We check applications then draw lots for 500 winners
To put it mildly, it's very misleading to submit a story that states, "Startup Pack gives away $5,000 worth of tools" when the reality is "Startup Pack holds sweepstakes for $5,000 worth of tools".
Am I missing something but I always assumed that valuations at this stage of a company is to do with huge/vast sums of money being removed from the table by the founders and they've done this by selling a good stake of their equity/voting rights in their company.
The founders are now rich.. but the company isn't.. and if they raise a next round, their true valuation will shine through...
Anytime stock changes hands in exchange for money it's reasonable to use that transaction to value the company. It doesn't matter if it's the company selling a piece of itself or employees selling stock to an investor. Someone is still paying money for ownership.
If anything, employees selling shares probably makes it easier because it's common instead of preferred shares being sold.
Looking at a listing[1], I notice that you provide email addresses to users and presumably act like a craiglists for anonymous messaging...
I'm just curious though, don't you find that you get spammed out if you do this?
I think providing email addresses to users on a marketplace is a great way of keeping discussions/messages boxed up in your platform, but showing the emails on the site must result in way too many spam emails?
We used to expose the raw email address of the underlying user. Now it's a two-way email proxy, which is why the domain is "Floors.me" e.g. rich.farmey.31719@42floors.me
We do get spammed but we've been able to keep a handle on it. Mailgun's filters capture most of the spam and we have backup handlers in place to address the rest.
Do users know who they're emailing with the anonymous addresses? The username@42floors.me address may look like they have to communicate via 42floors (meaning more friction) instead of directly with the manager. Craigslist emails are more obviously throw aways.
I've stopped reporting anything these days. The report system isn't there to actually do anything... at least not in the disciplinary sense.
It's there exclusively to make the people who are reporting things feel like they have some solution to things they disagree with.
----
I recently reported two separate comments on Facebook.
The first comment was on startup investor's profile picture after he announced that he was getting married to his long term boyfriend/partner (about two weaks ago). The polite version of the comment basically went along the lines of saying that he would be "judged by allah" for his sins and should die.
The second person was a friend who commented on a picture of several football supporters and one of the guys had a turban on. The comment said "I see a dirty terrorist".
So I kicked my 'friend' (who was really just an associate anyway) from my list and reported to Facebook...
Both of these reports came back saying that after reviewing they haven't broken any rules...
Apparently the Facebook staff who run the review proceedures are the same folks who leave comments on the cesspool over at YouTube...
First world problems. I agree it isn't always fun to share the world with racists, bigots, and religious fanatics; but I am skeptical of the utility of hiding offensive speech. It might be better to let everyone see what they are.
I am skeptical of the utility of hiding offensive speech
I share that, but I am also really seduced by the idea of interacting in a space free of that kind of toxic garbage. The same way I prefer to go to restaurants that don't allow smoking.
If there's an appropriate place for offensive speech, I'll prefer to not be there. Maybe instead of "flag as abusive" the interaction should be nudging people into their appropriate cesspools.
This is actually one of the reasons /b/ still exists: if /b/ went away, they'd just post all over the rest of 4chan, and at least all the toxic waste can just be concentrated in one place.
And if they were to enforce your rules, next week we'd have a fantastic article blasting Facebook for "Suppression of an Open Forum". We, as a society, took a hard stance long ago: People can say what they want, regardless of how much you whine and complain. Nobody has to listen, and Twitter still has a "block" button, but when you get your knickers in a twist you're usually giving the trolls what they wanted.
The other option is for those marginalized groups to be completely silenced. You can't have it both ways. "Community Standards" that are just your standards lead to tyranny.
From a profit standpoint: Is Facebook really going to give up the 17% of US voters who think Obama is a dirty muslim just because it offends you?
People like to think that you can say whatever you want online but even there you can't.
Any search combination of:
Facebook + teen/jail/sentence
gives a pretty good idea. I'd only seen a couple on HN front page but it's apparently there are a lot of examples that don't make it that far(1).
For your fire example there are others that have to do with inciting violence or putting others in danger. I am sure there are more examples.
(1) without reading them all it could be just linkbait or misinformation
Whilst its true that you can't say anything you want, should it really be up to any corporation to determine if saying X or Y is immoral?
If someone has said something that's illegal (e.g. threatining), then there's legal consequences for that. If anything, we shouuld beg the police to become more proactive. Currently, the stance on most crime involving computers is 'meh, its too hard to catch them unless they're on facebook using their real names'.
I think that unless it's actually illegal then it is up to the corporation. Corporations express opinions (morality) all the time (eg, Chick-fil-A/gay marriage, Abercrombie & Fitch/fat people).
So if FB/Reddit/Twitter/$NextThing decided that anyone who ever posted anything about $topic gets banned. If people wanted to use it they would understand that and could decide not to.
If my ISP started filtering things that I could access though that would probably get a different reaction from me.
As to the policing...some of the articles I pulled up when I did those searches were ridiculous and I'd prefer if police didn't waste time and resources on them. Of course there will be someone who thinks it's completely within reason.
Short version:
I don't care if $corp censors it's platform based on whatever it wants. I do care if ISP/government censor.
Personally I find so little offensive I have to wonder if I'm broken, normal, or just incredibly tolerant.
That's not how things work... You can't just create some system and see governments flock to you. There are years of consulting and specification requirements.
Linux is open source... Office Libre... Go convince a public office to switch to Ubuntu..
Saving money is often at the bottom of their focus.. and then you have competing interests releasing figures that show it is more costly to switch to free alternatives.
Yes, First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Sorry, I know it's trite, but there's some truth there. Being ignored for years is not necessarily a reason not to do something. In some cases it's the very best reason to do it.
[EDIT] - would those people down-voting please explain why?
Maybe you could partner with just one small government to start. Of all the municipalities in the world, you'd think at-least one would be open to the idea, even if in tandem.
Maybe it could be started by a person who works (or worked) at the dispatch center, and is also a programmer (there must be at-least one of those in the world too).
The point is that NYC laughing/ignoring/fighting you is not a good enough reason not to start. (and who's to say that NYC would do any of those things, given the current state of affairs)
I downvoted you because you asked people to explain why they were downvoting you. This adds nothing to the conversation (everyone who gets downvoted wants to know why, everyone who downvotes knows that the person who they are downvoting would want to know why) and is bad for HN (talking about the moderation system distracts from actual on-topic conversation, and leads to gaming of the moderation system - indeed, I would say even that line can be gaming the moderation system, as it can lead people to reconsider whether to downvote).
In this specific case it's not exactly the same as running a generic load test against some website, given the advertised feature of this specific website.
You're intentionally making it too generic to portray the guy as an asshole, when that's not how things went down. Very politician-like. Yuck.
Well the best thing would be to try it yourself. I have found:
* ab has more results variation between runs
* ab will almost always report lower performance than wrk
* If you have two implementations being benchmarked, A and B and B is always faster than A. wrk will report a greater degree of performance separation between A and B.
These results are less noticeable the lower performance the site being benchmarked is.
Probably best not to try this on any systems you care about if the command is completely unknown. killall on Solaris might have some unintended consequences.
Maybe I missed this bit of information, but can someone explain....
They use a multi datacenter master - slave redis cluster? What's the relationship between the master and slaves?
Are the slaves just failover? Or are they for read only?
How have they configured their writes and reads from their main application? I'm just curious how their application routes the reads/writes in such a multi-database setup. (Are they using DNS for a manual failover?)
This is speculation, but it seems like in the result of a true loss of the redis-master or it's datacenter, someone would have to reconfigure one of the slaves to become a master and reconfigure the applications that use it (or perhaps they have this type of service discovery built-in).
