I've been trying to get an answer about this, but no reply so far. What will make a great post on Hackernews that will give a lot of points? Lets say if I design an innovative new search engine , quantum computer or Go AI and put it here on Hackernews, will I gain lots of points ? I saw some posts where the user gained like 200 - 300 points at once.
CodePen and JsFiddle don't allow you to display several code snippets at once.
If you embedd a JsFiddle inside a blog post using iframes, you cannot share data and code between the snippets.
What are they going to replace plastic with ? Can you invent a kind of material that is as capable as plastic but has zero negative effects on the environment ?
We lived without plastic for a long time. There are many different things that can replace it depending on the product. For example, we had glass bottles for a very long time and we washed them and reused them. You can use reusable bags at the store. Wash metal silverware.
I'm sure plastic will always have to be used for certain things, but if we can limit the amount that's great.
It's not that it needs to be equally capable in each way - you need something that is more degradable and ecologically sensible for each specific case.
Wash and reuse steel cutlery? (I know people who carry little tins with forks, spoons and chopsticks they can assemble and reuse).
Seattle has a plastic bag ban and you can use paper bags or just bring you own reusable bags.
Bottled water in developed nations is typically less regulated (and has a lower quality) than tap water. This doesn't apply to India of course, but maybe this will force Delhi to seriously fix their municipal water supply to world standards. Even if it doesn't, most homes and restaurants have water filters, and people can simply carry reusable bottles even plastic ones (the disposable variety are what's banned).
How much capital allocated to invest in each startup ?
What is the algorithm used to generate the investment decisions ?
How do they judge which founders to fund ?
We're thinking of opening a fund for Baqqer to invest in startups/founders there, so I think about this. I would typically value the worthiness of a founder by several loose criteria:
1. Founders/Product fit
2. Product/Market fit
3. Social Proof
4. Team
5. Progress and frequency of activity
6. Dedication
7. Grit/Character
8. Past successes/failures (overall experience)
1: Mark Zuckerberg wasn't a particularly social guy, so his founders/product fit was 0.
2. product/market fit: Facebook was a social network just for schools, this doesn't really show any product/market fit. it's a super niche product with no obvious revenue model.
3. founder had zero social proof. couldn't even bag any advertising clients.
4. founder didn't get along great with team, in fact all team members sued him.
6. Mark was just a Harvard student, so were the other team members, no dedicated staff at all.
7. No basis to judge.
8. No prior past experience to judge from.
Based on the above there is a 0.00% chance that you would fund Facebook at the seed stage, at any valuation. Out of 8 standards, you would have to give them a 0/8 on nearly all of them.
but hey, the fact that your investment thesis fails with perfect hindsight, doesn't mean it can't succeed when things are a lot more murky. go get 'em.
> Based on the above there is a 0.00% chance that you would fund Facebook at the seed stage, at any valuation. Out of 8 standards, you would have to give them a 0/8 on nearly all of them.
but hey, the fact that your investment thesis fails with perfect hindsight, doesn't mean it can't succeed when things are a lot more murky. go get 'em.
I don't know if the given strategy would work, but saying it would not have bought FB isn't really useful in any way.
After all, to be a successful investor you don't need to invest in every successful company; you only need your portfolio as a whole to be successful.
You misunderstand. My point is lowglow would not have given those things weight. So even with perfect 20/20 hindsight, we know that based on his 8 criteria he would have Facebook a No thanks.
(More specifically, he wouldn't have given them the time of day or even so much as returned an email, a 0/10 across 8 categories means that it's not worth so much as a reply.)
EDIT: I didn't realize you're lowglow. My point stands. You need better investment criteria :)
I disagree with you and think they're completely typical, and that Zuckerberg's and Steve Jobs' megalomania and complete insanity of vision are completely typical of that success story. Take airbnb for example.
you get the idea.
I am saying that lowglow is like an NBA basketball coach who will only draft white men under 5 feet tall and over 30, on the theory that they'll try harder since they have something to prove. well, good for him.
it's true that Michael Jordan is an outlier at 6 ft 6 in. But if you're only going to draft white men over thirty and under 5 feet tall, your team is going to suck.
This is an example of just Facebook. I think all big time VCs have turned down mega companies that would have made them $$$$$.
Also, Zuck did have a crazy grind work ehtic which would have gotten him most likely 1 point. And he did have a good history of projects he had built before and shown competence, maybe not multi-million dollar ventures but a lot of good chops.
