dchmiel

Something in the article that jumped out at me was:

"But the couple still couldn’t raise money. As cash got tight, the founders asked their eight full-time employees, who are mostly in the San Francisco Bay area, to work for minimum wage, which would buy the company a few months of extra runway. The staff agreed."

The 8 employees must have drastically reduced the cash flow requirements by just being paid minimum wage. My question is, is that any different than directly investing into the company and giving the company cash outright like a VC?

The employees made an investment into the company like a VC would by giving extra runway to the company. I wonder if the employees received any equity compensation for doing so under the same terms that the Alvarez's are trying to raise financing under. Getting paid higher than minimum wage and needing financing which dilutes you or taking minimum wage reducing the need for financing but getting no equity for it seems unfair to the employees.

They never mentioned that detail in the article but it's something I always think about when founders and executives ask employees to make these sacrifices and take on added risk but without ever compensating employees like they would compensate other capital with equity for the risk they take.

I don't like to think about my caloric intake (energy input) in relation to what other people's caloric intake is. It's starting from a reference point that doesn't serve me reliably and becomes very easy to say things such as, I like to eat or have a slow metabolism compared to someone else. But if you think about it, what other people can eat and not gain weight shouldn't matter to you one bit. What happens to you when you eat and how much you eat should matter. For example, it's like comparing your fuel efficiency in relation to another vehicle. (Your metabolism) Let's say that you are a small Smart car and the other vehicle is an F-150 pick up truck. Of course these two vehicles have different energy requirements to move the same distance therefore you don't put the same amount of energy (gasoline) in both vehicles otherwise eventually the Smart car will be overflowing with gasoline since isn't burning enough. So someone with a fast metabolism would be like the F-150 truck and someone with the slow metabolism would be like the Smart car. To think that the two should have the same fuel requirement seems silly whereas people always have an example of someone who can eat more and still stay slim. Maybe they are a truck internally and just need a lot more fuel than you or I but it doesn't mean we should eat similarly to them.

People just need help to find what works for them and for a majority of people who don't have hormone imbalances starting with energy in = energy used personally is going to get them very far in their weight control and just generally understanding what happens to their bodies in relation to food intake. We focus too much on anything but energy intake (this food is a super food, and this is healthy and that isn't). I'm not saying they are not important but if you want to make quick health improvements to a large group of people, starting from energy input to output is more effective.

I used to not be able to put on mass (hard gainer). What I found was that I wasn't eating as much as I thought and really to gain muscle mass and not just mass you then need to not only be in a caloric surplus you need to look a level deeper at your macros and increase your protein in take. If it fits your macros diet would get you close to a body that you are happy with as long as you tweak your macros to what you want to accomplish.

Also, healthy foods do have merit with their micros but again if you don't have hormone issues you can eat what is untraditional considered unhealthy foods, such as McDonalds, and not put on weight or even lose weight as long as you control for caloric intake. The hard part with unhealthy foods is controlling your calories. It is really easy to eat your daily total calories in one or two meals eating unhealthy foods (McDonalds in this example) than eating vegetables and healthier proteins and carbs (lean meats and whole grains). The Supersize me guy didn't get fat because he ate McDonalds he got fat because he ate sooo many calories. Fat Head was a bit of a rebuttal showing what happens when you try to control for calories more. Athletes are known to eat a lot of calories and don't become obese but again it's about getting your energy equation to balance or off balanced in the way you'd like. (caloric surplus to gain weight and a caloric deficit to loss weight)

There will be a lot of nuance in how everyone's bodies will respond and yes watching some metrics other than weight, like blood pressure and cholesterol , will be important in our health. Starting from a high level of just understand OUR personal energy needs and then working from there will give people a lot of benefit and make discussions easier. Because I hear so often from people that what I'm eating is unhealthy when in reality I'm within my caloric intake and within my macro makeup. Just because you eat a homemade cookie or a homemade cake doesn't make it healthier than my Snickers Bar (ooh I love Snickers). And it is so much easier to keep track of my calories when eating a Snickers bar than something homemade. It really is so easy to overeat on those treats especially during the holidays because you have no idea what the person used to bake those.

I did some quick calculations to understand their stated problem of needing to higher 40 more people since it is costing them millions in lost revenue each month. "The labor shortage is costing the company some $3.8 million per month, said Marty Davis, the company’s president and CEO."

$3.8 million * 12 months = $45.6 million per year in lost revenue.

Being conservative and assuming a 10% margin on their revenue figures this is a loss of $4.56 million for the firm for the year.

$4.56 million divided by their labour need (40) means each worker brings in $114,000 of margin. So as long as they pay below that they are ahead. If they paid $25/hour for 2000 hours a year ($50,000) plus a 1.4 gross up for benefits they could hire people at $70,000 ($50,000 * 1.4) and still earn a positive margin of $44,000 ($114,00 - $70,000) leaving them $1.76 million of income. ($44,000 * 40).

What do they expect when they pay $36,000 per year (18*2000), plus any benefits?

I’ve heard this stated before as there doesn’t seem to be a labour shortage just a shortage of labour that you want to pay very little for. We don’t say there are too little lawyers or investment bankers or management consultants. Those jobs are or used to be the highest paid bringing in lots of supply from eager graduates.

I've travelled to a LOT of countries and here is my experience using Airbnb and Couchsurfing.

The places that I used couchsurfing are the most memorable. I travelled for a whole year in 09-10 and the 5 times that we used couchsurfing to stay at someone's place was incredible and I'm still in contact with 2/5 of those stays. 40% hit rate I guess. Back then Airbnb wasn't a thing (or wasn't a big thing, can't think at the top of my head when they started) so it was either hostels or couchsurfing. You get different flavours of travel between those two. You meet more travellers in hostels which is a very different trip and experience vs staying with a local and hanging with them. It's interesting to see the perspective change between just the accommodation choice.

This year I travelled for 3 months and since I was working remotely I wanted to make sure I was productive and had my own space to think and do work with good wifi. So that meant NO hostels really. Horrible wifi in them, they're loud and usually dorms meant not a lot of me space. When looking at private hostels compared to Airbnb rentals the price wasn't that much more for a full studio in most cities so I stayed only 3 nights in hostels the whole trip.

Airbnb is great for feeling at home (full kitchen, couches, etc) and having everything you need to be productive and I made sure the wifi was great in each place before booking. But when grabbing the whole place I never interacted with my hosts since they weren't there. I never did stay in a private room so I can't comment on that experience and getting to meet the hosts that way which would probably feel more couchsurfing like.

But I did a hybrid take on my travels. I stayed in Airbnb places but would reach out to couchsurfers to meet up. And the response was so much better when you don't need accommodation since a lot of hosts just get bombarded with automated messages begging for 'free' places to stay. It helped me meet a lot of individuals in every city we stayed and it was the same great feeling when I stayed at people's places on the last trip.

The hybrid approach was pretty awesome and made me not feel lonely since the couchsurfers were a great source of information on what to do and explore and much of the time they did those activities with me.

I am still in contact with many of those couchsurfers from this past trip as well. I've hosted in my place and found that hosting helped connect also. I've never rented out on Airbnb so I can't comment on the other side of that.

What is your approach to looking at security for your hardware and data during prototyping and testing with early clients? How would you minimize what data is collected to maximize what you can learn to improve your product and service?

It is happening on my late 2013 Macbook Pro. It seemed like 10.10.2 either fixed the problem or reduced it to me not noticing. But the 10.10.3 update has made working remotely incredibly frustrating.