If you feel you're making well below market value for the industry & geo that you're interviewing in, I wouldn't set an 'anchor'. You have nothing to gain. Just wait for them to make you an offer. This is especially true if you're interviewing at a smaller company where they have less rigorous compensation guidelines for a given position, and they might be more tempted to low-ball you. A good manager at a large company shouldn't change their comp decision if you're making surprising little now... but you never know.
If you're currently in-line with the market, you can tell them or not. Either way you're in a good position to negotiate if the offer comes in a bit soft. Most candidates I see in this situation are upfront about their current comp and it makes the whole process more efficient.
If you're making more than market or more than they're expecting, be up front. Especially at a large company. Once they get approval to issue an offer it might be impossible or extremely difficult to increase the comp outside the band for that level. If they know in advance that you're making more than expected they can consider an offer at the next higher level. Also, don't just make up a number that puts you above market. First, if it is clearly too high it will make them question your honesty. Second, it might preclude you from an offer altogether if they don't feel you're ready for the next grade level.
As a side note, when candidates defer on the comp question, I assume they're making less than market. Almost as a rule 9 out of 10 candidates who defer are coming from other geo's or other industries that don't pay as well. As a policy, I try to keep my team's comp equitable & calibrated (much more tightly than just blindly following our company bands & guidelines) so I don't give them a lower offer. But other managers might not do the same.
Decent employers don't try to negotiate everyone down by default. The better employers recognise the value a decent employee brings to the table and goes out of their way to ensure that money isn't a concern.
I actually prefer it when the employee goes first. It shows your confidence and anchors the perception of your value.
Taking a job for less than what you would be happy with is an immediate recipe for dissatisfaction. That is a very bad way to start a job.
answering your q: i usually just say my last salary +$X/hr. maybe adding "but I'm flexible".
Otherwise I've had some success with recruiters, but the quality of the recruiter does matter.
You know that the company is trying to make a difference with their community. You are gifted a topic to discuss during an interview.
You can also use the companies that host local meet ups.
https://triplebyte.com/(and HN who's hiring also)https://nomadlist.com/ for remotehttps://remoteok.io/remote-jobs also for remote
Not a lot is for London specifically. Triplebyte only lists a few startups in London, some of which I'm already in the process of applying for.
How should we get $250 worth value out of it?
I think it helps a lot to be well versed in a c-family / type language (C, Java, C#...) and a a dynamic language like Ruby or Python.
I don't think that a college should be responsible for teaching students the popular/hip languages. There are clubs and special topic courses for those that are interested.
My college had a mobile development club, a web dev club, artificial intelligence club, etc. Bleeding edge frameworks, languages, and other technologies were usually the point of discussion.
I do wish however that the CS curriculum included at least one course on functional and declarative programming.
Sure, that works, for some people, with certain preferences.
Sometimes, though, you do what you want -- the things you love -- and take a job that you merely tolerate so that you can afford to do the things you love. Its silly to think that the things everyone loves must also be, exclusively, jobs.
That is true but it has to be strategically orchestrated though otherwise the consequences can be disastrous.
I only had to re-install BitDefender, everything else worked right away.
I'm only just annoyed that the Charms menu is gone. I had used Windows 8 since the developer preview so I was used to that in my workflow. Not a huge issue though.
The only thing that didn't seem to be compatible was Steam, which required me to re-download and re-install; that fixed it up.
Also I believe virtualbox is currently not compatible with windows 10, but I don't use it anymore so it wasn't a deal breaker for me.
The rollback to win7 was rather quick and painless.
I just checked my Windows Laptop with Win8.1, I can't see any upgrade notification :(
And when the FBI is investigating you, they don't need a smokescreen. I'd take them seriously if I were in your shoes.
2. "Uncorroborated sources" means little. If there was an imminent threat they would tell you.
3. If you were in trouble, you would already be under arrest.
4. This was a preliminary meeting to see if you have any interest in becoming an informant for them. Expect that request to come soon.
5.If you've purchased grow house bulbs in the past six months or dozens of packages of ephedrine, then rest assured that your online postings have nothing to do with their visit.
If you are really concerned, here's a tip: lawyers are plentiful in the United States. You are not eligible for a free lawyer, but call your local federal court and ask for the names of attorneys who handle CJA appointments. Or call the local chapter of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, or contact their Washington office for a referral. Your new lawyer will quickly discover the level of the Bureau's interest.
It's probably in the government's best interest to keep you alive, even if you've torrented.
(Of course, I don't pirate stuff anymore. I doubt I'll ever feel like I'm off their radar ever again. Not worth the risk.)
Fortunately your comment history looks otherwise fine, but please don't post anything like this to HN again.
In the resume, order them by most awesome first. Don't bother putting the broken ones in. If possible, and if they are open source, put the source code on github. Put up an online demo, or link them to the real thing. Then put both repo and demo links in the resume, along with a 2-3 sentence summary of what the app does. Don't run around the bush, get straight to the point of the app.
The more useful metrics are over a time period - like the sessions per month one. Looking at percentage growth over time for a cumulative metric seems pretty meaningless actually - among other reasons, it can never be negative even if your business just tanked.
Monthly Growth usually refers to the growth in a monthly metric per month, and would be 0% in your case.
Over what period of time?(1) 300k sessions in the previous year to 1.2M sessions this year(2) 300k TOTAL SESSIONS SINCE THE BEGINNINGS OF TIME (TSSBOF) in Jan 1st last year to 1.2M TSSBOF in Dec 31st last year
If the answer is (2), you should have seen and average of (1.2M - 0.3M)/12 = 75k sessions per month. If you saw that number every month, then essentially growth in sessions per month is zero.
The means that looking forward, unless something changes, your app will continue to have 900k sessions per year.
You just need to be clear on what you're measuring and what matters the most? The TSSBOF? Or the total sessions per month? I'd go with sessions/month.
It should be easy to see why--if you take the cumulative version, then by definition growth delta will always be 0 or positive. Even if you shut down your app next month, growth would be "0", which doesn't make sense, since your app is closed and you turned away 100% of your users so the delta in that (extreme) case would be -100% and not "0". "0" growth means there was no change in users between month.
Now if you show some growth and want to calculate the growth rate, CMGR (compound monthly growth rate) is your best friend!
Do this:1) X = # of sessions in october 20142) Y = # of sessions in october 20153) CMGR (compound MONTHLY growth rate) = (Y / X) ^ (1/12)-1
Here's an example:X = 100Y = 200CMGR = (200/100) ^ (1/12) - 1 = 5.9% monthly growthDouble check...100 * (1.059)^12 = 199...damn rounding :)
Hope that helps!
I would imagine the answer to the first question is, well yes of course it is allowed. They own (or have some right) to the property they are lending so they can decide on any number of arbitrary factors whether or not to lend to a particular borrower.
Is it against Airbnb's rules and policies? Actually, from everything I can find, no. This is absolutely fine. You can, as a lender, make any number of "house rules" in a "house manual" as long as you state your rules upfront. Maybe this lender feels that married couples take better care of the house in question. Or maybe they have religious beliefs about unmarried couples. Or maybe they just hate people who are dating. As long as the rules are stipulated up front and not in a rude way, it seems just fine according to the rules.
Now, will this help them lend their place? Hard to say. The market will drive that entirely. But as for "allowed" the answer seems to be a clear, yes.
Seems like they will only intervene if the host doesn't comply with local discrimination laws.So I guess she should find if Norway has any anti-discrimination laws with regards to housing and martial status.
And if it's specified in the listing itself they might intervene regardless of local law if I understand it correctly.
No problem at all.
I look askew at resumes where the longest stint is 18 months and the average is 12-15. That reads of someone who either can't stick something out, or someone that gets discovered as less-than-good over and over. Either way, I don't have a place for that.
A few 2+ year stints, a few promotions within a company, and still moving around a bit? That's normal. One bad fit job? No problem.
If you get another offer you want and you don't like the current role, switch. Life is too short. You might make it a point to stay at the next place longer than 7 months (ideally 24+).
Bottom line; everyone can get away with a unfortunate career move. As long as you can explain why you took the job (whay you expected) and why that didn't work out. But if this happens more often, future empoyers will suspect there's something 'wrong' with you if you can't seem too be happy and productive in a place for a longer time.
Apparently not, if you're close to getting offers.
Everyone gets a rare do-over. Just don't make it a pattern.
EDIT: added parent quote.
Some times things just don't work out. Sometimes it's the employer, sometimes the employee. Employers understand that, but they will want to know that it was your choice to leave, and what made you want to leave.
Though the pay is one thing, if somebody asks you about this in the future, it is better to focus on the work not being what was promised, and not being fulfilling, or whatever the issue was.
On a side-note, if this shortish stint (I've had shorter), comes up in an interview, try to tell the interviewer what you liked about the company as well as what you don't. I remember interviewing a guy that did nothing but complain about a former employer. He didn't get the job specifically because I didn't want to bring in somebody who had so much negativity. Byt he sounds of things, you've got a good head on your shoulders, and a couple of offers already, I'm sure you'll be fine.
With the company I'm working for now, I was considering leaving the first year as well, for both pay and for the work.
Six months later though, I was offered a very substantial raise, more responsibility, and much better work. I wouldn't trade my current position for anything, and I've recently turned down several offers for substantially more money elsewhere.
IDK, maybe sometimes expecting things to materialize within a year is unrealistic. But that's just my experience, YMMV obviously.
Why was pay a disappointment to you? Did you not negotiate your pay upfront?
I stayed at a job for 6 weeks and another for 9 months. As a hiring manager now, I am likely to look past someone leaving a job if the reasons are ones I can understand.
I'd start by thinking about how much your product is worth to the company. How much money will it save/make them? Don't just look at the functionality that you provide, but also at risk reduction. Charging based on value is called value pricing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-based_pricing ). You'll want to charge less than what your customer has to gain (otherwise they won't buy). This is the number you should be working from (using out-of-pocket costs to determine pricing is called time and materials pricing and is a great way to go broke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_and_materials).
Your original app pricing has little to do with what you can charge enterprise customers, because the product that you're offering is different. Yes, your old pricing will act as a bit of a psychological anchor, but if they've contacted you for a custom plan, they are probably willing to spend quite a bit.
Source: I write a blog on the subject of product pricing (and wrote a book specifically about software pricing - http://taprun.com/pricing/ ).
This way you can show private server instance pricing on your site and allow the price to scale up based on use/data so you don't make less if they are using it more and you can scale up the price as they use it more.
Maybe show three tiers and have the last tier be variable based on their users/data or other relevant item.
If you're just looking for a price my initial thought is go for $999/mo.
That said, here are some thoughts based on my own experience and research.
Keep the model as simple as possible (but no simpler?). Nobody wants a complicated pricing model with per-core charges mixed with CAL (client access license) charges, mixed with varying discounts and floating license servers and blah, blah, blah.
The challenge, of course, is how to balance having a simple pricing model, with your desire to charge companies based on the value you provide them. That is, a larger company with more users is (presumably) getting more value from your software and should pay more. So charging per user is a valid option, but it's not the only one. You could charge based on the customer's revenue, or scale the pricing based on the hardware (physical or virtual) required to run the software for their needs.
There's some really interesting stuff in Douglas Hubbard's work on "Applied Information Economics", although I don't really have time to try and explain it all here. But the key of his approach is to try and actually quantify the value of an information system by figuring out a way to measure the factors the system will impact, and then figure out the economic value of improving those factors. That's a little bit of an over simplification, but it's an interesting approach built on calibrated estimation, monte carlo simulations, and elements of modern portfolio theory.
I'd recommend reading the book How to Measure Anything by Hubbard, and/or read the Wikipedia article on AIE and see if you can think of a way to apply this with your customer(s). Ideally, if you get them to buy into the model you create, you have very solid footing for establishing the price of your software, since you can actually put a number to the value it adds.
There's probably a heck of a lot more to be said about all this, but it's bedtime here. :-)
And will Dax play a bigger role in the future, in branding to give more personality? It wasn't easy finding the name of the duck I see daily. (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=name+of+the+duckduckgo+duck)
Congrats for your search engine. I admire the work you did. The only reason I don't use DDG is that I'm Greek and the results for Greek keywords are many orders of magnitude off-mark compared to Google. Why is that? Any hope to improve results in the future?
On a personal note, DDG has been my daily driver for about 2 years now. I love the bang shortcuts (!man and !cpp mostly).
The first few months or so, I ended up following almost every search query with a "!g query", but search results have really, really improved. Now I only have to use Google for local topics and/or very recent events.
How do you keep the DuckDuckGo afloat ?
In terms of mobile any plans for the future you can reveal? How do you feel about Siri, Google Now and Cortana is it something you think DDG can do or can be used as a backend/source ?
I do believe that it is critical that we do have choices. Choices that can free us from a single establishment. So, thank you!
Google got this one wrong (though I suspect that google does it on purpose).
When you were first working on DDG who did you show it to before you "launched" on here? What kind of early feedback did you get?
Just wanted to say thanks for DDG, it's been my default search engine for going on a year now and absolutely love it. I'm also a developer(DDG is also the reason I started to dabble with Perl) from PA (about 10 minutes from DDG) and have to say it's very exciting to see something like DuckDuckGo created in my hometown area. Thanks again for the great work!
How do you evaluate the general search quality?
Do you have any focus on expanding crawling in general? And localized content in particular?
Where did the name for DuckDuckGo come from?
Do you have some plans to open source the search engine of DuckDuckGo one day and let people contribute?
2. In regards to YC Research, can you tell us anything more about the (general) topic area(s) you will be interested in? And maybe expand a little bit more on what kind of mechanisms might be put in place to facilitate working with outside researchers (hopefully including independent researchers and / or other startups).
Applying for YC funding doesn't make sense for several reasons:
1. I want to be king, not rich; everything I hear tells me that YC pushes companies to grow fast and increase their valuations, and that's something I fundamentally don't care about. I know that I'm stubborn enough that this would just result in a lot of frustration on both sides.
2. Tarsnap doesn't need the money. It's solidly profitable, and I honestly have no idea what I would do with investment money.
3. I don't want to live in the bay area -- not even for 3 months. Granted, this seems like it may be less of an issue now that it's possible for people with pre-existing conditions to get medical insurance; but the bay area is fundamentally not somewhere I can ever imagine myself wanting to live.
4. Converting Tarsnap into a US corporation would eat a lot of time and money. I completely understand why it's necessary for companies YC is going to invest in; but it's another reason why having YC invest in Tarsnap doesn't make sense.
I think YC and its portfolio companies are doing great and interesting things, and I'd like to be part of the community... but as explained above, taking funding doesn't make sense; when I applied for the YC fellowship (I know it was a stretch) you told me to apply for funding instead; and you haven't asked me to be part of YCR.
Is there some other option here?
I'm a graduating college senior, and I've accepted a job at a very big company in the tech industry. Right now, it makes the most financial sense for me to join a big company and pay off my debt quickly, but at some point in the future I'd love to scratch that entrepreneurial itch and apply to YC.
How do I maximize my time at a big company to gain relevant skills to keep the possibility of a startup open in the future?
1. Will the model be group-based where there's a head PI setting the research agenda for a group and researchers working under the PI? If so, what level of independence do you expect individual researchers within a group to have? I.e. is it more like the academic model with postdocs enjoying a fair degree of independence, or more akin to national labs where the research agenda is reasonably fixed and everyone is expected to contribute to the same research program? Or, are you coming up with an entirely different model?
2. In general how hands-on will YCR be in terms of intra-group management?
3. Do you expect to subscribe to all the major publishing houses so that YCR researchers have access to journals like they would at a top-tier university?
1) What advice would you give to applicants from Brazil and other large countries (India, China, Russia), whose products initially target their local markets?
2) What advice would you give to post-Seed and pre-Series A applicants? When (if at all) would you consider them "too big for YC"?
3) If you select a post Seed startup, would YC invest at their latest valuation, or would it only offer the standard deal, even if it would be a "down round" for current investors?
Heard you are visiting India and know you've been to Mexico not long ago. Ever thought about coming to Brazil? Best regards, Bernardo
Do you or YC have any thoughts on things you could do to help this, if any?
It's really hard for employees 1-N, especially at sub-market salaries, but without 10% equity stakes, to move to SFBA. It pretty much restricts you to people already-here, people who will live college dorm style, or people who are already well off. Too much of the money raised goes out the door in salary (taxed) to pay for housing.
* (I know some people like to call the second category "pure" research, but I think that betrays a bias against working on more practical problems.)
the YC Research announcement got me very excited, particularly as someone who experiences the pain points you described first hand on a daily basis.
First question, would YC Research be limited to the US or would you consider other countries (e.g. Canada in my case)?
Also, would you ever consider partnering with existing Public/Government institutions? There are lots of very good people already working on some really interesting projects (yes, even in the public sector :) ), and I believe they need support and direction (and some actual business sense). So to re-phrase my question, would YC Research ever consider some sort of support/consulting platform for existing (possibly public) organizations?
Thank you very much for taking the time!
Often I see people say what they used to take the data and then the end result of the analysis, but never do I see any details whatsoever about the specific techniques or steps they took to transform the raw data into what ends up being published.
It's a very frustrating thing for me and I don't see a mainstream or more easily accessible way for me to post my raw data + analysis other than making a blog for myself, which I have no easy way of promoting in a paper.
I think it would be great to be the ones that set the tone for transparency and it would be a fantastic way of teaching others how to analyze data, or how to catch errors in someone's analysis.
Right now there's a huge wall of obscurity in that we have to take the author's word for it. I know many things cannot be reproduced in experimental science, but the analysis of the data should be. I can't see a reason why people would not want to share their data in academia since most people are funded by DOE, NSF, NIH and DOD and hence by the taxpayer. I think it would be great for pedagogical purposes, it would encourage best practices and it would help us be honest.
So my question is about YC Research. You said in that earlier thread you will be hand picking the people. How exactly do you intend to do that if you don't me asking? Are you partnering with schools? Are they going to be recommended? Do you already have a database?
My top pick is called "Black Cadillac" it's from a local shop and also reminds me of the modest mouse song of the same name.
In other words, hypothetically, if YC had existed during the 90s, at what stage should Google Guys have applied to YC (Between 1995-1998, A) when the idea struck (mid 1995) B) When it started crawling the web (around 1996), or C) when they bought the domain (1998). Thanks!
For instance, I would love to be in YC- But just like many older (30+) folks, I have a family and simply cannot move to SF. The 'move to SF' restriction is the one thing I hate about YC- Its also why I think some competing incubators are picking up steam, who focus on global teams.
This may be disagreed upon- But I truly feel the 'move to SF' restriction is almost prejudicial against older folks. I get there is immense value in being in the valley (I just moved from SF), but I just dont think thats a reason not to find a way the system couldn't work either remotely or satellite based.
Also, many research projects (like bioinformatics) require enormous amounts of difficult to obtain data (e.g. Hospital records, blood samples, etc...). Do you have a plan to help those kinds of labs build collaborations, or do you expect to bring in researchers who will be able to "figure it out"?
Finally, are you looking specifially for trained PhD researchers, or is this open to anybody?
First of all, thanks for the 10 million dollar donation for YC research. That's an amazing gesture, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the scientific research model get completely disrupted - it's in a terrible state and it needs a big shove.
- Given your donation, what are your thoughts on philanthropy?
- Most of your advice is for founders, however, what should an employee look in an early stage start up when deciding whether to join? Obviously, the decision is much easier if the company has started growing exponentially, but before that?
Our startup is a for-profit company. However, as a part of our strategy we are making a lot of medical data open sourced. Even if we completely fail, we will move the leave an extremely positive footprint on traditional Chinese medicine industry.Q:1. How would you suggest balancing good intensions for the industry with making money?2. Should we reflect this in the application and how?
I am torn about submitting an application. I have a list of 20+ customers waiting for the first beta release and who are actively asking about progress (and willing to post payment!) The idea and particular niche market has been churning in my mind for several years, and over the past 18 months, the vision has materialized into a real product. Market trends are pointing upwards, it is ripe for disruption and could be a winner takes all game.
I am weeks away from private-beta depending on my productivity (this has been a side project). I have a wife, 7 month old daughter, and a cushy full-time salary with little work demands. I have been in two long-term employer relationships (4 and 5 years) and at each made huge impacts on molding the product, despite not being hired for that. But I am bored and want the freedom and flexibility to work on my own ideas. But one thing I have always lacked is a talent network. Is this something being accepted into HN would help with? I honestly get the feeling that most applicants are searching for direction and help with flushing things out, things that I am already confident in. What do you make of a solo guy like me, with a solid product that is almost ready for market? I'm a proud guy, and there is that part of me that wants to just continue being a Lone Wolf.
(i.e. shouldn't early employess, investing their under-market salary/time receive the same conditions/protection of their investments as VCs?)
As a new parent, I'm intrigued by this. What kinds of things did your parents do with/for you to foster this level of independence? What had the biggest effect on you, personally?
Are there any unsolved problems for growing companies you wish someone would apply to solve?
I'm not on the shortlist of anyone for "smartest people in the field", but I have a keen interest & passion for research. I suspect there are many people like me. Do you anticipate that YCR will have a track for people like me to participate, or will it be aiming for the creme de la creme as a rule?
Will YCR researchers' publications be required to be open access?
Should it be possible for the peer-review process to happen in a more open forum than the judgment of a couple of handpicked reviewers? Some fields (such as mathematics) have seen this happen already, but it's not very common in other fields, such as the life sciences.
I don't necessarily agree with them. I have been doing this startup for over an year now. It has growth with a strong potential for more.
I know that you've been working on this problem personally and a few high profile companies have publicly announced changes. But what's going on with new small companies? What are the current norms?
I know that YC takes care of a lot of the legal work when setting up new YC companies. What do you currently recommend for employee option grants?
Do you see any useful correlates to this problem? What types of teams tend to have infighting vs. those that don't?
I've been thinking about this for a while:
- small companies rarely fund university research - the grant application process is complex - grad students get paid so little compared to tech workers - hiring a PhD student before they finish means abandoning their research
Funding 120k is good for early startups, but I think YC could have far more reach and impact if it had an option to provide less capital to a greater number of startups. The purpose being to allow founders to support themselves and fully focus on their startup without having to worry about daily jobs.
I see two major benefits: 1) YC would have greater and broader impact since for the same amount of seed would be possible to found 12-15 more companies that are ready to move from the idea to execution stage.
2) (this touches me personally) For non US founders, we have to worry about rent, food etc. I believe that if founders had the oportunity to fully focus on their startups for 3 months without a daily job, it would have tremendous impact for the early startups, and as a nice side effect YC could have another pool of really good candidates/ideas. At the end of the 3 months the founders would have had a chance to demonstrate themselves, their execution level, etc., at a very low cost.
I truly believe the ROI on something like this would be considerable.
I know that capital is not the only (and arguably not even the most important) advantage of been admitted to YC, but personally speaking, if I had this option 3 years ago I'd have pursued it no questions asked. I feel that there might be other founders that would be in the same boat.
Do you have any thoughts on this?Thanks!Carlos.
When will we see the peak of the commercial and medical results of having a sequenced population?
What could prevent us from getting all our genes sequenced? Shouldn't we try to facilitate mass sequencing, for all the medical benefits it could provide? What can YCombinator do to influence corporate and political entities to collaborate and reach a solution to expedite this process?
Example, Indian market/users/plans are considered to be a lot different than other countries.
Is there a checklist, or a blueprint, or a list of topics, or a list of books that you can recommend that will cover the most important/basic/low-level aspects of building a company? What should I be thinking about?
I'm looking for the backbone; I can work on figuring out the proper shape of what I'm building along the way.
It seems that much of what YC funds these days lies in combinations of software with other disciplines such as biology, law, hardware, energy, and so forth. Is there any room for the pure-software/sales startup anymore, or does the future lie in interdisciplinary startups?
I submitted our application, and I wrote YC this letter on Medium (https://medium.com/@laurenholliday_/dear-y-combinator-we-wro...).
What else can one do to stand out? I'm so worried our application will get lost in a pile of all the others.
Also, is it possible that we'll hear from you before the 28th?
We'll launch our first beta version within a month and we are receiving a tremendous amount of interest. However we can't really yet prove a traction. What should we prove (or what should we have done) in order to try to apply again?
I have a number of ideas for companies which I would like to explore, but I am constantly hamstrung by the fact that I don't have the technical skills required. I wouldn't go so far as to say I am non-technical (I'm a bioengineer transitioning into data science) but I certainly am not a developer per say. Do you have any advice on how to find potential technical co-founders?
YC and the Bay area would be an immense deal to us :
=> Regardless of the product I'm building : Are the advantages of moving to SF enough to balance the immediate difficulties of leaving ?
PS: We are building an AI (currently for students) that plugs into messaging apps. 150k messages exchanged already.
What can YC and Silicon Valley as a whole to mitigate the problems this will cause?
Thanks for supporting us all with your time & insights.
Given the rise & success of things like Hack Reactor and Nano Degrees plus the YC RSF for Education.
1) Do you have any specific thoughts on innovations you would like to see in Secondary Education, specifically Jr. High and High School?
2) What about Elementary Education in the US?
What would look like promising, realistic starting points for -- or even attributes of -- such a nascent startup? e.g., chat bots, development platforms, intelligent agents for games?
I have a friend who's a physicist working on graphene and he would really like to apply.
- Do you feel that Y Combinator's increasing visibility has helped your mission to attract a wide range of applicants beyond established tech industry insiders?
- How do you manage the risk that your corresponding increase in competitiveness could lower the chances of acceptance for less polished but still innovative applications from people with fewer industry connections?
I'm the CEO & Founder of a 4-person SaaS company profitable as most of our employees are outside the US. We're 4 years old, and are now doing ~$30k/mo in revenue. I started the company young and have learned a lot.
I question whether this is just a waste of my time, and whether I should just sell and start something new, but my worry is that by the time the new thing kicks off, THIS company will be making far more.
What are your thoughts on WHEN to sell a startup, and whether to even sell?
I get the feeling our startup can't be that bad not to be a part of YC as we have everything in place but need a great platform & community to showcase what we're building. Hardware is tough and takes more money and we're about to raise a convertible note using YC SAFE docs. Does this make our case weaker to be accepted into YC?
* Would you consider investing in a company that invents a toilet paper holder where the TP can only be inserted in the OVER position? This is a huge problem world-wide that should be solved immediately. The market is huge! B2B, B2C, you name it, there's toilet paper!
* All seriousness aside, do you have any advice for building an app that has no clear money-making potential? I've had this idea brewing for years, but no matter how much I think about, I have no idea how to monetize it.
If you do plan to invest in YC Fellows via an equity deal in the near future, how acceptable would a -very small- investment from FFF for exchange in equity would be before getting the Fellowship?
In your opinion, what is the greatest impediment to getting better software into government. Second, is there a market opportunity in alleviating this/these impediments?
- what is the exact purpose of the company description in the application, is it a mission statement?
- do you have examples of "something surprising or amusing that one of you has discovered"
- is it important for the evaluation process if another company has already succeeded in another market but with a similar approach as the one we propose? Should we talk about it in the application?
Thank you for your help
Thank you for spending time on HN on a regular basis! Would love other partners to do the same.
Instead, I am asking YC founders to do quick office hours with us and refer to YC if they liked what they saw. (which I have no control of).
Am I doing the wrong thing and going to get rejected for not polishing the application enough?
We curated all interesting YCombinator Q&As and created a wiki. www.askmeanything.me/brands/ycombinator
Some of these are from HN and some from the 'How to start a startup' course.
1] Help us curate more. Just submit link to email@example.com and we will have it posted with due credits to you and the source.
2] We will soon categorize them as 'application Q&A', 'co-founder Q&A' etc to make it more easy to read.
Def look for feedback.
If possible, how can we make that work?
We've mainly left this problem in the hands of the FDA. Is it time for a deeper quantitative investigation?
Is this an area YCResearxh might look into?
How did YC gain such a huge advantage in doing this over the other incubator/accelerators?
Is there any advice you can give to young founders trying to get into YC or raise a seed round? Its worth noting were students with graduation quickly approaching. I fear my previous applications werent seriously considered since my team and I lack true industry experience, which leaves us seemingly unqualified.
When submitted early, they would notice YC related views to their website and Youtube video. Unfortunately, when submitted close to the deadline, there were no views.
Say you are working on a project that is really similar to another product that has been validated and successful in another part of the world. Would you see it as a good indicator, or does it mean nothing given the culture differences? What would be the best way to take advantage of that intel?
Thanks and have a good day!
How long, or to what sort of benchmarks, do you think a startup engineer should marinate in the startup scene before being taken seriously as a technical founder?
And follow up: Do you give extra consideration to an application for founders that have been employees at another YC company prior?
I have a question relating to AI and YCR.
I remember your blog about AI mentioning how many of the best private companies are very secretive about their advances and research.
Was YCombinator Research heavily influenced by this secrecy in specifically the AI fields?
Is YCR going to have a focus on AI, at least initially?
Can you give any insight into the fields of research you are focusing on?
In your position at YC, founders and investors alike trust you with lots of information. You have a unique view of where money is flowing and how equipped companies are to compete with each other. I'm sure you'd have amazing answers for Peter Thiel's "tell me something you believe is true but nobody else agrees with" and you'd probably be right on a lot of the points due to information available uniquely to you.
As YC grows, what actions do you plan on taking to ensure its accountability? In particular, how do you plan to help founders who for whatever reason don't directly participate in YC?
Any tips on balancing uni, research there (pre-doc) and a startup (co-founder, CTO)?
Do you think it is necessary to give up one for another?
Do you expect a video walkthrough like what Drew Houston from Dropbox did in his 2007 application or do you expect a link to a live demo that you can click through?
For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is basically just looking for opportunities to have the biggest possible impact.
I think a lot of your future goals may line up: clean energy, global healthcare, etc.
Thanks for engaging with the HN crowd :)I have spoken to Jessica (Livingston) about this, but wanted to get your thoughts as well.
My question is simple, yet complex at its nature:
How important is the relationship of the founders?(For simplicity let's assume there are two of them).
What tips do you have for a solo founder to make his application most useful to you?
What information would you like to see to give you some confidence in the solo founder to move past this disadvantage?
we've applied to YC Winter 2016 within the first five days, but thinking about making minor changes to the application. Does "editing" have a negative-effect? Do you read the whole application again or just the edits? Thanks in advance!
We're a startup in a non-technical industry. We are high-growth minded, with a growing platform of users and plans to create connected hardware devices. What metrics would you need to see from a company like ours to make it into YC?
Update: It has been restored as of 9:33am PST. No sure why the downvotes, I found this is be somewhat amazing given whose post this was.
 as of 9:28am PST at least
What could/would be our 10x growth lever in innovation/living quality.
(reason i ask - in the end YC is one of those companies shaping global innovation that could help move towards above)
Web/mobile development is kind of commodity already. One can learn nuclear physics, but it doesn't feel like you can hack on it a lot.
Wanted to ask you what do you think about Chamath comments about the lack of diversity in VC partners affecting the companies they invest? How do you see this affecting YC?
Just wanted to ask:
1) how does being a single founder eventually impact the dynamics of a company?
2) any heuristics for finding the one metric that matters to optimize on?
3) any tips for projects less iterative and more focused on a "complex coordination" modality
- Initial starting size
- How you will be picking researchers
- Any particularly novel initiatives/methodologies that will be encouraged
- How you will measure the group's success
How do you see an application from someone with clear track records in a field, but applying with an idea in a quite different field?
Non-YC question here. I remember years ago at some of apples events loopt was featured on stage by Jobs (I think?) How did you manage to get that kind of promotion?
TELL US MORE ABOUT Y COMB RESEARCH
What area of research will you be conducting?
You guys have been talking about your investments in HW startups.
What are the top 3 things that you look for in a hardware startup application at YC?
Please list your 3 most favorite book for Entrepreneurship, business. I'm an software engineer but have very little entrepreneurship experience.
What are some technologies that excite you?
Do you have any suggestions that would help non-technical startup employees get visa entry to the US?
Which application questions do you think best measure determination and flexibility of founders?
Did you accept it?
Was it successful?
Thanks for doing this.
1. What do you consider your best professional accomplishment?
2. Have you ever visited Israel?
I don't have any particular questions for you. I just want to let you know that I appreciate for the work you put in, both to HN and to Y Combinator.
Perhaps I speak for the whole community on that point. Best of luck.
2) You just gave 10m to fund YC Research. Was that because no other partners wanted to get involved in the project and in order to get their agreement (and show how important you felt it was) you decided to put your own money where your mouth was? It just seemed odd to me that it is a YC project yet you put your personal money in it (is the reason for the question).
I have seen lot of Spaniards applying to YC and they got rejected/ignored with awesome projects.
Do you even read all applications? Posted applications with all urls tracked and we saw 0 clicks... How can you judge our product without testing it? Did you even watched our pitch?
But in the other hand, I saw a lot of stupid companies backed by YC (Uber for X, Airbnb for X, Tinder for X, Y for X startups) I don't mind about it, it's your money, just asking for solid reasons.
This is going to blacklist me for YC but I don't care.
Kind regards, Alex.
But I guess reddit is the superior alternative (at least for me). I find that the Facebook posts and Instragram stuff is always full of people trying to show off their lives all the time.
You can manage social media, automate it, etc through multiple SaaS providers right now.
People love twitters API to build bots and shit, so you can even build your own dashboard using other folks examples.
I would totally attribute it to being just me, but in the last month I've received offers from Amazon, the DoD, Intel, and a few smaller shops in my area.
It's funny too, because I see the same companies continually posting the same ads month after month in the "Who's Hiring" posts, so they must have a fairly strong bias against false positives.
Living in a part of the US that skews VERY heavily towards one party, I especially vote in primary elections, which are where it's actually determined which congresscritter or senator we'll be sending to Washington or the state capital. And yes, I will absolutely vote my heart rather than strategically in a primary. "Electable" too often isn't.
And I make sure to vote in off-year state and local elections too because those actually have more impact on my daily quality of life in the short-term than national ones do. (Whereas national elections have more impact on the long-term direction of the country, especially when there are Supreme Court vacancies likely).
My state allows a candidate to run for office on multiple parties' slates, and will aggregate those votes for the candidate. I dislike one party much more than the other, but there are third-parties far closer to my actual positions. I'll often vote for a major-party candidate on a third-party slate, which both helps ensure that the third party remains on the ballot for the next election cycle and hopefully helps send a message to the major party in question.
(Edited for typos.)
That said, I am somewhat ambivalent about voting and democracy. I think democracy is basically just a euphemism for "mob rule" and find that whatever systems you put in to try and prevent the "tyranny of the majority" never really work. And if you're on the losing end in a "democratic" system, are you really "represented"? I argue that the answer is "no". I don't hold Richard Burr, David Price, or Thom Tillis as representing me in any way. I certainly didn't vote for any of them, and would't if you paid me to.
Basically I'm a voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist / market anarchist / whatever-term-you-prefer, who wants to eliminate most of "government" as we know it today. Note that does not mean I'm in favor of chaos or opposed to communal action (this is something critics of libertarian thought often get wrong.. seemingly intentionally at times). I just want voluntary exchange and self-government to be the fundamental basis for society, with use of force/violence reserved for self-defense.
Yes, I might not think I'd make a difference, I don't have anybody to vote for, I don't think parliament members make much of a difference, I'm not crazy about democracy etc etc. But in the end I guess I just don't care.
If there was a special party or person that I'd really believe to be a game changer, I might. If I was American I would perhaps vote next year depending on who gets the Republican nomination.
I used to be an organizer for the Green Party so I am capable of very cynical views of the electoral system but also going door to door to get signatures, running candidates, etc.
In local races, even up to the state legislature level, I often know the people involved personally. I've had friends and acquaintances run for local offices as Greens, Democrats and Republicans. I even meet a congressional candidate from time to time.
For the presidential election next year the immediate thing on my mind is that I don't want to see a Hillary Clinton - Jeb Bush matchup because as much as the "Anderson-Horowitz politics" people on HN would find that easy to swallow, it would set a very bad precedent for our country.
The times I feel I have had much more impact though is when I wrote letters to my elected officials. If you have an issue you really care about then write to your representatives in the weeks leading up to a vote. I have always gotten a reasonable response when I sent a personalized (not form letter) note, and in at least one case I think I really helped make a difference in how they voted.
I do not believe I live in a democracy, even though that's what we'recalling it. I believe that by voting I'm validating a broken system.
Who are all these people making calls about everything and setting rules,while knowing relatively little on the subject matter? I personally thinka democracy would be every eligable person being able to contribute tothe decision of (ie. voting on) these calls, rather than simply picking the 'guy' who makes them. Let the experts in their fields have a say. Idon't know what such a system would look like - but only if somethinglike that were in place would I call it a democracy. What we have rightnow is the illusion of a democracy. I'm not interested in voting, butI am interested in fixing this mess.
Back down to earth.. I think the barrier to entry for understandingcurrent politics is unrealistically high: in order for me to make a callon a party I need to know quite a lot of things about each. There is no'official source', which forces me to google, which forces me to read some third party source, whether it's a news site or some blog. Eitherway it's more often than not a very biased opinion that does not weigh allsides equally, and I can never form a complete picture. Too much time is required to contribute for what I would gain from it, and I have betterthings to do. Is anybody aware of an aggregator or a summary site of allpolitical parties views? Can I look up a party's stance on something andcross reference what the other parties stances are on the same subject?
Also, I might be naive enough to think that if I vote despite my cynicism and outspokenness against the shit politicians pull, maybe - just maybe - I might inspire just one other person to vote. And if I manage to do that, maybe they'll inspire someone else and eventually people will start engaging with politics again, instead of just handing the reins over to the people that stand to gain the most from voter disenfranchisement.
I also don't think I should have the right to vote, as a pretty young person with minimal skin in the game. The risk is too great that I'd seek just to support the candidate who offers me the policies most beneficial to me, rather than acting as a steward, so it seems like I should be left out.
My non-vote is noticed just as little as my vote for any candidate in a presidential election, so I don't care too much, nor do I feel a need to make a principled stand that will go unnoticed. I'd vote in lesser elections like US Rep, but my congressman is pretty well set for every election. He's been the Rep for my district longer than I've been alive, and I think he mostly does a good job. He's the house sponsor for the bill that required carriers to unlock phones, which I think has been fantastic for me, but in a freedom-increasing, rather than pandering, sort of way.
I refuse to support a system that legitimates the voice of the majority. There is little to no correlation between what the majority has been led to believe is right, and what is actually right.
That said, I could see myself voting for a party that (intentionally or not) would reveal the ridicule of democracy, a party that undisputedly wouldn't be fit to rule the country.
There is quite pleasant theory about what political systems are. It state that you can represent all political systems as segment, on which both ends are dictatorship and democracy. But, this theory also states that those two systems are unachievable in our world, they are like asymptotes - all political systems tends towards them, but never actually get there. If you take a look at democracy - even Greek democracy weren't this perfect one - yeah, everybody could vote. Except for a women, those who hasn't finished their army service, those who haven't got status of a citizen and those who were slaves.
Having this in mind, I personaly always go to elections and always vote. Sometimes - in local elections - I know who had done something for my district or city, and this gives me clear options. This man did this and that, he seems fair and honest, he claims he can do few things better - yup, I'll give him my vote so he can try his best. Other times - especially when it comes to parliment or presiden elections I go to election but I don't have clear options. I don't know those people and to be truly honest - most of them has been on political scene for far to long - so I don't vote for them who have the biggest election budgets. And it happened twice to this day - I made invalid votes on purpose. Here, in Poland, we can't add our option to the vote card. There were two cases where none of candidates on my voting card weren't good enough to have my voice, so I write my types down which made my voice invalid.
What does the first paragraph have to do with the second? I choose people who will drag our political system towards this version of political system which is nearest my opinions and preference.
And to all people who say that qoing to election won't change antyhing - yes, it will. But it require some maturity and effort. It require to make a choice and quite possibly to regret given voice. And then it require consideration - "who I'll vote for if my previous choice was bad?". In some sense it's quite biblical - be hot or be cold, not lukewarm. But... this would mean handling the consequences of our choice, and we humans don't like to do that...
I have to admit I don't see much point voting on a state, congressional, or federal level when living in areas that are completely skewed in favor of a single political party. Were I able to vote, perhaps I'd vote in the primaries.
It doesn't bother me too much - when I really care about an issue, which isn't that often, I call a politician's office or two and donate something to an appropriate PAC. That's probably more effective than voting directly.
Going to city council meetings, canvassing for candidates, collecting signatures for propositions, etc...those all feel a bit more impactful than voting...but I feel like a hypocrite doing any of those things if I myself don't actually vote...so I vote too.
That said, I vote on Hacker News stories. Could HN be an example of a moderated democracy (constitutional monarchy?) working well on a larger scale?
This was an option that was successfully won for many years over (sometimes concurrently, sometimes not) for the Student Union at my first university, Imperial College London.
I devote about 5 or so percent of my free time to civics. This means learning about my local options, who actually can impact my life in notable and significant ways, as well as just being active. Being active means doing advocacy actions, the occasional trip to the State capitol, phone banking, GOTV efforts of various kinds, etc...
I sure wish I knew how to convince more 20 somethings to vote.
Why: I have a serious medical condition which limits how much I can take on. I spent a lot of years as a military wife and devoted mother, raising two special needs sons. This was just a helluva lot of work, more than most people seem to appreciate. Trying to stay up on The Issues was just not something I could manage. My plate was overly full as is. I saw no reason to vote if my choices were not based on some kind of meaningful information or opinion.
From what I gather, you see higher rates of voting and political activity in older people, precisely because their plate is less full (with launching a career, finding romance, raising kids, etc). It is possible that as I get older and my life works better, I may someday feel able to effectively participate in the process. I haven't made any decisions one way or the other. It wasn't a Stance. It was happenstance.
Apologies for causing confusion. We are interested in how you search for new products. Let's use in store and online as examples, what is the process that you go through? Less so on product selection and more on discovery. If that makes sense.
A product that has users is better than one that doesn't. It is harder to explain to users what a fat product does than a lean product. It is harder for users to understand a fat product. It takes more effort to maintain and improve a fat product than a lean one. These are all costs, not benefits.
"Launched" is a feature, probably the most important feature you can have. If it turns out that you launch it and nobody cares, you can always add more features and launch it again.
A seismic shift is happening, web app work now primarily consists of api or infrastructure work, and not as much user experience as ... say just 3-5 years ago
Web apps will still be around but everything will be mobile-first or mobile-only in just a few years ... get ahead of the tidal wave.
I can't imagine there are two multibillion dollar food recipe delivery subscription companies.
Is this as crazy as I think it is?
Edit: plus Trendy and Theranos and probably a few more from the other categories.
Based on the past 150 years of so of history, ad-supported companies have consistently delivered excellent returns. First the newspaper empires, then TV, then Internet.
1. Preventing Global Warming / Dealing with what's already occurred etc
2. Unaffordable / low quality healthcare etc
3. Income Inequality / Affordable higher education etc
There's a bunch of big problems, but I bet you could make the case that they go in those 3 categories above. The point is none of these are solved by having a fancy animated website that makes money via ads. Facebook/Google/Reddit etc created a bunch of value by connecting everyone. They were a necessary unicorn for the time, and they can still be replaced.
But if you're looking to create a unicorn, you need to set your sights on solving the big problems.
It's my personal unicorn!
Do you have a carbon monoxide detector?
Dizziness can be one of the symptoms. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Carbon-monoxide-poisoning/Pages...
I have a close family member, and close friend who both suffer from Schizophrenia. Although I'd hate to make any type of diagnosis over a medium like this, I feel you've been descriptive enough for me to make an educated guess.
Schizophrenia is a fairly complex disorder with varying levels of severity. What you described sounds very close to what a lot of people describe as their first 'episode', which commonly comes between the ages of 18-30. It includes what you've described, a long period of being awake, with intense thoughts, paranoia, and a inescapable need to 'do something' (such as wipe your devices).
One of the greatest challenges of dealing with this is finding treatment fast enough before the disease progresses. Often once it progresses, the person no longer is able to realize something is wrong. As you've described it, you still have that sinking feeling that something isn't right. Often at this stage general practitioners will not understand the disease enough to make a diagnosis, so it's important you see a trained psychiatrist as soon as possible.
For your question about evaluating your condition objectively, this is part of the core treatment of Schizophrenia and it's related disorders, so it would be best a doctor helps you with this. Adderral is a known to aggravate Schizophrenia as it interferes with Dopamine, I'd advise to cut down or stop taking it until you can speak to a doctor. There is also a very small chance you are experiencing a reaction to long term Adderall use it's self, experiencing a Amphetamine psychosis which has very symptoms to Schizophrenia but is temporary. Do not risk it though, for a lot of people if Schizophrenia advances, they are unable, or refuse to seek treatment.
It seems like it could be in parallel to your situation. I highly recommend having someone evaluating your dosage, as well as whether it's an adverse effect of the Adderall itself.
Why are you taking 40mg adderall daily?
This would involve you writing a list of stuff that you do and don't want to happen if people ever feel the need to provide treatment. It can include signs to look out for - that mean things aren't going well and that people should take action.
I'm not going to do any kind of diagnostic stuff but early intervention is important.
EDIT: obviously, you should see a doctor rather than relying on Internet advice.
EDIT: here's a sample plan
I don't know if this is your case, you should to talk a psychotherapist and/or a psychiatrist, but some of the details of your story (like picking up on details like the pace of talking from a wireless company representative) remind me of my mother. She thought there was a worldwide conspiracy against her, with the CIA involved, and so on. One example: she was active in a Blogger community, and someone connected to her network wrote this mundane blog post about visiting the zoo with his family, written in a witty style and with pictures of animals. My mother thought this was a concealed attack to her well being. ("I am obviously the giraffe in this story", etc). There was no way to make her see how absurd that was, that was her perception of reality, and she wouldn't budge from it.
Unfortunately, even after having seen doctors and having spent time in a mental hospital, she continues to deny that she is unwell. She is too proud and too stubborn to be open to the idea that her perception is mistaken, or that she has an illness, or that she is not at the center of the world. Her illness along with her pride and stubbornness has caused our family a lot of pain. Imagine your mother or your sister or your wife, not just becoming mentally unwell (that is tough but fixable), but denying at all costs that she is unwell, and so letting that illness define her character going forward.
So for me, whether or not you have a health issue, you taking into consideration what your family is worried about, is commendable. Please stay open to what the people who are close to you and who care about you have to say.
I wish you the best of luck friend.
I would consider that unless like Elliot you're trying to reset society's debt to zero it's unlikely you're being targeted. What makes you worth targeting over anyone else?
I think you should speak to a medical professional (get multiple opinions if you don't trust them) and move on from there.
There's a lot we can learn from Mr Robot, for me the biggest lesson is you can't always trust what you see and feel. Find somebody who can help you with that.
For instance, I'm partially convinced this is just someone trolling hacker news whilst bored on a Sunday...
I've deleted the earlier version of this comment (in which I asked you to speculate on a motive for the email) as I think that it is more important to address the things that could cause these thoughts. It would be different if you didn't feel sick or weren't taking a high drug level.
I see a lot of similarities, especially because you mention physical illness (although the OP there didn't mention his headaches until prompted.) Try to solve them, as they're quite serious. Bear in mind that your judgment may be impaired at the moment, and that your family are concerned. Try to solve the external source of the issues if at all possible.
 Here is the thread I mean: https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/34l7vo/ma_posti...
You can't. You need a third party (such as a psychologist) to definitively tell you what's what. It's super easy to fool and mislead ones self.
I once thought my girlfriend hacked into my computer and corrupted it somehow; I lost everything. In hindsight, that was a crazy thing to think, but at the time it made sense given who she was and what was technically capable and all that.
What one must do, is separate what is possible (being hacked) from what is likely (computer crash) from what is absurd (girlfriend did it). This is not always easy, and not always straightforward, and not always something you can and should do by yourself.
Also... stress is a biggie. aderall likely won't help things either. People have lapses, behave irrationally or quite insanely as result of temporary outside factors. So, Its not something to worry about in that sense, but its certainly something to identify the cause of and take action against and monitor.
best of luck!
Never be embarrassed if you think you might be having a temporary psychotic break or experiencing heretofore unknown symptoms of schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder. It will do no good sitting around and wondering.
Getting help is the only thing that will help you regain confidence in yourself. And maybe it's nothing and you were right all along.
40 mg/day is a LOT... who put you on that dose? I was taking 10-20 mg/day and it usually left me feeling totally zonked. (I'm about 200 lbs) Taking 40 mg was a sure-fire way to spend the day grinding my teeth and babbling frantically.
I definitely experienced paranoia, and tended to fixate on things outside my sphere of influence, which lead to feelings of helplessness and despair. At the time I thought I was seeing things more clearly.
After a while I realized that while adderal was effective at improving performance in rote tasks, it messed pretty severely with abstract reasoning. I ditched it cold turkey one day and never went back. Surprisingly there were no withdrawal effects. After stopping its use, my grades in university level math and computer science improved dramatically.
I now believe that psychiatrists are wrong about prescribing adderal for ADD, and that adderal is not a safe or effective long-term treatment. Frankly, I think the whole field is either in denial, or corrupted by financial incentives.
Some people will tell you that you need someone to objectively evaluate your mental state, but I don't believe such an analysis is truly possible. Best-case, you'll get an educated guess and some good advice. Worst-case, someone will try to prescribe you even more drugs. So before you do that, quit taking speed, and exercise regularly. You might be surprised by how much better you feel.
I was so incredibly convinced at the time that someone was intercepting my calls and playing back snippets to me. It was terrible. My mom drove from another country to take care of me. My brother came in. I made an embarrassment of myself on my social media. I freaked the fuck out of my roommates and all the friends I had at university.
I was on vyvanse and aderoll like drug at the time for adhd. It seems these things may have been related.
All I can say now is. Put the phone away. Post everywhere that you're sick and going to be out for a few. Take a nap. If you can't nap try and burn the energy off somehow. Then sleep.
And remember that while it really hurts the ego, everyone around you just wants to see you feeling like yourself. Hack or not.
If its a hack you can trace it after you're feeling more like yourself. If not then ohwell. You got weird for a bit. It happens. Life's weird.
I wish you the best! Good luck.
If its a hack
Also 40mg of adderall seems like a lot, if you're on adderall xr.
Slowly, but surely, however, it started having negative side effects, namely anxiety and paranoia. My symptoms and resulting behaviors weren't as extreme as yours, but I could definitely feel the crazies coming on sometimes. That being said, don't listen to the people on here telling you that you are schizophrenic.
After getting a 2nd and 3rd opinion from other doctors, and reading some stuff on Pubmed, I realized that my dose was very high. I resolved to just ditch the Adderall and never return to my psychiatrist.
I'd be happy to talk more about this with you if you want. I am a 23-year-old male software engineer and have spent a lot of time trying to find healthy/ier alternatives to adderall. Drop me a line at firstname.lastname@example.org
Story: I knew a lady in her 40s who started experiencing some psychosis. She started thinking that people were spying on her and reporting her activities on radio and TV, that huge gatherings were being held in football stadiums to watch videos of her which had been secretly filmed, that songs on the radio (in languages she didn't know) were talking about her, etc.
She thought that all her friends knew about this but didn't mention anything so as not to alarm her. After a couple months went by, and still none of her friends mentioned anything, she thought it was strange and decided to have herself checked instead.
After taking the recommended medication, within a day or so, the strange music she used to hear in the distance disappeared, all the people on the radio and TV stopped talking about her, etc.
Moral: Don't get stuck on the stigma of the "crazy" label. Just like anyone can get sick physically, people who are otherwise normal can start having mental problems. That doesn't mean you're "crazy". It does mean that you should have yourself checked by someone who is knowledgeable about such ailments.
I am sure I overreacted but they did make me concerned when my machine was running slow. I had upgraded to El Capitan on like the 2nd. SOme behavior preceded that but not having fans run and machine getting hot is fairly normal on mac.
IDK maybe I am just paranoid. Trying to find the TCP DUmps. From before I formatted the system. I am posting them because a few people said that there was no real evidence. I am sure I overreacted and maybe should look into it more, but the emails happened.
It always starts out small like this though, and it's extremely common for a person after their first few episodes to still not believe they have Schizophrenia, so please don't trust yourself.
I should also be clear, we could be talking about Schizoaffective Disorder. Schizophrenia is sort of umbrella term. I find it's often used incorrectly. Lots of people who suffer still have prolonged periods of being completely normal and lucid, some even go into year long remissions. It's a complicated disease, and you've displayed the tell-tale first sign almost to a T.
If you have the slightest inclination that something isn't right, I suggest seeing a doctor who cares. I waited way too long even after realizing that perhaps there is a problem (trying to avoid the stigma) and learned that mental health is no joke.
You're healthy enough to get help, friend, you can't be any crazier than the rest of us.
I would be definitely very nervous if someone hacked my devices.
2) Taking drugs is a very dubious practice at best. Prescription drugs are drugs. They mess with your normal functioning in ways that sometimes mask certain problems, almost always at the cost of causing worse ones. The list of known side-effects at normal dosages is usually bad enough, and those are just the ones that are known. The people who make them are only motivated to find a product that produces a certain effect. They are not motivated to learn what the drugs actually do. The people who push them do so for reasons that rarely have to do with promoting your real health, mental or otherwise. The people that think they are helping are the worst. For every problem that drugs might help you with (temporarily and at too high a cost), there is almost certainly a better way.
2a) What goes for drugs goes for any person in the mental health field, whether they push drugs or not. It also goes for anyone recommending professional help from someone in the mental health field, especially when they are very nice and emotionally supportive and want to help and are sure they have (or will find) the answer for you. Many people enter the mental health field because they have questions about their own mental health that they want to answer. They do not find answers. They find a system where they can gain status and make a living by making sure that other people do not find answers either. This is a harsh and sweeping statement that cannot be properly justified without going into issues that are beyond the scope of this post, but suffice it to say that the entire mental health field is based on assumptions which are completely wrong and do not allow it to even get a whiff of what the real problems and the real solutions are. If you value your sanity, stay as far away as possible. Take it as one person's opinion if you like, but that's what I have to say about the mental health field.
2b) I have an aunt who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, went on drugs, and has spent most of her life in institutions. She had serious problems (possibly before and certainly after entering care), but I agree with the poster who said that mental health issues are often family politics issues in disguise. I told my parents things that they did not want to hear, and they did not think there was anything wrong with going to a mental health professional and asking if they could do something (read: possibly get me committed) without even trying to talk to me first. These are parents that I thought I had a good relationship with, but I discovered (the hard way) that there were just certain that they do NOT want to hear. Obviously I do not recommend doing or saying anything even remotely threatening to anyone, and particularly not to parents or family members. I do not even recommend saying things that family members do not want to hear (even if they are true), if you can possibly avoid it. I recommend staying as close to your family as you reasonably can. However, you have to realize that they do not necessarily have your best interest in mind when they give you advice, and that your natural inclination (if you are like most people) is going to be to trust them even if you shouldn't. If they attempt to manipulate you or try to get you to think that you are crazy just because you think something unusual is happening, when it is pretty clear that something unusual is indeed happening, then be very careful and do not let them become the ones who determine what is real and what is not real for you, or pressure you into mental health channels, or anything that would commit you to something that is not actually going to help you.
3) The better way (than drugs) might involve investing less of yourself in technology and the internet. That's a decision that you have to make for yourself, but the tech industry, and the internet part of it especially, is already borderline insane. Some of the people who participate in it the most intensively (though probably not the most visibly) are criminally insane. Even "normal" behaviors within internet culture ingrain ADD type thinking and behavior. Rather than take drugs to mask a behavior, ask yourself what is causing it. It is certainly possible to have some involvement with the internet and not suffer any apparent ill effects. I still have some involvement with it. But I used to live on it. That is becoming normal behavior for more and more people, but in fact it is insane-making.
4) Exercising is a waste of time. It might provide an alternative to drugs that is somewhat healthier, and it might help you get off the internet, but it does not address any of the real issues. For many people it is just another obsession. Most people would do much more for their health just by paying more attention (and putting more effort in)to not eating more than they actually need to eat.
5) Having gone though a similar experience to the one that you relate (perhaps a bit more extreme, hece the length of this post), the best step I can recommend, based on my own experience, is to get a job as an employee (preferably low level, preferably with minimal prospects for advancement) at some job that pays the bills, and spend the greater part of your day doing what someone else tells you to do. A job that does not require you to interact with very many other people is fine, and less stressful, but a customer/service job is OK too if you can do it. Some of these kinds of jobs are hectic, but ideally you want the most boring such job that you can get. Don't be a trucker, or another job where you're not dealing with a boss for long periods of time. The idea is that you are doing what your boss tells you to do and/or what the customers are asking you to do as much as possible, that you are not what you want to do, and that you continue doing this as long as possible. It might sound counter-intuitive to tell you to listen to your boss and to random customers and do what they want after I've just finished telling you not to listen to your parents or mental health professionals or do what they want, but the difference is that with a job (especially a boring job) it's just a job. There are no family politics. You are not attempting to create something out of nothing. You are not trying to become rich or famous. You are there because you choose to be there and because there is a job to do. The customer wants a simple thing from you, and your boss wants a simple thing from you, and none of them gain much from trying to mess with your head. It's just a job. You are also not falling into the habit of becoming a leecher in a system that is designed to support a leecher lifestyle, which is what happens to people who fall into institutions hoping that someone else will solve their problems.
Getting a job like that and sticking with it long enough might be too big of a step for many (most?) people, but it's what I did and it has worked very well for me. There are also very good reasons why it can be expected to work in general, but these are beyond the scope of this post. If you do it, and reflect on it, you will start to understand it yourself anyway. And that is the real reason to do it, because the question of what is sane and what is not, what is normal and what is not, is a non-trivial question--very non-trivial. Unfortunately you cannot trust the answers that you get from most people, including the ones who ought to know. But you cannot simply trust yourself and leave it at that either. It is worth spending a great deal of time and effort to get it right.
There is a certain amount of legitimate paranoia which comes on anyone who is technically competent and starts thinking about security and the systems most people trust without question. This sounds like the place you are now. Once you start thinking about it, it won't go away, and you will learn to manage it.
Don't use the word "they" when you think about who can intercept your calls or hack you. That ways lies unhealthy paranoia, where anyone can start to seem "off" or "acting weird". Even without that bias, bringing up anything that might imply your cell provider not securing their network will confuse a call center employee at best, or put them on "careful what I say" mode because that way lies legal liability for them. Not sure if that's what happened, but it's one explanation.
There definitely exist people and groups in this world that can hack you in a variety of ways: legally (FBI using a warrant), probably legally (NSA without judicial approval), or illegally (criminal hackers). Most likely the first two don't care to attack you, and the latter have no reason to risk performing an attack on you unless you recently made some shady enemies. If you care to do so, you can minimize the number of such groups by using end-to-end encrypted technologies like FaceTime. Google is allegedly working on end-to-end encrypted calls, as well, and has included WebRTC into Chrome. Signal by Open Whisper Systems and Firefox Hello by Mozilla also provide e2e crypto, if you prefer open source things.
Realize that the challenge you're facing is both technical and psychological. Start thinking systematically about security. If you think your phone is hacked, ask "how did it get hacked, and how do I prevent this with my next phone?". Did the OS get rooted, or is it just one of the apps that could be acting weird? Cell phone makers spend a lot of resources securing their manufacturing, hardware, software, and platforms, and it's really expensive and risky to perform an attack on someone who follows best practices.
That said, don't imagine that you can be secure all of your systems against everyone all the time. Angela Merkel can't, and she has way more resources than you do. Security is all about increasing the cost and risk of an attack and decreasing its value, something worth integrating into your lifestyle regardless of whether you're a target now.
Finally, about schizophrenia: there's definitely stigma there. Don't worry about it. Read the DSM  to understand what symptoms drug manufacturers target in their drug trials. The point of the categorization is for medical treatment, not judgement, and it's none of anyone's business except the people who you choose to tell. If your security concerns get so bad that they interfere with your daily life more than you want (i.e. you can't work or have close relationships), get diagnosed and meds to help you get back on track. Based on your writing, it doesn't seem like you're suffering from anything that will require you to be on meds for a long time, even if you choose to use them. A doctor or therapist can be a good advisor in this regard, as can friends or relatives if you can find someone qualified.
Stimulants like Adderall are in some ways the opposite of anti-psychotics, so that definitely won't help you.
YES. But its probably just the drugs. Quit taking speed.
You can never be entirely objective about your mental condition. But you can try to find objective verification about what was going on, whether that validates or refutes your ideas about the events.
Hemingway thought the government was tapping his phones, etc. Everyone thought he was crazy. It came out after his death that he was right.
Just because it seems improbable to other people does not mean you are imagining it. But, also, the fact that you fell ill means you could have been misinterpreting things due to fever or other temporary mental impairment.
Whether you were coming up with unfounded ideas or were right, the best answer is to seek some kind of objective evidence concerning what actually happened. If you get objective evidence that refutes your interpretation, then you can feel okay about the possibility that it was machinations of a fevered mind. If you get evidence that something wonky was going on, you can deal with it.
Since you were sick, please consider the possibility that it is a little of column A and a little of column B. Perhaps someone did something, but you blew it out of proportion. The truth may lay somewhere between the extremes of "I was 100% right" and "I was 100% crazy and imagining things."
Best of luck.
The stimulation our brains get by beeing in nature is very important for us.
When you are outside and all the little, tiny millions of natural information tidbits that are coming from everywhere, they are important for our mental health in general. Outside, look at the waves, at the leafs of trees in the wind, bugs humming around and everything. Those pattern are important.
In the confines of our cities, which give us solace on other levels, and the simplistic abstractions of our GUIs, which we love, these natural stimulations are lacking.
May I suggest to you to go outside, hiking, kayaking, paragliding, stuff like that, regularly and often?
Take a walk to the nearest park every day, look at the trees for a while.
Do something physical - start a martial arts or so.
On a personal note: I hate it too. Working out is so dump, your brain is empty while doing so and that sucks. I know. I am not a "jock" by any means. I am bored by it, I understand.
But. From my point of view tere is a clear spiral down that beins with not having enough natural stimulation going on. For decades now, I suppose?
I also want to second the other poster: it is good that you reached out.
When I was 20, I abruptly left my parents and moved into an apartment. We were having personal conflicts, and had I stayed, there's a possibility, however remote, that I would have been told by family members to see shrinks and take drugs (they didn't have enough money to have me committed). It was the best decision I made. Within two years I was working in the technology sector and I've never looked back.
Mental illnesses are often just political problems in the family, and if you can break free and gain independence, you can avoid a vicious cycle which leads to family members running to psychiatric drugs to explain away and suppress political issues.
Anxiety, depression and lucid dreams or paranoid thoughts are often the result of being in the wrong environment. I've had symptoms which, if I disclosed them, might be considered paranoid or mentally ill; but when I've changed jobs or moved to better environments, all of the symptoms have disappeared. I believe it's the body's way of telling you something is wrong out there.
Reading books can be a good way to take your mind off of difficult issues.
I would also eliminate caffeine and sugary foods from your diet.
(I'm an HCI PhD student at Stanford.)
Do you want to work on Project Soli at ATAP? Which part, the actual hardware / Radio antenna design? Then a PhD in analog design might be required to be qualified. Do you want to do the signal interpretation / analysis to detect gestures? Maybe a strong background in signals, filtering or even machine learning may be required.
HCI work can involve a lot of specific specialization which often requires these research / industry giants to demand a strong testament of your qualifications. Although not required, a PhD is often an easy way for them to see that.
If it is the more 'high-level' stuff, I'm not sure, as sometime a 'PhD in HCI' itself may be required (although I don't know too much what a 'PhD in HCI' entails)
Source: Experiences with HCI PhD's at UC Berkeley
I had one class in it. I didn't mind it but I didn't love it either.
Although I would love the opportunity to work at Microsoft Research, I accepted the fact that I likely never would.
Lately, I've been considering to join and/or create a distributed research team. The most challenging part has been to find people whose vision align with mine.
Feel free to contact me if that's of interest to you.
"QA Engineer walks into a bar. Orders a beer. Orders 0 beers. Orders 999999999 beers. Orders a lizard. Orders -1 beers. Orders a sfdeljknesv."
I have new QA engineers read the first five or six chapters of "Testing Computer Software":
to get a feel for the mindset and methodologies and to help them understand what testing can and can't accomplish.
"Lessons Learned in Software Testing", mentioned by another commenter, is another good resource. Lots of good anecdotes:
Both are a bit dated in some ways ("Testing" has a section on filing paper bug reports), but the lessons and thinking are still highly relevant.
Manual testing is not at all that different from, say, integration testing: you write a specification of a task that needs to be performed, you write down the expected output, and you compare it with the actual output.
What you end up with is a document containing dozens of pages full of small tables with test specifications, somewhat like .
So, to sum it up, it is you who should be doing the hard work of finding out what to test. You make a document full of tests which are as specific as possible, and let your partner walk through it. He doesn't understand what to do? Then you failed at being specific. He cannot find the functionality you ask for? Either a usability issue, or once again, not specific enough.
Hope this helps you somewhat!
"How" you test will be impacted by other things as well. Some environments (companies) have a need to formally record testing. Others use 'non IT people' to run the testing. Some have expert users who know the app inside out as 'testers'. etc etc The need for how much detail is in the test scripts, and in fact if you document manual test scripts will depend on nature of your company.
You will find a couple of schools of thought on "how" to test. ISTQB is formal and has a good bag of technique, the other school of though has some good ideas (like session based testing) but IMHO tends to throw the baby out with the bath water. The ISTQB technique can be applied in an agile environment what you would not use the documents they describe.
What I have personally found is that a good tester picks up ideas, techniques (BVA, EP etc), and applies these where the will return the best value.
I see the arguments in the testing world a bit a kin to dev's fighting over strongly typed vs. loosely typed.
Automation is good BUT if you don't know what you need/want to test then really it is a means to get is a mess really quick.
Basically it was a table with the left hand columns being the instructions to perform, in point form, and the definitions of the expected/correct behavior, and the right hand columns being checkboxes and blank spaces to write in, indicating whether the software performed correctly.
It was super clear and to the point, and it was just a document that could be easily updated (and was, I believe I later made some modifications to the script when new versions of the software came out, but it was so long ago that maybe someone else was the one to do it).
Maybe you could write one of those up and he'd get a better idea for what his job was, and you could run through it with him a few times. After he gets the hang of it, I think it will have some value outside of just testing the code: he may come to understand how changes in one part of the code bring up issues in unexpected places (and get an intuitive grasp for, say, code reuse); he will be a true expert on the product (I've always noticed that QA people are often better versed in software than the assigned Product Manager, come demo time); and perhaps he'll start to grasp at a more physical level what your work actually entails, and it'll help give him context for software development as a process.
"The programmer, like the poet, works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination. Few media of creation are so flexible, so easy to polish and rework, so readily capable of realizing grand conceptual structures.... Yet the program construct, unlike the poet's words, is real in the sense that it moves and works, producing visible outputs separate from the construct itself.  The magic of myth and legend has come true in our time. One types the correct incantation on a keyboard, and a display screen comes to life, showing things that never were nor could be." - Fred Brooks
Let him learn some of the magic behind the poetry :) To your whole idea (biz/product guy getting hands dirty with product work), hear hear, bravo, etc.
If doesn't sound like you are providing an API but if you are feel free to mail me directly (email is in my profile) for some resources; my company works in that area of testing.
Testing an Android app? Rotate the phone to change screen orientation, especially when there's a background operation going on - that's a typical spot for bugs, but no amount of general manual testing know-how will tell you that. And so on
And they have really cool resources over here:https://university.utest.com
The goal of testing is to prevent defects from surfacing in production. So track every defect that surfaces in production, so that you can watch that go to zero over time.
Whenever a defect comes up in production, edit the test plan such that you would have caught that defect. Now you won't be bitten by that class of defect in production again.
If you keep updating the test plan in this way you will see a dramatic drop in defects released to production. Once you've done this for a while, you will probably discover that your biggest source of defects released into production have to do with how different your test environment is from your production environment. So you will then start attacking that issue by setting up a proper staging environment, where the staging environment mirrors production as closely as practical.
Then you will start to discover that your biggest source of defects released into production becomes other things, such as little problems with your release methodology, which you can then address.
But the key concept here is: document what your test plan is, and continuously improve it. It's important to note that you must actually follow the documented procedure for this to work. If you write a document so big that you won't actually do it, you're doing it wrong, make a smaller document. If you feel like you only need to do 2 minutes worth of resting, document what you will do during those 2 minutes. You can start with an empty test plan and that will work, as long as you continuously improve your test plan. The same goes for the procedures that you use to deploy. Always follow the same procedure exactly as documented, because you will need to improve that procedure.
I have followed these procedures at a number of companies and in a variety of environments, and seen it turn chaotic messes around many times.
Once you have this process down solid, you can automate some or all of it. But the important thing is the overall set of processes around testing and deploying software, and the process for improving those processes. How much of it is automatic versus manual matters a lot less.
As for resources, I'd recommend books on continuous improvement. Because as you get better at testing, you'll discover that General process improvement is what you really need in order to cover the range of things that cause defects in production.
Also, "manual testing" is a slightly unfortunate monicker for the activity we are discussing. It is bound to generate some degree of incomprehension or even hostility on the part of some people, for no foreseeable benefit. "Testing" will do. It is something you do with your head primarily, your hands being involved to pretty much the same degree that they are in programming (and we don't usually call that "manual programming").