learn self-reliance

And, FWIW, Legal zoom has to push the paperwork through the exact same process. The processing time will be the same either way, but you'll likely pay legalzoom a premium on top of the expedited service fee the state charges them.

https://www.legalzoom.com/assets/modals/modal-priority-rush-...

https://legalarrow.com/LLC/ProcessTimes.htm

For the U.S., It is not hard to create an LLC, and it isn't worth paying legal zoom hundreds of dollars to do something you're tax dollars are already supporting. For example, in California, go to this page

http://www.sos.ca.gov/business/be/filing-tips-llc.htm

You can get an LLC-1 and fill it out (very minimal). Nolo is a good resource for the rest of your options

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-form-llc-3...

If you are prone to blindly handing over your money whenever someone tells you you're too stupid to do something on your own, you shouldn't be running a business in the first place. Be resourceful damn it.

Exactly. Raising money is not the greatest accomplishment in the world. What if all that money came from a rich uncle? It's up to the founder to correctly allocate the capital once he/she has it. That's the real challenge. Getting a sizable return on assets, and furthermore, getting a large slice out of that for yourself is the goal of the owner of a for-profit business.

It's a problem that Github suffers from. The thing is, it's easier to educate people about .gitignore and .hgignore, and those are both more effective at blocking out sensitive files than accidentally switching over an editor tab with a yaml or whatever. The risks become compounded when you consider that people will record the sessions and make them part of the public record.

I might be overreacting, but it might be something to think about.

This seems like a a great idea and a lot of fun. Something I would personally participate in on both the watching and the streaming side. The only concern I think I would have is that of API key / password exposure. It would be up to the developer to be very careful not to accidentally switch to a config file in their editor or whatever.

Warren Buffett's partner Charles Munger says it best in this interview (time linked). He's talking about wall street executives, and the envy they have over one anothers' successes, but the same applies to tech founders.

"If somebody makes a lot of money, or reports a lot of money... Let them!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6RS_PqudxU#t=1460

You can see there's 8 of them here http://bergcloud.com/about . They probably burned through that 1.3 with a year of wage expense.

or Dread Pirate Roberts

This resonates so strongly with me, and I'm so glad you posted it. It reinforces the framework I've been using myself for the past few years and perfectly articulates what I've been trying to explain to myself even.

I can add even one more I personally follow. The standard way most tech companies put capital to work is hiring or aqui-hiring tech talent.

My own experience tells me that's too risky since I've worked with far, far more overvalued people than undervalued. Therefore, I reinvest the profits of my tech business into companies that have steady and real return on equity (e.g. Wells Fargo). Imagine that: A tech company that invests all retained earnings in a boring bank! :)

I agree. It's also worrisome that Marc Andreessen predicts the future so much lately. The future simply can't be predicted with such reliability as his certainty implies.

I've had interviews where the guy will ask me a technical question, and I won't answer it to his liking. Then, he'll proceed to answer the question himself at nauseating length to the point where I can see his original intention was to show me his 'brilliance'.

It's shitty and lacks courtesy in standard conversation to do stuff like that, so it's even worse during an interview when the candidate took the time to prepare, dress up in nice clothes, and show up on site for the interview.

What bothers me about a lot of technical interviewers is they don't set out to measure a candidate's qualifications so much as to reinforce their own feelings of self-importance. It's because they have little incentive to surrender their own statuses within the organization because then they won't be the ones giving interviews and deciding who they get to work with.

In the best interview I had, the interviewer started by saying, "Just talk" with a friendly smile. I was taken aback, and it eased the tension I was feeling. I started talking about my experience, and he took an active interest and branched off his questions based on the things I had done. He asked intelligent questions that made his compentency clear. I was able to volly back and forth with him until my competency became clear to him.

Don't grill people with a technical interview about things you care about. Have a technical conversation and try to find common interests. You get to witness the interviewee's chops, see if they're an asshole, and prove that you're not one all at the same time.

This article assumes readers will have the background to understand all the jibberish it presents. Meanwhile, it does't paint anything close to a clear picture on the inside scoop of "How Netflix cam to pay Comcast for Internet traffic". That makes the article damn near worthless IMO

My point to you is that SBC and D&A are actual expenses in every way imaginable. Just because Twitter says not doesn't make it so.

I'm not even sure what you mean. They come out of shareholder equity, and all public companies use accrual and not cash-basis accounting. It makes zero sense to strip out those operational charges unless you want to appear profitable for some short-term benefit. I realize companies do this kind of crap. It absolutely does not make it right, and the folly of the stock market is just that: believing just because somebody said or did something that it is also correct, or that something is OK because it looks official on a SEC document.

if you read the 8k, they doubled revenues but more than tripled losses. all this nongaap bullshit. read the footnotes. they removed stock based compensation and depreciation. how in the hell are those non operational charges? stock soars. hrm... lets make it look like were profitable so our lottery tickets are worth more. no thanks