argonaut

76 ms·

781.
by argonaut 10y ago
Being profitable and requiring no outside funding is probably somewhat negatively-correlated with being a startup (because growth is often - though obviously not always - slower). I've always just used "startup" to mean a pri
782.
by argonaut 10y ago
Tell that to Amazon. Profitability is not the end all be all.
783.
by argonaut 10y ago
My comment is equally valid if you replace "early exercise" with "paying taxes on" (assuming you do an 83b election).
784.
by argonaut 10y ago
To be fair, there is another catch-22, which is that a low valuation means the startup is early-stage, which means your options are worth less. So sure, you can early exercise, but there is a greater chance your early exercising will lose y
785.
by argonaut 10y ago
I'm saying the average number of engineers is pretty high (because it's an average, it's skewed up). Regardless, quibbling over this doesn't really detract from my broader point which is that every time you see a company
786.
by argonaut 10y ago
Sure. But none of your perfectly valid comment changes the fact that if you are clueless about a contract, you should either talk to a lawyer (or otherwise someone knowledgeable) or decline to sign it. It goes without saying that employment
787.
by argonaut 10y ago
Interesting! Are you guys doing SLAM using deep learning? IIRC SLAM is still mostly done with traditional computer vision.
788.
by argonaut 10y ago
Your argument is the one that has degenerated into name-calling. Mine hasn't. Founders routinely ignore the advice of board members. In fact it's almost a meme in the startup community for founders to politely listen to, and then
789.
by argonaut 10y ago
Yes, a founder giving some reasons for wanting to do something is not a high barrier to overcome.
790.
by argonaut 10y ago
Read the article more carefully. Airbnb's first amendment argument is not related to having to send info to regulators, it's related to something else entirely.
791.
by argonaut 10y ago
Firstly, while I think Scott is wrong, I don't see much that's disrespectful or implying disloyalty about his tone. Not even the stuff about "dead equity." I'll extend some comments I made downthread: a16z is a maj
792.
by argonaut 10y ago
Every time any tech company goes IPO or gets acquired for a large number (~>$50M), that's on average 1,000+ engineers who probably made some amount of money from options.
793.
by argonaut 10y ago
Theranos was never in the category of going-to-IPO-soon.
794.
by argonaut 10y ago
Asana was never a hot company. Barely any companies even have extended exercise windows, so you can't go around excluding companies from the list because "they don't count". Also your logic is almost circular, because a1
795.
by argonaut 10y ago
None of that justifies valuing them at zero. Even if those reasons were valid, those reasons would maybe justify taking the official private valuation and cutting it by 75%.
796.
by argonaut 10y ago
The only companies whose options are worth 0 ( zero ) in your example are Gilt and Fab. Evernote and Foursquare are still around - your options are worth less than their private valuations if you joined 4 years ago, but they are not worth
797.
by argonaut 10y ago
a16z is a major investor (growth round resulting in a board seat for a16z) in many of the companies that have extended vesting periods, such as Coinbase, Pinterest, and Asana. So I doubt they block companies from doing this.
798.
by argonaut 10y ago
Yes, because you are ignoring the fact that most engineers that make money off stock options are doing so at well-established startups that haven't gone IPO yet. Companies like Airbnb, etc. 4 years ago, everyone knew Airbnb, Pinterest,
799.
by argonaut 10y ago
If a contract is opaque to you, you get a lawyer to look it over. End of story. If you sign a contract that is opaque to you, without talking to a lawyer or at least someone knowledgeable (e.g. personal friends that are senior engineers t
800.
by argonaut 10y ago
Their "paper": http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/genetic-fuzzy-based-artif... The paper is very vague on the technical details, unfortunately. This appears to be a largely hardcoded logic-based system with s
801.
A.I. Downs Expert Human Fighter Pilot in Dogfights(popsci.com)
8 points by argonaut 10y ago|2 comments
802.
by argonaut 10y ago
You won't be told about funding rounds if your contract doesn't mention it. Like I said, any details you desire should go in the contract.
803.
by argonaut 10y ago
This makes no sense. Any vesting details will be detailed right in your contract. Dilution depends on the company's fundraising in the future, you are essentially asking them to bring out a crystal ball and tell you exactly what their
804.
by argonaut 10y ago
If a company fires you the day before you reach your vesting cliff, you can sue them for breach of contract, if you were performing well. Yes, you can sue them (and win, though you'd probably want to settle) even if your contract says
805.
by argonaut 10y ago
Valuing stock options at zero is one of those HN memes that are repeated endlessly, mostly, I suspect, by people not from Silicon Valley who know few, if any, engineers who got rich from stock options. Just because stock options should be v
806.
by argonaut 10y ago
> Science fiction turns out to be true when physical reality agrees that it can be true This is a ridiculous argument. Furthermore, even if it were true, it tells us nothing about the timeline. It could take 10,000 years for all we know.
807.
by argonaut 10y ago
It might be. It might not be. Hardly a compelling argument.
808.
by argonaut 10y ago
Failure never happens instantly. You know exactly when you are going to run out of investment or personal savings, and can plan accordingly.
809.
by argonaut 10y ago
Except for the inconvenient fact that the cerebellum is not explicitly solving control theory equations. And also that other inconvenient fact that neuroscientists barely understand the brain at all.
810.
by argonaut 10y ago
Your argument is basically "some science-fiction has sometimes turned out to be true." That doesn't counter the fact that this is just speculation.

More ›