tjpd

Agree on getting tax advice. But because QSBS is such a gift to VCs I really don’t want to jeopardize it particularly when a bunch of startups are raising $20m on $0 revenue, so the balance sheet is basically just cash. At ~5% that’s $1M/yr of interest, which can easily be the only income the company has. If that cash is sitting in an investment portfolio instead of boring cash equivalents, it feels like you could start getting into weird territory with the 80% active business asset test. The probability is Low but the impact for us is massive.

Isn't the issue of products like this that they present PHC risk, jeopardize QSBS - particularly at the earliest stages where revenue is de minimis?

Surely this is the perfect opportunity to take advantage of German’s agglutinative nature and come up with your own?

Handyschwelle?

Or more formally: Mobiltelefonbremsschwelle?

Respectfully, I have to disagree. I have a similar setup to the one in the article (Sony A6400 + Simga 30mm f1.4) and the difference in image quality is dramatic _even over Zoom_. It is such an improvement that, in my experience, almost every first meeting that I have with someone over Zoom the other participant will remark on how good my picture is. The perception of "quality" has little to do with resolution issues or compression artifacts and far more to do with good framing/focal length, focus depth and bokeh all of which a good camera setup has in spades and all of which webcams lack.

As an SF resident for at least as long as the author I can sympathize with a lot of the sentiment but I'm skeptical about the some kind of renaissance when the city's budget is deteriorating badly.

Rather, when you add it all up: the loss of many of the things that made SF fun; increasingly distributed labour, capital & opportunities for start-ups/VC; SF's seemingly unsolvable problems (cost of living, homelessness, spotty public education, irregular transit, weather...) - just what is the bull case for SF anymore?

I honestly wish I had a good answer.

Isn’t this the developer’s or Go’s security issue first before it’s a GH facepalm? GH doesn’t make any representations about the provenance or the safety of the code on their site. It is the user and toolchain that’s making those potentially dangerous assumption, no? Doesn’t blocking id reuse open them up to a kind of ID squatting and DOS?

"While we were completing legal documentation related to Dave McClure's resignation from 500, funding for certain companies was delayed. Since then, we have resumed fundraising, as well as funding our investment commitments. We have been regularly communicating with our companies regarding the status of their investment and expect to complete all outstanding investments in December."

Here's my outsider's guess: Dave was almost certainly a Key Person in 500's Limited Partnership Agreement. When a Key Person leaves, for whatever reason, that triggers a Suspension Event and the start of the Suspension Period. During the suspension period, the LPs are not required to contribute capital except for certain things (e.g. management fees, follow-ons). The LP's (some threshold or some combination of them like the LP advisory committee) then have 60-90 days to vote whether or not to continue with the fund.

500 would already have called down some capital so that meant they could make a few investments but otherwise, during the suspension period they likely couldn't make any new ones. Since then they got their LPs on board with the idea of continuing without Dave and now can fulfill all their obligations. That would make sense to me because 500 as an institution is much more than just one man.

Disney has a very, very large catalogue of content but is particularly strong on kid's content. It will be very high up on the list for the average household, and a lot of consumers

>> The company has about 230 employees, up from around 140 at the beginning of the year. Huffman would like to end 2017 with around 300 full-time staff.

> That sounds odd too me as well, maybe I am not versed in startup culture. Having a goal of going from 230 to 300 people seems like a pointless metric (and wasteful). It's like saying "I want to write 1000 lines of code today".

I understand this criticism but I think the intent behind their statement is different from the intent you're reading into it.

It sounds like you think they're using it as some kind of empire building management metric (I might be wrong). ie. 300 people and well be a great company! As you say that'd be pretty stupid and so I doubt that. Here's my guess: the headcount number is by product of a broader growth plan. ie. We need to get to X revenues, or scale to X users, or build Y products in Z months which means we need to hire X engineers, Y marketers, Z salespeople in a certain time frame.. add all that up and that means we need 300 people by the end of 2017.

The reason it gets boiled down to 300 is two-fold: 1) It's just hard to get a journalist to be interested in that kind of considered detail & much easier for journalists to remember that one number 2) It's actually still a good signal in an ultra-competitive hiring market. ("you bet we're hiring!, we have lot's of jobs openings! didn't you here we're looking for 100's of people, come and help build that site that you already spend half day on")

300 as a management metric = no sense; 300 as by product of growth plan, headline grabbing takeaway, beacon to potential talent = better.