VCs would happily invest in low risk, high-return investments -- that is in fact what they are looking for.
But wherever there is truly low risk, multiple funding sources will compete, and returns will be driven lower. Companies that fit the profile you describe will generally use debt financing, which is not available to venture startups.
If you're working on a smaller, highly tactical idea then persistence is often a waste of time. Anyone who meets a lot of startups will see many ideas that just aren't going to work. The sooner the founders realize it and move on, the better off they are.
I'm afraid that in its current incarnation, your comment doesn't amount to much more than an insult towards the author. I would elaborate on what makes this crazy in your opinion, and others may discuss your argument.
Cyclothymic, sure. Stronger emotions, some crashes. Bipolar? Absolutely not. I keep doing probability, causality, and checking my answers - never been full manic.
(Also, medicalization tends to marginalize people, and is frequently used instead of addressing arguments - "oh he's bipolar, that's why he's doing this - aside from the fact that I'm not, it's sloppy thinking; it's effective rhetorically but indicates weak ethics and minimal regard for truth and accuracy)
As someone who has seen bipolar type 2 first hand, you sound terrifyingly like me. I know that you won't get help right now, but I beg you to do so when you're at the nadir and sinking beneath the waves begins to make sense. Please, please don't let this break you and destroy your life.
It isn't something wrong. It's just the way we were born. Please seek help and learn how to live with this. Please.
If you pushed yourself onto the normal path and that makes you happy and keeps you engaged, great.
I made a different choice with different outcomes. In the last four weeks, I was able to hire like 30-40 people or so, keep six or so projects running, do a deal with a top hotel chain and top jeweler, put out a book in a week, lead a struggle for reform against traditional publishing, made $38,500, shot a bunch of videos, had a bunch of fun, hired an architect to build an orphanage in Ulaanbaatar, and so on.
Normal life? It's not for me. I'll take the good with the bad, burn hotter than the sun, and burn out and go mad at a relatively young age. It's a lifestyle choice, and I'm doing it an educated fashion. I wouldn't wish it on anyone else, I don't advocate it, but I wouldn't give it up for anything.
Do you honestly believe that I have a normal life?
Oh the creative turmoil can be helpful, but being grounded helps you to do so much more. Otherwise it's just two steps forward and one step back. (Be honest, doesn't that happen when you crash? Or when things become too feverish and hot?)
Further, there are things worth being stable for. Sometimes finding that one person who will love you and never leave your side is worth any amount of glory, fame, prestige or greatness you could possibly hustle. Sooner or later we all need someone to keep us warm at night and make everything worth it. Especially someone like us.
You're high right now. You'll probably snort at all of this, but reflect upon this when you're in that segue mode between the zenith and the nadir, when you're passing through that goldilocks zone of stability, and you'll know the answer.
Hey, Sebastian. I agree with some of your remarks here, with regards to such things being used to dismiss someone. I have a serious medical condition and I am open about that here. I am much more discreet about it at work. I tend to feel like people here (and elsewhere) do not really take me seriously and often kind of pat me on the head with the "gosh, you have a moving/touching personal story -- best of luck to you!" kind of stuff but usually aren't helpful to me in a meaningful way which moves my actual goals forward. I tend to get either patted on the head in a condescendingly encouraging manner, like I'm just a cute little girl, or dismissed as full of shit. And that hardly started on HN. HN has actually been a much nicer environment than a lot of other places. A lot of that does relate back to my medical situation and the fact that I am very open about it.
I talk about my medical condition publicly on the web in part because I have a small website where I talk a little about how I got myself well when that is supposed to be impossible. I also have a parenting site where I argue against simply labeling and dismissing my ASD sons. Part of the reason I am much more circumspect about my diagnosis at work is because I feel it can be used to dismiss me and also tends to turn into a circus, where that is all people focus on. So in many ways, I am on your side and agree with you.
On the other hand, I have had the same entry level job at work for five years and have not been promoted. Why? Well, because my medical condition is an actual problem which has put serious limits on my energy levels, ability to focus and so on. As I get healthier, I am being more productive and that has resulted in getting put on a pilot project which may lead to promotion. I have also worked at addressing the many issues my sons have. I find it really hard to talk about in a way that makes a clear distinction between accepting some aspects of my sons as they are without pathologizing it while simultaneously working on getting them healthier and more functional. And I'm very physically tired today, so perhaps will regret posting this as this is a tricky subject to address and I am perhaps not up to doing it justice today.
I've spent a lot of years getting myself well so my performance is not as erratic, I am not so emotionally out of control and so on. I feel I am gradually getting my act together and being taken more seriously. I sometimes wish I could help you somehow do the same. You come across like a blow-hard. I can't figure out what you have actually done, accomplishment-wise (and I've tried, in part because I get so much shit off of people and told I am making up tall tales when I am not, so I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about other people). You go down in flames a lot. Been there, done that. Got crateloads of t-shirts.
I debated writing to you privately about this rather than publicly because I have no desire for you or others to interpret this as a personal attack. But I don't feel I know you well enough to do that and have it go over well. People are often much more vicious in private than in public and my point of view is often wildly misunderstood, so my attempts to initiate private conversations with people has an extremely negative track record, I think because it gets viewed as "something so bitchy she wouldn't own up to saying it publicly". Yeah, I would own up to saying it publicly. I just would rather it not have an audience because I hate how badly audiences often behave, twist my words to support their attacks when that is not my intention and so on.
Anyway, I hope you are having a good holiday. Feel free to dismiss this post as motivated by jealousy of your high karma score. ;-) Peace and good wishes.
You know, I've been following your comments for years Mz. At first it was damn strange for me how open you were - it was like, doesn't she know you're not supposed to do that?
But over time, it became a breath of fresh air. I love how our generation is opening up and cutting out the idea that we have to be perfect, or at least pretend to be. It's cool seeing professional athletes like Zack Grienke open up about what they've got going on. It's nice to see your story, your candidness.
There's downsides! Oh, I know, I'm well-aware. But I feel so honest, so alive, so unvarnished.
Can I be a little raw and crass for a moment?
So I worked feverishly today, and then went to a high-class whorehouse for consolidated intense relaxation. It was fantastic, I was walking on air when I left.
I know I'm not supposed to say that, I know it offends a lot of people... but... it's true. I have a variety of people I work with, partner with, and so on. Some of my staff are devoutly Christian, I've got people who are hardcore party-goers, I've got a flamingly gay world-traveling athiest working on one project (even gay people would say "wow, he's really gay, y'know?) and... I think everyone knows I mean them no harm when I put my view out.
Maybe strangers don't know. But wow, it's so liberating to be honest. I feel so unchained. Yeah, I'm a mess in some ways. But everyone is a mess in some ways, and everyone keeps it bottled up and pretends they're not a mess. Yuck. I love this honesty thing. Thank you for your honesty. It's so rare and refreshing.
1) That you have a more beautiful life that involves somewhat less suffering than you seem to have (something I am working on and achieving for myself).
2) That you and HN get to a more peaceful place with each other. When I was more of a mess, I really hated how much drama I brought to the communities I participated in.
If there is any way I can help you (or HN) with either of those, please don't hesitate to write me.
Have a wonderful new year Sebastian.
(PS: I don't think we are of the same generation. I am 46. My understanding is you are substantially younger.)
You know how you look back at previous historical eras, and the people had these obviously backwards and stupid views, and how could they possibly not get it?
We live in one of those eras, too.
I try not to. Social decorum? A lot of it's there for good reason. But a lot of it isn't.
In general I think pay-to-pitch is highly suspicious, but I'm sympathetic to Graham Lawlor and Ultralight startups. He charges a small fee to cover expenses and make sure people are moderately serious. There's no way he's getting rich off of it. Pizza is included. The feedback and exposure are well worth the minimal cost. If the fee still bothers you, then just don't pitch there.
Running good events is very time consuming, more than people often realize. And yet my landlord continues to "prey on" me by demanding that I pay rent. Somehow, he fails to see comrade Calacanis' logic that everything should be free...
Are you in the event planning business or something? Isn't the idea for investors to make their money via return on the investment they make in startups?
That said, charging enough to cover the cost of pizza and what-not, that seems reasonable. But any outfits that are charging more than a nominal fee are highly questionable to me.
If you are playing a valuable role to investors by providing them access to interesting new startups then they should be the ones paying you, not the startups.
On the one hand, it's kind of a classic dick move by Mark, pretty typical of his bloody mindedness. (He's more of a bulldog than Zinga ever was.)
On the other, in any company as big as Zynga there are people who coast along and don't really earn their shares. Zynga isn't trying to take back what's vested, just clamping down on future shares for people who aren't doing a great job, maybe playing a lesser role than they were originally hired for. That seems like a perfectly valid thing to do -- in fact it's only fair to the employees who are pulling their weight.
This is ludicrous. If people are coasting in a company, those people should not stick around (dis-incentivized is a word I've heard used before).
The fact that this is happening right before launch is pretty reminiscent of Skype's fiasco prior to exit (sale to MSFT). In fact, both of these companies have one VC that's in common, Silver Lake Partners: http://www.silverlake.com/partners/investments.php?page=inve...
You're absolutely right -- RDBMSes were designed to solve problems with the nosql-type approaches that preceded them. The nosql bandwagon is blindly rolling into the past, where it will crash into the old problems of concurrency and consistency under load.
BTW if you want nosql-style schema flexibility within an RDBMS, then a simple solution is to store XML or JSON in in a character blob. Keep the fields you need to search over in separate indexed fields. If you make incompatible version changes, then add a new json/xml field.
Most vaccines are against viruses and bacteria. Malaria is a more complicated organism, a protist with many local varieties, and a tremendous ability to evolve around vaccines and medications in general.
Natural immunity to malaria is often limited to the local variant -- go a couple hundred miles, and you have no resistance at all. Vaccines rely on the body's natural immune system, so it is nearly impossible to create a single vaccine that is effective across the world.
For this reason, I'm highly skeptical that this initial test result will hold up with broader trials. BTW my spouse is a malariologist, formerly at WHO, and I've been a witness to much of the fight against malaria over the years.
From what i read elsewhere it works almost like a magic without producing resistance, and i'm wondering what would be the first hand account of a practitioner.
There's already artemisinin resistance starting in several places around the world, especially the Thai-Cambodia border, a very chaotic area with high endemic malaria.
The main problem is that cheap medications are often out of date or have improper dosage. Also, people stop taking medication when they feel better, but before the parasite is eliminated. The result is resistant parasites survive the treatment, and then spread.
We have maybe a decade of artemisin usability in the hottest areas. Could be more or less depending on how efficient public health practices are. But no way is it a permanent cure.
The artemisinin resistance is very scary. Cambodia is where Chloroquine resistance developed, which has since spread to Africa. If artemisinin resistance were to become widespread too, it would be a disaster. Containing it is a very tough problem, but there are efforts underway to try. One of the members of my lab is traveling to the area soon to test a new screening method.
thanks, i see. With developing resistance and being cheap, i wonder whether the artemisinin would fall off the radar of the industry - i mean it has shown good cancer cell killing efficiency and selectivity in tissue samples and mice, yet i haven't heard about serious research beyond that.
Smallpox was eliminated through a vaccine campaign. Resistance against vaccines is generally different from resistance from treatments. For example, since vaccines are in place pre-infection, the amount of target microbes in the body at time of action is pretty low, giving a much higher chance of killing them all. Treatment is usually given after infection, where there will be a large amount of target microbes. This will substantially increase the probability some critter surviving with more resistance genes and then passing them on.
There are so many ways to screw over a non-employee, minority common shareholder, you may well have no case here.
For example, if the company hit a rough patch, it might have been recapitalized, with all current shareholders wiped out. Since your partner had 80% of the shares, and plenty of cash, he could have easily pulled this off.
Depending on what state you're in, you may no longer have any right to seek redress. If your partner knows what he's doing (or has a lawyer who does), the best you're going to get is a small amount of cash to go away. And if you guys are on bad terms, you may not even get that.
Why change when you are hauling in billions of dollars per year, and there's nowhere to go but down? The mobile carriers are going to extract as many dollars as possible while they still can.
The fundamental problem is lack of competition. When there are only a small number of providers, none of them have an incentive to slash the price of texts to a more reasonable level.
I don't think this follows. In the US, for example, virtually every metro area has four national providers. They race against each other to roll out new devices and new network technologies.
The text charges are more of a historical addiction. Outside the US, voice charges were historically much higher (because they were priced to compete with the higher land line rates). So users flocked to SMS as a way to communicate more cheaply. In the US, voice charges on cell networks were comparatively cheap. Text was an "extra" that could be sold at a huge markup. And that revenue is hard to give up.
I guess my issue with all of this is why competition has to be the only force to drive inovation and business development. But I guess the problem is much more deeper and in every industry, not just wireless.
What is so wrong with still making a profit but actually creating a good service at affordable prices.
I think I understand pretty good all the fundamentals behind their business decisions but still it leaves me wanting better services.
If you start a startup, you'll probably fail. Most startups fail. It's the nature of the business. But it's not necessarily a mistake to try something that has a 90% chance of failing, if you can afford the risk. Failing at 40, when you have a family to support, could be serious. But if you fail at 22, so what? If you try to start a startup right out of college and it tanks, you'll end up at 23 broke and a lot smarter. Which, if you think about it, is roughly what you hope to get from a graduate program.
But wherever there is truly low risk, multiple funding sources will compete, and returns will be driven lower. Companies that fit the profile you describe will generally use debt financing, which is not available to venture startups.