sethbannon

Just when you thought bay area housing pries couldn't get any crazier, Uber files for IPO same week as Lyft.

The results of all test takers is the most interesting but there is no way to link directly to them. They're shown at the end of the test.

Maybe the goal should be to build homes like Toyota builds cars? :D

Cover is in the early stages (think Tesla Roadster stage). Goal is to drive down costs significantly as they achieve economies of scale.

There's a startup called Cover that's already making homes and ADUs exactly as Airbnb says they hope to make them. Their vision is to build homes like Tesla builds cars. If you live in the LA area, you can order one online and get it delivered in 6 months.

https://www.cover.build

I was lucky to have traded ideas and brainstormed many times with Jim about how technology could create a better society. He had a unique mind that inspired many. For those of you that didn't know him, watch his speech "The Internet is My Religion" [1]. If you like that, read his book of the same name [2].

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WKle-GQwk

2: https://www.amazon.com/Internet-My-Religion-Jim-Gilliam/dp/0...

I was lucky to have traded ideas and brainstormed many times with Jim about how technology could create a better society. He had a unique mind that inspired many. For those of you that didn't know him, watch his speech "The Internet is My Religion" [1]. If you like that, read his book of the same name [2].

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WKle-GQwk 2: https://www.amazon.com/Internet-My-Religion-Jim-Gilliam/dp/0...

"Being able to learn and use grammar is unique to humans."

While we haven't observed grammar in non-human animals yet, whether they can learn and use it is very much still an open question.

"considering the rather limited number of experiments and the difficulty to design experiments that unequivocally demonstrate more complex rule learning, the question of what animals are able to do remains open." [1]

"when we consider how animal vocalizations are analyzed, the types of stimuli and tasks that are used in artificial grammar learning experiments, the limited number of species examined, and the groups to which these belong, I argue that the currently available evidence is insufficient to arrive at firm conclusions concerning the limitations of animal grammatical abilities." [2]

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367684/

2: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-016-1091-9

What I would give to see their journey graphically represented!

As someone with a trip to Beijing on the horizon, aside from using a VPN, are there any other best practices to keep data secure while traveling there?

Funny to see PG listed as "Paul Graham, founder of Viaweb" and not "Paul Graham, founder of Y Combinator" :-)

There was a HN thread about this. Might be outdated by now but here it is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11229700

You've nailed it. Becaise of YC's increased ownership, founders will either have to raise less from SAFE investors or take more dilution, because this change won't make those SAFE investors be willing to pay higher valuations. That's the downside.

Played with your excel and while the difference is not the same as I calculated with AngelCalc, it still seems the dilution from this new YC deal will be greater than the old YC deal post-equity round in basically every circumstance.

Essentially, with this new deal, after equity financing YC will own 7% minus the dilution from the equity round minus dilution from any options pool increase [1]. Previously, after equity financing, YC would own 7% minus the dilution from the equity round minus the dilution from the SAFE round.

While it's true founders are getting a little bump on YC absorbing the dilution from a Series A option pool re-up, in my experience these are typically 5% to maximum 15% increases. Whereas the dilution from post-YC SAFE rounds are typically 15% to maximum 30%. So YC is assuming a potential 5-15% dilution in their ownership while avoiding a 15-30% dilution in their ownership. Translation: YC will own more post-equity financing than they would in the old deal.

This puts a burden on the founders to make up for that increased dilution by raising the post-YC SAFEs at a higher valuation than they otherwise would, which will likely make those raises harder. Alternatively, they can raise their Series A at a higher valuation than they otherwise would to make up for YC's extra ownership, but that will make those raises harder than they otherwise would be. So there is a real dilution downside for founders here.

1: in reality YC will continue to own 7% after the equity round because they'll exercise their pro-rata right during the equity round but that doesn't change the underlying point being made here so will ignore it for simplicity.

Thanks Jason for the thoughtful reply, and thanks also for your work on simplifying and improving the YC SAFE. I think these improvements will benefit the entire ecosystem (founders & investors & employees) by making it easier for everyone to understand SAFE dilution.

Still not clear on how (in most cases and assuming there is not a 0% option pool pre-equity round) this will not lead to increased expected dilution for founders from the YC deal as compared to the old deal, so would love to play around with your Excel sheet. My email is my HN username at gmail.

Generally a huge fan of the way you're simplifying things here, just pointing out that this change makes YC more expensive for founders from an equity standpoint.

It's true that founders could compensate for this by raising SAFEs from other investors at a higher valuation, but that is likely to make those raises a little more difficult, so there is some downside.

Great that YC is simplifying their deal and making it more standard and easier for founders to understand. Also great that they're switching the standard SAFE to be a post-money SAFE, as this will eliminate a lot of confusion around dilution that resulted from the complicated math of the old standard SAFE.

Interestingly, unless I'm understanding this incorrectly, this change might mean a worse deal for founders going through YC. As the post mentions, when calculating the dilution taken from a post-money SAFE, all other money raised on convertible instruments before an equity raise are excluded.

Functionally, what this means is that while investors on standard SAFEs are diluted by other SAFE investors before an equity round (as are all common holders), investors on post-money SAFEs are not diluted by other investors on SAFEs before an equity round.

So unless I'm misunderstanding this, I believe this means that YC (which was previously a common holder like the founders) will no longer be diluted by the money founders raise on convertible notes or SAFEs before an equity round, whereas before they were diluted by that money.

To demonstrate this, I modeled out a scenario where a company goes through YC, raises $2m on a $10m cap pre-money SAFE after demo day, and then raises a $10m Series A equity round at a $30m pre-money valuation. Scenario A shows the old YC deal where YC has 7% common, and Scenario B shows the new YC deal where YC invests on a post-money SAFE

Scenario A: http://angelcalc.com/model?mod=802&dispShare=0e55666a4ad822e...

Scenario B: http://angelcalc.com/model?mod=803&dispShare=8a50bae297807da...

Note: click "Model" to see the results. In Scenario A, YC is listed as "YC" and in Scenario B YC is listed as "Post SAFE-0 (2.1mm)". As you can see YC ends up with 1.575% more equity in Scenario B.

The simplicity of this change is great but it's important that founders understand the downside as well. Team YC, if I'm misunderstanding this, please let me know.

Unfortunately this feels like situation where the free market will fail to incentivize the best solution. The airport itself does not feel the economic pain from its travelers getting sick from touching its steel surfaces. The passengers likely aren't even aware this choice might have caused their sickness. So airports will always choose steel over copper/silver/brass so long as steel is cheaper.

This seems like a reasonable place for regulators to step in.

Thanks so much for the empathetic and kind comments. And I'm so happy to hear I played a small part in your business! I'd love to hear more.

For those that don't know, as a first time founder and CEO I made a large number of mistakes I wish I hadn't. In retrospect, they seem bone headed but none of it was clear at the time. I wrote about those mistakes so others might avoid making them [1]. Unfortunately that blog post has been turned into a couple takedown pieces at my expense. Such is life.

1: http://sethbannon.com/mistakes-you-should-never-make

Interestingly, this cuts exactly against the advice of Michael Seibel, the current CEO of Y Combinator, who advises co-founders split equity equally: http://www.michaelseibel.com/blog/how-to-split-equity-among-...

Love this leadership from Jeff Dean and the team at Google AI. Technology can be an incredible lever for positive change, but can just as easily be a destructive force. Always import to think principally about how to ensure the former is the case and not the latter.

Cruise strikes me as the ideal acquisition, and a formula others should copy. Kyle Vogt and the rest of the Cruise founding team got personal liquidity; a huge influx of capital to continue R&D; access to GM's marketing, manufacturing, and talent infrastructure; but retain general independence in the pursuit of the ultimate mission of self-driving cars.

Pretty impressed with GM for having the insight to understand that arrangement was best and the flexibility to pull it off. And incredibly impressed with what Kyle and his team have achieved post-acquisition. They clearly remain as hungry to make this happen as on day 1.

Agree. This mentality stems from the "Friedman Doctrine" which says that all a business should be concerned with (so long as it acts within the law) is maximizing shareholder value. America was captivated by this idea, and it's still how most think about business here.

This has been one of the most insidiously destructive forces in the modern world. Luckily the millennial generation (even in America) is largely rejecting this conception of the purpose of business.

You can read Friedman's Op-ed in the NYTimes espousing this here: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...

Pointing this out is a DH1 in Paul Graham's hierarchy of how to disagree -- essentially a form of ad hominem [1]. Even people who get things wrong do occasionally get things very right, so more useful would be to address the points the author of the post is actually making. Are they valid? Why/why not?

1: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

This is a really fantastic way of surfacing interesting content that's otherwise easy to miss. Is any of this compiled programmatically or does it rely on human power?

Worth pointing out that not all electric scooter companies chose to disregard city regulations. Waybots has made the choice to work with cities to get approval before launching. Seems like a better approach, and one likely to give them a big advantage long-term. I believe they're still the only legally operating electric scooter sharing company in the US (currently live in DC where they got permission to launch).

If a friend of yours authorized access to their messages, then the app would have access to your private messages with that friend.

Basically what this guidance says is that if you're CRISPR'ing food that could have been created through traditional cross breeding, then it's auto-approved and falls under the USDA regulatory sphere. If you're creating food that could not be created through traditional cross breeding, it needs approval and falls under the FDA's regulatory sphere. Pretty reasonable if you ask me.

Check out Substack, they're working on exactly this: https://on.substack.com/p/a-better-future-for-news

Incredible. Is there still no solution to the Newton's cradle like problem with magnets?