* 2013 - 5% over * 2014 - 15% under (and negative overall) * 2015 - 30% over * 2016 - 10% over * 2017 - About even
There are skeptics, too. Emanuel Derman, who was among the first physicists to work on Wall Street, doubts that biologists possess secret sauce for investing. Derman rose to lead the quant risk strategies group in his 17 years at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. He found that as physicists applied their expertise of the laws of motion, atoms and mathematics to investing, their models didnt work nearly as well as they did in a lab.
Newtons law of gravity hasnt changed for eons, Derman said, but human behavior in markets changes all the time, wreaking havoc on even the best models made by scientists.
Ive developed a lot of skepticism about anyone bringing their expertise from one field to another, said Derman, author of the book Models.Behaving.Badly and a Columbia University professor of financial engineering. They say stocks are like atoms, or like genes. But stocks are not atoms or genes. There is a resemblance, but ultimately they are very different.
Well he is certainly surrounded by some impressive people.
I think at this point in the search for alpha, wall street has employeed applied mathematicians, physicists, code breakers, engineers, economists, chemists, computer scientists, sociologists, and now computational biologists.
Each one of them brought some new/novel mathematical techniques to the field. Do Medieval Historians learn any specialized math?
Maybe he can beat the market reliably but he's only managing $20 million. The big question every quant fund asks is can this strategy provide alpha at a salable level of investment.
A 3 year track record is plenty long enough to prove out a system and provide a track record. It's a troubling sign that there is only $20 million in his fund if.
No information about what these models are is given. But it seems more "I created a system which can predict cell changes and stock market movements" than "I used Algae to predict the stock market".
I also did not understand why cells specifically provide such good insights for markets, as compared to any other complex natural system (like weather or ecological systems).
Year Market Algae 2013 +16% +22% 2014 +14% -2% 2015 +2% +33% 2016 +12% +22% 2017* +9% +10%
The "Password Store" app on Android is compatible with `pass` and supports Git and NFC for using the Yubikey Neo to decrypt the passwords.
I understand it's the standard UNIX password manager, so I suppose I don't have a ton of room to complain, and most of my computers are Mac or Linux, so it's not a huge deal, but I think it increases the barrier of entry a ton of people.
That said, I think Pass is awesome, and having my passwords stored in Github makes me really happy.
Not that my opinion is worth a whole lot, but this is the password manager I would choose to use if I wasn't using 1Password. Where many other password managers use convoluted constructions with (e.g.) AES and PBKDF2, this is very straightforward GPG.
It's convenient yes, but I prefer one encrypted file that contains it all.
This post seems to have saved me the trouble of Googling myself. I am installing on the Mac and iOS as we speak.
Other things I do:
* store all the files as .toml files so I can rip specific keys with a custom script.
* Have a directory for web so `pass web` will give me all websites. Have a script to fill username pass for each.
* Have a directory for contacts. Then wrote a script to generate vCard files by crawling and pulling keys, base64 profile images and all.
* use syncthing to keep all devices up to date.
It's pretty slick workflow IMHO
It's basically a rotation manager ! Very powerful and lets you properly change your passwords regularly on many websites (like the proprietary Dashlane Password Changer or Lastpass' similar feature).
I think a better idea would be to fill in the password through something like xdotool
I like it because you can use it to store sensitive info along with metadata, not just single field passwords. It's also super easy to access the info on the command line with ways to auto-copy passwords to your clipboard (which expires after 45 seconds).
I did a write up on it a while back at https://nickjanetakis.com/blog/managing-your-passwords-on-th....
I think this is something the browser should offer by default.
Gets me really close to the holy grail of password managers. Browser integration is possible too with PassFF:
Right now Magit is hosted on Github and anyone can contribute by just sending a pull request.
If it were part of Emacs you'd need to use the FSF's collaboration tools which have a higher barrier of entry, and if you're a first-time contributor with a non-trivial contribution you're going to have to wait days/weeks as your copyright assignment papers make their way over snail-mail.
I've contributed several (trivial) patches to Magit, zero to Emacs itself, and would likely have contributed zero to Magit if it had been an FSF project to begin with.
I think the FSF has gotten their priorities seriously wrong. The package is already licensed under the GPLv3, they're wanting to subject everyone to a more onerous contribution process to guard against the edge case of someone ripping off one specific Emacs package and the FSF not being in a position to have standing in court if they wanted to sue them.
False dichotomy: GNU Emacs can simply not ship with a git porcelain.
Most Emacs users I know typically have dozens of packages installed from MELPA; I don't think most users mind having to install an extra one. If an acceptable agreement regarding copyright assignment cannot be reached, I would really prefer that the status quo be maintained.
As far as the argument goes, I feel the platform is _better_ by having such a marquee package not be included. The barrier to get it installed it quite simple ( run one command ) and it opens up the user to the package management system which is getting better and allows users to bring in all the features that used to require elisp hacking
To prevent this, I guess they could establish a "contrib" directory in the emacs source for GPL3+-compatible code that is distributed with Emacs but whose copyright is not owned by the FSF. Any GPL3+ code, or really any free software code with a compatible license, could be added in this directory, without copyright assignment, if the Emacs maintainers feel it's worth including with Emacs. Then, they could require that code outside the contrib directory must not depend on code inside it, and that would be a fairly easy rule to enforce. Then they can include Magit and whatever other GPL3+ Emacs packages they want to with Emacs, but they will still have precise knowledge of which parts of the code they hold the copyright to and can enforce the license on (namely, everything outside the contrib directory).
Are there any downsides to such an arrangement that I'm missing? Is there something that makes this kind of solution unworkable?
Ultimately, I don't see why the FSF doesn't want to distribute any code that they can't enforce the license on. Maintaining copyright on their own code and distributing other people's code aren't mutually exclusive activities.
As of recently, I'm an Emacs user (long time Vim user, just wanted some change) and I still have not completely comprehended how MELPA works. If anything should be more closely built in (and documented and standardised) to Emacs, package manager should. Everything else is better placed into outside packages.
If we look at Python world, here and there we can find discussions to include some library into stdlib and there are good reasons not to do it. Yes, batteries included is cool at first but it's no wonder that pythonistas say that "stdlib is place where packages go to die". We can think the same of Emacs and its package system.
I'm not sure if this is a tedious process but I do believe that it is worth it in the end, when the FSF is able to legally defend this freedom.
I highly recommend that anyone using Emacs and git gives Magit a try.
so vim it is. if it does not have functionality i need i download it (or write it myself, easy enough). its a shame emacs is such a hodgepodge as i would definitely like to write new editor functionality using a lisp.
That said, it's a great collection, I remember spending hours downloading single Jpegs because of how high resolution their original scans are. (This was back on dial-up, which gives you an indication how long this site has been around!).
The first homework assignment was image recognition on notMNIST. That dataset has been used thousands of times before, so I decided to make it more interesting! I got data for 1500 Chinese fonts, so I could make a better OCR for Chinese characters.
I put that into the example, made the "pickle" files, trained the model, got a 90% prediction-test result value... but now what?
How do I take that model and make a real image OCR that can take a photo from my phone and analyse it?
I can write scripts to get data, and follow the steps in a course to make a model, but unless I have a useful output, I don't know how I'm going to apply this to my other programs. If you're offering "end to end", then documentation and examples of some kind of API would be great. (e.g. send a PNG to this REST service, and get the prediction back as text).
With Arabic numbers, I have to learn that 1 is one thing, 2 represents 2 things, 3 represents 3 things and so on. Then I have to remember that 2 + 2 = 4, and 3 + 2 = 5, there is more memorization required.
Where Roman Numerals for someone with little or no education could get by in the market square with some simple rules and even use twigs as a primitive calculator. It is not until you get to much more complex ideas that the Arabic notation wins out.
So perhaps, different notations lend themselves better or worse depending on the application ?
Just some random thoughts that this very interesting post brought to mind.
But of course, there's no way they actually said it that way.
looks at watch
Well, damn, it's IIII. However my watch does use IX over VIIII, what's up with that?
Seriously I figured they used abacus for everything they just figured out the notation to write it down in at the end some would convert to the if notation while others would not.
But reading this article and trying out a few things, I found it was great fun!
Here is a more complete one:https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/the-widespread-and-p...
(Surfaced on HN with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13636277 )
$ perl6 -e 'say / ' 4
> By exploiting the same vulnerability, the white-hats hacked all of the remaining at-risk wallets and drained their accounts, effectively preventing the attacker from reaching any of the remaining $77,000,000.
> To prevent the hacker from robbing any more banks, the white-hats wrote software to rob all of the remaining banks in the world. [...]
One argument I keep hearing in favor of cryptocurrencies is that they are beyond the control of individual governments and their regulation through legislation and law enforcement.
Next time, I'm going to use this case as a counterexample, because when the solution to the problem of "hackers robbing banks" is "vigilantes robbing the remaining banks", something is very wrong with your system, and it is certainly not something for the general public.
1) most contracts worth implementing in Ethereum are fairly complex
2) even given great developers, bugs are inevitable in complex code
3) the budget of the contract-makers' security team MUST be smaller than that of the hackers
You quickly see that if the chance of a bug is nonzero, "smart contracts" don't make economic sense. If you have a $100k contract, and you spend $5k on security (which would absolutely destroy most companies' margins by the way) you'll be facing hackers that are EACH willing to spend up to $90k or so. Let's say all the experts in this example world are $200/hr. You spent 25 expert-hours on security. But you're being hacked by people who spent 450 expert-hours on hacking you.
With that in mind, would YOU want to use a smart contract? Spend 5% of the contract value instantly on security, and risk losing 105%? This isn't a normal loss by the way, where you can prosecute someone or sue somebody. No, this is the instant, digital theft of the entire value of the contract, to an anonymous digital address where it will be quickly blended in with hundreds of millions of dollars of similar thefts a month.
> The problem is that his programming toolchain allowed him to make these mistakes.
Damn straight. The problem is that the model of 'public by default, opt in for security' is fundamentally daft in this context. There's quite a good read on that particular topic here too http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/07/20/parity-wallet-not-a....
...but hey, if this ends up making Ethereum better, more secure and more robust as a result, then that's a good thing; it probably does need a different better language to express code in.
> certainly you should not store any money in a hot wallet that youre not comfortable losing.
The cost of this is now illustrated through the repeat 'hacks' of bad 'smart contracts'.
I mean.... I guess. It's a feature of Ethereum, if we're going to weasel around.
ATMs are not secure because of their software. They are secure despite their software.
Maybe eth will reach the point where the police will come after people who try heists like this. That seems much harder than coming after someone who stole $30m from a series of ATMs, though.
 Actually, its more schadenfreude, partly with the audacity of the speculator and system market makers, and partly at the mindless waste these proof of work/stake systems require.
This is not accurate... the MtGox hack was ~$100M, Bitfinex ~$60M, the DAO $50M, so this would be the 4th, not 2nd.
so, how can he get rich without getting caught?
I moved my money out of Ethereum for now.
Obviously in this case, reassigning the wallet owner is completely against the spirit of the smart contract. What solutions are there to this? All I can think of is for contract coders to use a language that allows contract constraints to be specified more easily (e.g. "owners cannot be reassigned") and have it verified by the language. Maybe this is a good application of formally verified code but the language being used doesn't seem built with that in mind.
I'm sorry, but what a bunch of baloney.
"A large fraction of the flaws in software development are due to programmers not fully understanding all the possible states their code may execute in."http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/169296/Indepth_Functional...
As long as ethereum contracts support stateful OO contracts, they are bound to run into these kinds of bugs.
What would be the valid use case, why author decided he should put it there beforehand?
Isn't "unbreakable" a bit of a dirty word in the security community? Is there really such a thing as "unbreakable cryptography"?
I have little faith in this kind of system. Could anyone here explain to a noob how Eth would be any better than Bitcoin?
- return them exactly as they were, with the unlucky people completely losing funds
- distribute them back among everyone based on the % of total funds that were in their wallets
What does it mean for the dollar?
Answer: Nothing, but people improved their security so it doesn't happen again.
Having said that, the actual article is pretty good...
Our community cannot continue operating in the hacker mode wherever money is involved.
BTW Thomas Pesquet, french astronaut behind this work, shares stunning pictures of Earth: https://www.flickr.com/photos/thom_astro/
As a result when you need an appointment what you hear is that nothing is available for three to five days. Numerous times I was unable to get my Dad in for over a week when he needed to be seen. Sometimes progress is not progress for everyone.
If Coq's not quite your cup of tea, Isabelle/HOL is another proof assistant with amazing (dare I say superior?) tooling and automation, and it supports code extraction in SML, OCaml, Haskell and Scala.
Microsoft Research's Lean theorem prover is also promising in this regard. Work is almost complete on native code compilation (via C code extraction), allowing you to compile all the constructions you can formalize in Lean directly to native code. (see https://github.com/leanprover/lean/pull/1241 for progress)
(Note that none of those code extractors are verified to be correct themselves, lacking a formalization of the target language's semantics. You don't get a mathematical proof that the code you're running does what you specified, but you get pretty damn close.)
Does it? Is it not still possible that human populations increased, new (less mgafauna friendly) cultures emerged or subsequent migrations caused one of these? Humans co-existed with large animals in many places, before causing extinctions at later points.
Also, here's a short bit about reproducibility from Marwick that is worth a read for anyone in academia: http://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-w...
"To make new research possible, a landmark agreement was reached between the University of Queensland (and associated researchers) and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation representing the Mirarr traditional owners of the site.
The agreement gave ultimate control over the excavation to the Mirarr senior custodians, with oversight of the excavation and curation of the material. The Mirarr were interested to support new research into the age of the site and to know more about the early evidence of technologies thought to be present there."
 [ https://theconversation.com/buried-tools-and-pigments-tell-a... ]
So I'd bet against it.
The article itself links to another article that seems to have evidence contradicting it -
It'd be interesting to hear an expert opinion on it.
It massively predates any boats, and there are no boats in the history of the Aboriginals.
In fact nobody has even really bothered to try an explain it, because it's way, way, way outside the story that everyone came out of Africa.
Email Client: Thunderbird
Terminal: Tilix, Gnome Terminal,
IDE: Visual Studio Code (although it's not a fully fledged IDE)
File manager: Nautilus
Basic Text Editor: Gedit
IRC/Messaging Client: Polari, HexChat
PDF Reader: Evince
Office Suite: LibreOffice
Calendar: Gnome Calendar
Video Player: Totem
Music Player: Lollypop
Photo Viewer: Eye of Gnome
Screen recording: Peek
Email Client: Gmail web
Terminal: Gnome Terminal
IDE: VS Code
File manager: nautilus
Basic Text Editor: gedit
IRC/Messaging Client: xchat
Office Suite: Office360 web, LibreOffice
Calendar: Gnome Calendar, Google Calendar web
Video Player: smplayer
Music Player: cmus, Spotify non-free
Caveat.. not a ubuntu user here per se... But left because of some of the bloatware/opinonated stuff and it crashed a lot. Plus I like Antergos with i3-gnome better than anything I've ever used before... Much better performance, less crashes/bugs...etc..
Email client: ??? Comment: I use mutt but I'm wishing for something better. mutt is too limited
Terminal: Terminology, urxvt
IDE: None; neo-vim is sufficient for programming tasks, don't need most IDE features.
File manager: What ever is the default for the selected DE.
Basic Text Editor: neo-vim
IRC/Messaging Client: irssi and Pidgin
Calendar: Don't know
Video player: VLC
Music player: Tomahawk
Photo Viewer: What ever is default for the selected DE
Screen recording: Open Broadcast Studio
Web Browser: Firefox. Of the two modern web browsers that are applicable (Chromium being the other), Mozilla and Firefox are more in tune with the free software mentality many users of Ubuntu adhere. It is an excellent browser as well.
Email Client: Thunderbird? Are there mature alternatives that will work for most people that use a standalone mail application?
Terminal: Keep gnome-terminal, it's perfectly fine for most.
IDE: None. Leave this to the user. An IDE need not be present by default, as it depends greatly one the language chosen. For simple scripting Gedit suffices at first, and associating code files with Gedit by default is fine too.
File manager: I take it Gnome Shell still ships with Nautilus?
Basic Text Editor: Nothing wrong with Gedit.
PDF Reader: Evince. Mature and fast.
Office Suite: LibreOffice of course.
Video Player: Something that supports everything you can throw at it.
Music Player: I'm partial to Quod Libet. :)
Basic Text Editor: gedit (but actually neovim)
IRC/Messaging Client: None
PDF Reader: evince
Office Suite: Libreoffice
Calendar: Lightning (thunderbird plugin)
Music Player: Totem/None
Photo Viewer: eog
Screen recording: I don't use them frequently enough to remember one I like.
Email Client: gmail
IDE: Sublime / VSCode
File manager: terminator
Basic Text Editor: Sublime
IRC/Messaging Client: irssi
PDF Reader: Chromium plugin
Office Suite: Libre office (I'd prefer Microsoft one)
Calendar: Google calendar
Video Player: vlc
Music Player: YouTube :D
Photo Viewer: basic gallery
Screen recording: -
Email Client: None
Basic Text Editor: vs code
Calendar: Gnome Calenar
Video Player: mpv
Music Player: Audacious
Photo Viewer: ???
Screen recording: ???
Email Client: Geary
Terminal: Gnome terminal
IRC/Messaging Client: Empathy/Polari
Office Suite: Libre Office
Calendar: Gnome calendar
Music Player: Gnome music
Photo Viewer: Shotwell (definitely not Darktable or RawTherapee, far too complicated)
Screen recording: Built in Gnome screen recorder
IRC/Messaging Client: ???
Office Suite: libreoffice
Music Player: vlc
Photo Viewer: evince
Screen recording: never use one so I dont really have an opinion
IDE: Atom, VS Code
PDF Reader: None
Office Suite: Libreoffice, Openoffice
Video Player: VLC
Music Player: None
Photo Viewer: None
Screen recording: Recordmydesktop (Kali recorder)
IRC/Messaging Client: Pidgin, Thunderbird
Email Client: mutt
IDE: jetbrains stuff, vim
File manager: ranger, nautilus
Basic Text Editor: vim
IRC/Messaging Client: hexchat
Calendar: cal, webshit
Video Player: mplayer,vlc,totem
Music Player: clementine
Photo Viewer: feh
Screen recording: shutter
Web Browser: Chrome
Email Client: Evolution
IRC/Messaging Client: HexChat
Music Player: GTK3 frontend of Audacious
Email Client: Thunderbird. (Note: I'm a bit worried about the future of TB, with Mozilla cutting back its support of the project. Since it's been the default email client in Ubuntu since forever, it would be great to see Canonical pitch in to support it more.)
Terminal: GNOME Terminal
IDE: Does Ubuntu need to ship with an IDE?
IRC/Messaging Client: Does Ubuntu need to ship with an IRC client?
Calendar: GNOME Calendar, Lightning
Music Player: Clementine
Photo Viewer: No opinion
Screen recording: No opinion
There are things Canonical does well, I think. Those things are technical. When it comes to trying to be Microsoft/Apple/Google, it misses the mark. In part because it assumes that which PDF reader it ships with matters to users.
Email Client: unity-mail
Office Suite: LibreOffice, Google Drive
Calendar: Gnome Calendar, Google Calendar
Video Player: VLC, YouTube
Photo Viewer: Gnome Image Viewer
Screen recording: None
Email Client: Thunderbird, Web GMail
IDE: IntelliJ IDEA Community, Eclipse
Basic Text Editor: GEdit
Calendar: Thunderbird Lightning, Google Calendar
Music Player: Spotify webapp, Spotify client non-free
IRC/Messaging Client: Whatever supports Slack and Discord I guess.
PDF Reader: Current choice is fine.
Video Player: I prefer SMPlayer to VLC for simple playback
Photo Viewer: gThumb
Screen recording: Kazam
Web Browser: Firefox, Opera Email Client: Geary, Thunderbird, pantheon-mail (when the new version is ready) Terminal: gnome-terminal, pantheon-terminal IDE: ??? File manager: Nautilus, Thunar, pantheon-files Basic Text Editor: gedit, scratch-text-editor (from elementaryOS) IRC/Messaging Client: Telegram PDF Reader: envince Office Suite: Libre Calendar: gnome-calendar (please please please with Caldav support for posteo) Video Player: totem, mpv (gnome-mpv) Music Player: audacious Photo Viewer: gnome-viewer Screen recording: ???
Terminal: Tilix, gnome-terminal
IDE: Atom, gnome-builder
IRC/Messaging Client: telegram-desktop
Video Player: gnome-mpv, smplayer
Music Player: gnome-music, Spotify (non-free)
Photo Viewer: gnome photo viewer (don't know the name)
Screen recording: don't use
Photo editing: Darktable
Note taking: QOwnNotes
Research source organization: Zotero
For video player, definitely VLC.
- call your State Assemblymember about SB 35, which would streamline (read: Force cities to approve) the production of housing near transit. Up for a vote very soon
- call your State Assemblymember and ask them to vote Yes on AB 71, which would end the state tax deduction on second/third homes and use the money to build affordable housing.
- contact the Brisbane City Council and ask them to build housing on the Baylands, near Bayshore Caltrain. The developer wants to build 4,400 units and the city wants to build 0. Baylands@ci.brisbane.ca.us
- Ask for more housing in the Central SOMA plan. BART and Caltrain are packed every commute hour and they want to add 50,000 new jobs and only 7,500 new housing units. Best is to show up for the hearings, failing that, email the plan director, email@example.com. http://sf-planning.org/central-soma-plan#contacts
San Francisco frequently has human feces on the sidewalk in many areas right near the city center, high housing prices and a combination of startup bros and angry hard left outrage culture folk. The bay area is a cultureless void and Oakland is still dangerous.
Better Portland, LA or (from what I hear) Boulder.
If I may anecdotally share my observations, of the handful of people that I personally know who have founded Startups in 2016 and 2017 -- all of them are in their late 30s, and have dependents (spouse, children, pets). All of them currently live on the peninsula or in the south bay, even if at some point in the past most of them lived in the city.
It is increasingly getting harder and harder to justify the costs of living in the city in view of the small livable space that your apartment gets you. Add to that a lousy school system, a never-ending homeless problem, and an incompetent MTA. Living in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, or Mtv. mitigates most of these flaws while retaining all the upside of being in the bay area.
Is everyone in SF pitching yet another subscription box food delivery services? Drones? VR?
Also keep in mind this is VC investment money - it comes with a price, and in the graph of rounds, by region, series A rounds are down from a peak in 2014, but SF and SV are fairly close - it's the other rounds where SF has really fallen. An alternate explanation (based on the very limited data presented here) could be that SF companies are to keep going without accepting VC funding; either with large cash infusions from the blue chips, or by having enough customers give them enough money.
Perhaps augmented/virtual reality could be a good solution for some sort of application to have remote meetings with colleagues with headset in a virtual room/scenery and collaborate like that.
It could be used for daily standups and other meetings and it would remove the social isolation problem of remote working and make it much more feasible. Is any AR/VR company working on anything like that?
What goes up must come down. Everything is cyclical. SF economy is no exception.
Off the top of my head I'm thinking Portland, Seattle, Boston, Austin and Chicago in no particular order.
The annoying part is that there's so much talent concentrated in the Bay Area that it makes going elsewhere very difficult, especially if you have specific senior talent in mind that have already established their lives there.
Hopefully telepresence tech gets so good that one day it won't matter.
1.) Do you think San Jose will ever become "a thing" for tech startups? Is there enough to do there? There is a WeWork and San Pedro Square in downtown San Jose. Or is a waterfront view what make San Francisco, Seattle and Portland what they are? Also, if you did want to live in San Jose there where are the up and coming places for HNers to live?
2.) Cupertino used to be cherry orchards and suburbs. Will Morgan Hill (strawberries) or Brentwood (cherries) ever become "a thing"?
3.) Is it bad if housing prices are high on the West and East Coasts? If housing was unconstrained in the Bay Area and at cost parity with the MidWest, wouldn't that remove any reason to live in the MidWest?
(Disclaimer: while we practice DevOps quite a bit, me being a Java architect, I'm still not an operations expert, so I may well overlook something real obvious...)
- BaaS is for hackathon participants.
- PaaS is for web developers.
- IaaS is for software engineers.
- On-premise is for dinosaurs.
Original source and context here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pizza-service-20-paul-kerriso...
This is the key point: "The [original graph] doesnt allow customization, which is what IaaS and PaaS offer".
Im not sure what the use case is for adding an extra layer of azure infrastructure on top of the existing azure infrastructure. I assume it costs more than just running on azure directly and doesnt really get you any privacy/efficiency/performance benefits since its still running on the azure cloud. Perhaps it makes migration/deployment easier in some way?
As one of the 'killer apps' for ethereum is smart contracts, I'd like to see this explained in a 'for dummies' high level way, then decomposed into the finer technical chunks needed to make it happen.
Hope you enjoy the post. If you have any constructive criticism you'd like to give regarding either the post or the website, let me know!
This caught my attention: "In the EndPoint specification, it demands the "BE encoded 4-byte" address, which is exactly what's outputted by self.address.packed."
Does this mean that Ethereum only supports IPv4?
I searched around and only found this, dating back to 2014: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/IPv6
It seems that the user registration emails are causing a 500 server error and I'm working on a fix.
Edit: I'm bypassing the email confirmations for now, if you got a 500 error, please try to login using the account you signed up with. It should work, otherwise email me at mflynn210 <at> gmail.com.
Basically, there were a lot of blind spots in the official documentation and it took me a while to figure out things like how to make a proper key recovery id or which endianness to use where in the messages.
How far have you been able to get to? I still can't quite wedge into the mainnet - the nodes keep disconnecting me for unknown reasons some time after, and finding a new node to connect to takes a while.
My node does works rather well on the ropsten testnet, however.
Isn't this the exact definition of a bailout? Specifically it's bailing out the investors in the DAO.
Wasn't it 89% of those who voted? What was the voter participation rate?
In particular, blacklisting DAO operations means that one can broadcast transactions that perform huge computations but just before running out of gas, perform a DAO operation. This huge waste of resources by miners cannot be compensated if the transaction cannot be included...
Intel is actively trying to kill off lowend and mid-range GPUs in the desktop, and has locked them out in the mobile space, leaving Nvidia with just the high end GPU market and their ventures into the ARM SOC space.
By not treating Linux end user devices as first class citizens, I don't see how Nvidia intends to have a viable business long term. Who wants a tablet, phone or desktop GPU without drivers?
So: it could well be that this is an issue of resource allocation more than anything else. Over time, most applications should move to using wayland (or whatever window / surface library emerges as the clear winner, but that looks like wayland is the future here) for their graphics. A lot of effort into supporting Xwayland would mean work spent on a library that should be of limited utility - only useful during the transition between platforms (like the old carbon layer for OSX in the early 10.0, 10.1 days). Right? Or maybe I'm misreading it.
tl;dr Nvidia has no need to play in this space, anyone using X will just use X without the translation layer.
But Mesa really caught up lately, so switching to AMD was never as good. Just forget Nvidia and enjoy properly integrated graphics stack.
* The big exception is Chrome which uses GLX for accelerated rendering. The software fallback path uses a lot more CPU and won't support WebGL AFAIK.
If/when Wayland becomes the default for Ubuntu, Nvidia will follow. Can't let them ponder the amount of time it would take to code the missing layers for AMD hardware
As of recently, I have a mixed 1920x1200 and 4K setup on my home desktop, and 1920x1200 + 2560x1440 setup on my work laptop. I was very interested in what I'd heard about Wayland supporting per-monitor scaling and hoping to move over whenever KDE's Wayland support stabilised.
Well, I guess I'll still be doing that on my work laptop with its Intel graphics... here's hoping AMD does better for my next desktop GPU upgrade.
The graphics market is dangerously locked up by two players and its time some new players took the capital risk and stepped in. Nvidia would probably give a shit if someone bothered to challenge their share of the market in both graphics and computational space.
Maybe AMD if they drop proprietary drivers. But never Nvidia.
I've been working from home for a number of years. During this time I've on average spoken with and interacted with 1 person every day - my wife.
I occasionally go out, occasionally see family members, but the majority of my day-to-day work is quiet, alone, working at a computer.
- I have been more sick in recent years than ever before in my life. This is even compared to previously living in a major city and taking public transportation.
- I have been experiencing sharp mental decline especially in the last year. Solving complex problems is much more challenging.
- My memory is suffering. Even my wife has begun to notice, I forget little things and have developed an "aloof professor" disposition that wasn't natural to me.
- I now find social interaction more difficult. I'm more akward, and find myself over-thinking previously natural interactions.
- Lastly ... I'm far more depressed. I just don't enjoy much these days. I wake up, work, don't talk to many people.
The TLDR here is that I urge everyone to tend to their social garden. I let mine decay for too long, and I'm paying the price now. I am beginning the process of restoring connections, and getting out more, and I'm already noticing an improved mood.
Oh and I should mention - I'm naturally an introvert so this reclusive lifestyle was all too comfortable for me.
What I'd do is this: find a local diner, not a touristy place, but a real local institution and landmark. And then eat dinner there every single night at the same time. If constrained budget wise, look for the early bird dinner specials. Become a regular. Trade gossip with the wait-staff, complement the cooks on their sublime creations, chat up the little old ladies, engage the workmen about their craft. After a few weeks you'll find yourself invited to birthday parties and have the opportunity to give back your own time and energy, shovelling a driveway or helping out at a food drive.
A summer time variant: farmers markets. They typically have the same vendors every week and will remember you if you purchase a quart of organic honey and ask with genuine interest questions about their practise. Offer to get them started on Facebook / Shopify. Pretty soon, word spreads and you're no longer a stranger in town!
> Dozens of painstaking studies... have established beyond reasonable doubt that ... [t]he more integrated we are with our community, the less likely we are to experience colds, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, depression and premature death of all sorts...
> ... the positive contributions to health made by social integration and social support rival in strength the detrimental contributions of ... risk factors like ... smoking, obesity, elevated blood pressure, and physical inactivity.
> ...as a rough rule of thumb, if you belong to no groups but decide to join one, you cut your risk of dying over the next year in half.
Putnam was surveying a large number of studies, not just the Harvard one.
 Putnam, Robert D, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; https://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Commu...
IMHO there is something wrong with this kind of research that rehashes known facts but doesn't really go any deeper than what was already known before. My gratulations to the researchers involved for getting the funding for such a long running study.
How do you actually prove that the relationship between the two attributes is causal versus correlated?
For example, one could conclude, instead, that being in good physical health is the cause of successful relationships.
I taught social dance for a number of years. This is a great avenue for expanding your social interactions, getting healthy, building self awareness... blah blah blah. There's a great Argentine Tango scene in SF, just sayin, folks.
There's also joining a hiking group or a walking group. Great to get out, get active, and get social.
Or engage with an after school program, or mentorship organization.
You have, like, so many options.
As this article and book say "loneliness kills", but what does that mean for those of us who want to live long and healthy lives? Do we need to start scheduling social time alongside gym time? Will a hug a day keep the doctor away? Should we join organized religions or get married strictly for the health benefits?
"Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed"
So going after fame and money doesn't necessarily lead you to become unhappy (if we interpret the results as causal). Quality personal relationships just makes you even happier.
Also, I'm curious to what extent cultivating meaningful relationship serves as a coping mechanism for people with little money or social status (alternatively, focusing on making money and acquiring high social status to compensate for poor personal relationship development skills). My impression, based on my observations from people I've met in developing countries, is that low income / social status people tend to have richer and active communities and personal relationships. High status individuals tend to be lonelier. But this could just be confirmation bias.
Our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health.
Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed.
Loneliness kills. Its as powerful as smoking or alcoholism.
Good relationships dont just protect our bodies; they protect our brains.
The key to healthy aging is relationships...
 Some quotes: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Happiness
1. Sample bias: "Why just study WEIRD  subjects? Let's do male Harvard graduates!" (Yes, half the study included inner city men, and one eighth of the duration featured women. It's still super heavily biased towards Harvard men.)
2. Correlation is not causation: "Hmm, health is correlated with relationship satisfaction. Could there be a common cause for both? Or maybe people like to hang out with healthier peers? No, the clear conclusion is that working on your relationships magically makes you healthier."
3. Inconsistent data collection: "Those '30s nincompoops were measuring skulls and handwriting. We'll stop doing that and take MRIs instead. But it's still the same study!"
Step 1 - be an adult white male graduated at the beginning of an unprecedented and unique economic boom
Step 2 - graduate out of the most prominent college of the period
Step 3 - watch your asset grow themselves
Step 4 - enjoy the life without never have to worry about job security, housing, spending power
Yeah no shit sherlock. I guess being upper middle class does wonder to one life. Meanwhile we have to contend with constant worry about our future, our kids future and one misstep in our career path can and will landslide into a life of regrets.
And this study just say 'socialize' and everything else will magically go away.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: HAPPY LIFE
As a male in 1938.
The worst No's are the ones where they ask to do Due Diligence and then never open the dropbox folder. Or if you are on your fifth meeting and they just keep trying to pump you for competitive information.
So how do you know when you get a Yes?
When you get a wire or a check. That's the only way.
Even a signed note or Equity docs don't mean anything until that money clears.
The best No's I've had were from Bessemer and a16z years ago. Almost immediate and right to the point that they wouldn't invest, with specific reasoning/metrics behind them. A++ would get told no again.
"LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME! Ok, what do you have? 40 slides that tell me nothing other than you have a big vision and if you own 10% of <insert market here> it will be worth a lot."
At this point, VC options are:
1) Hard pass (crazies, maybe 60% of people pitching), but you want them to still refer their friends for better deal flow, so <insert excuse here> that makes them feel better about rejection.
2) Soft pass (30%): maybe they have something, hard to tell without spending weeks figuring out what they really meant, and if the team is even the right team to be solving the problem, much less actually competent. Give them some <come back when> that doesn't ruffle them too much.
3) Next stage of funnel: The 10% that actually got their concept across, explained why they are a good team to implement it instead of the other 10 people you heard with the same idea, and why now is the right time. Enter diligence, and hopefully you can convince the other partners that you aren't crazy by taking a chance on them.
Why do I find this helpful? Because I watch my own reaction to the experience. I've just met this person. They've just told me their dream, the thing they quit their job to do, invested years of their life in, and it's an absolutely terrible, terrible idea. What do I do?
If I can, I give them good advice within the confines of what they are trying to do. And in almost all cases that's as far as I can go.
I just met this person and they just met me. It's not my job or my place to crush their dreams and the odds are vanishingly close to zero percent they'd listen to me if I tried, so I don't (think about all those VC rejections, how many of those VC rejections causedthe entrepreneur to drop the idea? The answer is probably pretty close to zero).
Even with close friends, it's very dicey whether to say "I think that idea is a mistake" because most entrepreneurs are so driven by passion (and need to be).
Each time I hear one of those terrible pitches, I try to remember this is why VC's don't want to tell people solid no's, and this is why I should be so appreciative for every hint of criticism I've ever received. Because people will absolutely tell you your idea is great and they'll almost never tell you what's profoundly wrong with it. I put as much truth and as much insight into my answers and observations on those painful pitches as I think the entrepreneurs can hear, and hope they'll eventually internalize it and pivot in a better direction, because "please, for the love of god and your family and mortgage, stop what you're doing now" simply isn't an ansewer the entrepreneur will be able to hear from a stranger (or probably even a close friend).
VC response: We're really interested and we want to do the deal, we just need to wait to hear from partner X who is currently out of town.
Translation: We are about to fund one of your competitors, and we want to string you along as far as possible in the hopes that we can distract you from other fundraising efforts so that you will be less of a threat to our baby.
Comment: It's not a "yes" until the check clears. (And even then you should probably wait two weeks just to be sure.)
Why are there so many ways to say No? Because just saying "no" is rude -- although some of the 15 alternatives in the Medium post are even worse because they waste a founder's time. It's like if a recruiter reaches out to you: most people don't reply, or they reply with something like "sorry, this is not a great fit" or "I'm not looking at this time."
FWIW, there are many VCs (though probably not the majority) that give concrete reasons when saying No. When I got into venture capital 5 years ago, many peers told me to be vague in order to maintain option value in a company's future fundraises. That sounded dumb to me because if I were a founder I would want feedback, so I try to give useful feedback when I'm passing. That's worked out well over time, and founders whose companies I passed on often introduce me to other founders, or reach out when they're fundraising again.
Us: how did you like our pitch?
VC: we're a no, because we don't trust your unit economics.
Us: fair enough. Could you please share some scenarios you've invested in where there were parallel unit economics to us? We'd like to understand what you know about our space and where those economics make sense to investors such as yourselves.
VC: certainly! We have an investment in <X> that's in your space, and their unit economics look great! The assumptions you have and the ones they have are about the same, but look at their margins!
Us: ummm, so that's a function of revenue/price that we don't believe is even feasibly attainable. Our margins are smaller because we think the per-unit revenue is going to be challenged. It's why our numbers are fairly skeptical.
VC: well, we believe they can reach that (unfounded) level of revenue.
Within a year, the company this group funded was raising a Series A to stay alive because -- drum roll please -- the unit economics were not panning out.
I say this is the best "no" because we had hard feedback on what worked for them. It also let us know they didn't really understand how price in our market space was going to have downward pressure. Our approach was to start very cheap, then improve over time. These investors weren't interested in that approach; rather, they went with the team who had "better margins".
We learned a lot, and kept learning, from this investor's "no".
It makes it sound like all startups out there have a RIGHT to be funded, and annoying, idiotic VCs just say no them... how mean of them.
But plenty of startup ideas are BS, plenty of founders are incompetent, and they don't automatically deserve a VC's ear, let alone their money. Why do they think they have the right to an audience? I know that you can have exceptions (Harry Potter was rejected by some 12 publishers before Bloomsbury took it), but if no VC is willing to even listen to you, consider that you are the problem, and not the VC industry.
I know that a bit of boundless optimism on behalf of the founders is needed for startups to succeed, but exercise that optimism in your own time and on your own dime.
Translation: We don't really believe in your idea or you, but if you get a big player to put some money in we'll be happy to follow them.
The reason they say no to begin with is because you are not pitching in a vacuum, you are pitching together with another 1,000 or so companies in a year, 900 of those will get 'no' right off the bat, 100 will get a meeting (or two) dedicated to reviewing their proposition in more detail, 10 of those will enter due diligence (at substantial risk to the VC in case the deal does not go through) and maybe 8 out of those 10 will get funded.
The amount of time wasted on worthless pitches by people that don't stand a chance of getting funded is very large, and no amount of feeling that you are entitled to funding is going to get you funded unless you manage to convince the other side of the table that you are one of those 10, which means you need to look better than the other 990. Good luck!
Well, I mean, sometimes they are. But they're usually not. A $1B fund has roughly three years to allocate that $1B in resources --- that's nearly $1M a day. You need to make sure that the speed at which you're expected to invest doesn't detract from the quality of deals, so your bar has to be extremely high.
I think a valuable skill to develop as a founder is to recognize the difference between; "no, but I like you" and "no, and I don't like you / don't care." This industry is built on relationships. Unfortunately there will be a ton of people who just don't give a shit about you. But the ones that do, they're going to help unlock doors for you, and even if you get a "no", focus on recognizing real "clicks" with people.
"VC response: Wed love to get in on this as soon as you find a lead investor!"
The first is "talk to us when you have a lead". That's not helpful and it's bullshit. When you have a lead you can always raise as much money as you want - I do not contact these VCs back when I get a lead.
"We are 100% committed for at least $X00,000 if you get a lead or fill out the rest of the round" - very helpful, shows conviction, etc. This version is still not great, but look everyone can't be a lead, and having good folks 100% committed with $$ amounts shows a lead you have interest and will quickly fill out a great round around their check.
Don't do the former, only do the latter.
I have contact some VC using emails and showing my MVP. Usually they ask some questions, or give some advice. Sometimes they say No, but for now... Other times they said that it is not a fit for us. One of them say that we are in a different country and that he preferred to talk in person.
"Here's a test for deciding whether a VC's response was yes or no. Look down at your hands. Are you holding a termsheet?"
It takes time to broker a deal. (Of course, that doesn't mean every single person is being straight up honest with you every single time they communicate.)
This article kind of admits to being perhaps unnecessarily snarky. ("Note: Im normally not this cynical, but this article was fun to write ") I don't have experience trying to woo VCs for an investment. But closing a big deal tends to be time consuming due to the slow process of gradual exposure of pertinent info on both sides.
So, I am reluctant to take this article too seriously.
"We see you have X reference clients, and usually like to see X+2 reference clients"
"We'd like to see you get a little further along in terms of product/market fit, and then let's talk"
The best people I've worked with have always gotten back to me right away with a concrete yes or no. I do the same, anything else is a waste of time. As soon as someone starts giving me anything like the responses in the article I move on.
I don't see what's wrong with this. It's a clear no without slamming the door on a future investment should the scenario change. If the VC would say "VC: Thanks, but this isnt a fit for us ever" that would be shortsighted.
Also there 0 downsides for them just stringing you along as other pointed out. "We are totally interested, lets see your details blah blah" then pawn you off to Hayden.
Now get back to work!
Yup, from my experience, the OP has what a lot of VCs do.
One thing for an entrepreneur to do is to read some remarks from a VC or their firm about what their interests are. Then, when their interests well cover my startup, I write them and explain how their interests cover my startup. So, sure, I rarely hear back with anything and otherwise nearly always just as some in the OP.
So, then I get pissed: (A) They said what their interests were; (B) I wrote them showing how their interests covered my startup, but (C) they ignored my contact. Bummer. So I used to, sometimes, wait a week or two and then write them and say that they were so unresponsive that there would be no way we could work together successfully and stated that I withdrew my application.
Since then, in part I wised up. By process of elimination, I began to conclude some basic facts about VCs.
(1) Mostly their stated "interests" don't much matter.
(2) They actually do have some interests and these are nearly universal across VCs and their firms: They are interested in traction, significant and growing rapidly, especially in a large market.
(3) Really, the situation is essentially as in the old Hollywood line, "Don't call us. We'll call you." Or, really, VCs want to learn about the startup from existing buzz, virality, etc. They want to see the product/service, play with it, and try to estimate how successful it will be in the market.
(4) For a first step, for a VC, (1)-(3) is about all that matters.
Actually, (1)-(4) seem to be so astoundingly uniform that they must have some common cause. My guess at the common cause is the larger LPs, e.g., pension funds; they insist on (1)-(3).
For me, I'm a sole, solo founder, toilet cleaner, floor sweeper, ..., computer repair technician, systems administrator, ..., programmer, user interface designer, data base administrator, software designer, product manager, CTO, COO, and CEO with a tiny burn rate. Some venture funding could have made some of the work go faster, but really I haven't needed venture funding and don't really need it now.
But with all the above, there is a surprising situation: My burn rate is so low that I can continue self-funding until my Web site is live. Then, if users like my work, soon I'll have enough revenue from routine efforts running ads that I will have plenty of free cash for organic growth without equity funding. If I get that growth, then I'll have a life style business with, again, plenty of free cash for more organic growth.
About that time, some VCs will learn about my startup and give me a call. They will expect that my company has about five co-founders, each with maxed out personal credit cards, has a business bank account close to $0.00. They will assume that the company and each of the co-founders is just desperate for an equity check on just any terms, say, because each of the co-founders has a pregnant wife. Then the VCs will believe that they can play hard to get, strike a hard bargain, and grab control of my company for next to nothing.
At that time I will check my computer, confirm the name of their VC firm, and let them know the date long before when I sent them a description of my company they ignored. So, I'd inform them that they were too late, that my plane has already left the runway, and no tickets were for sale.
So, now sometimes I write VCs just for fun, so that if my startup does work and they do call me, then I can tell them that I wrote them and they ignored my contact!
To me a biggie point is that apparently the VCs want nothing to do with any business planning, crucial core secret sauce technology, etc. To me, such things are the keys to the big successes the VCs must have toget the investment returns theirLPs have in mind to invest inVCs. Further, such planning, special technology are the keys to themany amazing technology successesof US national security.
Well, again, apparently VCs want towait for traction significant andgrowing rapidly.Maybe that approach will usuallybe okay for VCs:At least apparently the VCs believethat on the way to a big company,a startup will nearly always needsome equity capital.
But for a sole, solo founder with a tiny burn rate andwriting software,the VCs can miss out:That is, by the time theVCs want to invest,the founder will no longerwant or need the investment.
A big example of such a sole, solofounder success was the Canadianromantic match making site Plenty ofFish.
A blunt fact is, that the VCs very much need big wins, commonly, say, 30% ownership in a company with exit value $1+ billion. Moreover, even more seriously, to get their limited partners (LPs) excited, they need some ~30% ownership in another Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Google, or Facebook. That's just the facts of life. To pass the giggle test, that's the game they are playing, the business they have chosen.
We need to keep in mind, beyond Moore's law and the Internet, the examples Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Google, or Facebook don't have a lot in common. So, we can't hope to extract much in the way of predictive patterns by just external empirical observations.
So, if VCs or anyone is to find another Microsoft, ..., Facebook, they they will have to look deeper than just patterns from external observation.
Also we should keep in mind, say,
on the average venture capital return on investment. One word summary, the average return is poor, not high enough to excite LPs.
Here is a hint at the nature of the radical change: At
Sam Gerstenzang, "The Happy Demise of the 10X Engineer"
with in part
"This is the new normal: fewer engineers and dollars to ship code to more users than ever before. The potential impact of the lone software engineer is soaring. How long before we have a billion-dollar acquisition offer for a one-engineer startup? "
So, a solo founder building a company worth $1 billion?
Of course, there is half of an example -- the Canadian, Internet based, romantic matchmaking service Plenty of Fish with a solo founder, with two old Dell servers, $10 million a year in revenue, all just from ads from Google. He added people and sold out for $500+ million. So, his ~$500 million is half of the $1 billion A16Z mentioned.
So, what are the causes of the radical changes?
(1) Cheap Hardware.
From any historical comparison, within computing or back to steamships, now computer hardware is cheap, dirt cheap; transistors are cheap; so are compute cycles, floating point operations, main memory sizes, hard disk space, solid state disk space, internal data rates, LAN and Internet data rates, etc. Dirt cheap.
(2) Infrastructure. It used to be that an information technology startup could expectd to have to build or at least wrestle with lots of infrastructure. Now quite broadly, getting the needed infrastructure is much easier and cheaper.
So, nearly any room in the industrialized world with a cable TV connection can be a quite active server farm because the rest of the infrastructure, to a local Internet service provider, a static IP address, a domain name, and plenty of Internet data rate for a quite serious business, is right at hand.
Of course, the big quantum leap ineasy infrastructure is the cloud, from, say, Amazon, Microsoft, etc.
(3) Software. Now software is much easier. There is a lot of open source software, excellent software for quite reasonable prices, etc. And really it's much easier just to write new applications level software. Web pages, graphics, database operations, algorithms, etc., all are much easier.
So, with (1)-(3), a solo founder with a good idea for a startup to be worth $1+ billion can for darned little cash write the software, bring up the idea as a Web site, run ads, get publicity, and, if users come, get good revenue.
It's easy to argue that at current ad rates, a server costing less than $1500, kept busy, could generate monthly revenue $200+ K for investment by the founder of basically just their own time. Such a solo founder with that revenue, then, will just laugh at any suggestion that he should take an equity check, form a Delaware C-corporation, and report to a BoD. Instead he will just form an LLC and remain 100% owner.
Then, the main issue now is the evaluation of the basic idea of the sole founder. Or if the idea is really good and VCs wait until there is traction significant and growing rapidly, then the VCs will be too late. Or, the solo founder wrote the software, has one server from less than $1500 in parts connected to the Internet, has a static IP address and a domain name, has done and is doing some publicity things, and otherwise is running the business each month for not much more than pocket change, for less than a lot of people spend on McDonald's or pizza or Chinese carryout. Literally. So, the founder's startup is just dirt cheap to run. If enough users like the site to keep the server busy, then the founder is getting maybe $200 K a month in revenue, plenty to grow the size of the server farm, and in a few months buy a nice house, for cash, put several nice new cars in the garage, for cash, and spend a hour each afternoon in the nice infinity in-ground pool. Then a VC calls and wants to invest $10 million for 30% of the business and have the founder report to a BoD of a Delaware C-corp. -- we're talking LOL.
Does that situation happen very often yet? Nope. But now it is just such situations that the VCs desperately need in order to get a significant fraction of ownership in $1+ billion exit values.
Or, put very bluntly, the VCs desperately need really exceptional startups. For Microsoft, ..., Facebook, there are no visible patterns. The founders no longer need big bucks for a team of developers, expensive servers, and communications data rate.
Net, for the projects the VCs must have, by the time they want to invest according to their old rules, a solo founder with a good idea has already got plenty of revenue for rapid organic growth and a life style business and won't accept an equity check.
Again, so far there are not a lot of examples of such solo founder startups, but the radical change and the big deal for the VCs is that it is just such startups that stand to be the exits the VCs desperately need. So, for the next Facebook, etc., by the time the VCs call the founder, all they will hear back are laughs, and the VCs will have to push back their chairs, think a little, and realize that they just missed out. The VCs will see that, really, there has been a radical change and they must make some radical changes or just miss out and go out of business.
So, finally we discover that the core idea is what is just crucial because for a good idea a solo founder can do the rest alone for essentially just his own time as the investment. So, to evaluate startups, must evaluate the idea at just the idea stage and just hope that the founder will accept a check.
That said, clearly standardization is coming to the world of APIs, and code reuse/generation along with it. Have you looked at Django REST framework? They have a pretty good approach. http://www.django-rest-framework.org/
Are you actually hosting the API I'd be building? Or just generating boilerplate code for it? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding :)
The "It's so bad it's good" effect?
At the very least I'd need a comparison with a more mature system like https://www.mulesoft.com/
What is the documentation in for example? RAML? Swagger? HTML?
I'd put some time into showing some examples of what exactly the service is and how it works. What problem does it solve specifically?
1) allow non-json responses2) why would I do pass-thru? for metrics?3) add test data generation features for mock responses4) add at least limited scripting features for both pass-thru and mock
Looks like a good start to me and I was not particularly bothered by the current sign up.