So I'm already a huge fan of Taplytics, but this is the first time I've heard of the Github Student Developer Pack (https://education.github.com/pack), which looks like an amazing idea. Kudos to all the companies participating.
I've been following Insight since Jake was subleasing office space from us for his first class of fellows (there were six of them occupying ~500 sqft. Their Palo Alto office alone is >14,000 sqft now, I think), and from the very first class it felt like a very special program.
I've come back to both mentor and hang out with their fellows every single batch since (I think I've been to 15 now), and it continues to amaze me just how incredible the people are, and how cool the community is.
If you're thinking of a career in AI and you have some of the fundamentals they're looking for at https://www.insightdata.ai, you'd be crazy not to apply.
> 2.) Following up on that point, I thought very few enterprise startups did YC and that YC would be weak in that category. From the stats, it seems like a majority of startups were enterprise focused! But, the standard YC terms kinda suck for enterprise startups. If your ACV is +$100k, why raise $120k for 7%?
I believe the "enterprise" number in the article includes B2B startups, not just enterprise.
That being said, it's a pretty common misconception that YC is about the money. It generally isn't! Money might be the smallest part you get for that 7%, and certainly is the most short lived, which is why in many cases even companies that are already generating revenue find it valuable to apply. This page covers a lot of the benefits (beyond money): https://www.ycombinator.com/why
As an international founder who has had to suffer the stresses of dealing with US immigration while building a company based in the states, this is incredibly welcome news.
"The proposed rule is open for public comment for 45 days, allowing stakeholders to provide valuable feedback to DHS before the final rule is ultimately published. (We encourage you to read the details and submit your comments.)"
And from the proposal [0]:
"You may submit comments directly to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) by e-mail at uscisfrcomment@dhs.gov. Please include DHS docket number USCIS-2015-0006 in the subject line of the message."
Hi, I'm doing research on this topic to draft a public comment for USCIS and I'd like to request everybody's input:
-Is it reasonable to limit this to only 3 founders per company, or should it be 4?
-Reasonable for a successful founder to own at least 10% at the end of the 2 year period (which could be 5 years after founding the startup)?
-Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?
-Is $500k annual revenue with average annualized revenue growth of at least 20% a good minimum requirement for proving "substantial and rapidly increasing revenue"?
-Will certain industries like biotech or medical devices be harmed if there is a requirement that the investor funding and application must occur within the first 3 years after founding? Are there some types of companies that take longer to get traction?
-Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
-Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
> Reasonable to require $345k within the 1st 3 years to qualify? Too much capital?
An international founder probably wants to come to the states for funding and scaling. Having pre-conditions on both scale and funding seems like a chicken and egg. Requiring funding rules out all bootstrapped businesses which are likely candidates.
> $500k annual revenue
The conditions feel like they select for small businesses like restaurants but filter out the potentially massive ones e.g. pre-revenue consumer facing like Facebook / WhatsApp or R&D heavy businesses like Biotech. Neither of these may see revenue in the first few years but have evidence potential in user growth, engagement or scientific achievement.
> Is winning pitch events or other competitions a good indicator of potential for rapid growth and job creation?
> Does getting into an incubator show a potential for success?
If a founder is wanting to relocate from a non-startup friendly region then neither of these are may have been available. IMHO both competitions and second-rate incubators are "playing at business" and distractions from the truly necessary steps.
I know you're joking, but in case it isn't obvious - Mythical man month doesn't apply outside dev. Sales/marketing people can actually deliver a baby in 4 weeks.
I think it's important to remember that the most important elections to everyday people are often not DC elections but rather local elections. Municipal, school boards, etc. In those elections, turn out matters a LOT, and has huge impact.
I'm going to guess you've not paid a whole lot of attention to CA politics. The state's voters somehow have this reputation as a bunch of liberal hippies. But let's look at a few items that stand out in my mind:
1. Of the last ten CA governors, six were Republicans.
2. Legal weed: CA said "no".
3. Gay marriage: "no" again.
National elections, sure, the Democrat is almost a shoo-in. But it would seem that as we drift down to the state and local level, CA is a bit more conservative than the hype.
And don't forget, we now have a top 2 primary, so just because the central valley gets to pick between two R's and the coasts get to pick between two D's there may be miles and miles of practical difference between the two even if the caucus with the same party when they get to Washington or Sacramento.
That's not at all true. There are still lots of republicans at the state and municipal level, and they're often the most competent candidate. The lower you go in government, the more likely it is that someone will be personally acquainted with a politician who's running, and they'll say "I may not agree with everything she stands for, but we had a good chat and she seems like she could do the job."
But which one of them? California does non-partisan blanket primaries, so in solidly Democratic areas the general election will have two Democrats and vice versa.
People always say that, but it's not clear to me how. Candidates for those elections are often folks I don't know anything about, and at best I'll have a flier from an appropriately-stationed candidate near my train station to go off of. I don't know where to get information on candidates for those elections!
If only there were tools that allowed searching the Internet.
If only there were neighbors one could ask.
If only there were city council meetings one could attend.
If only one could mail a letter or make a phone call to the candidates, to ask them about things one considers important.
You get the information by going out and getting it. If you don't, you're saying "I don't care, at all". And those local candidates will often move on to the next higher level at some point. At which point suddenly "I don't care" turns into "we only have terrible choices".
It's actually quite difficult to find information on, say, Soil and Water Conservation District Manager (yes, we elect those in some places), particularly since that minor of a race might not even result in websites. It's also difficult to get a full sense of the issues that matter in a race by reading the candidates' websites--and if your local newspaper doesn't help by providing interviews, you can be quite SOL.
The last election took me about 1-1½ hour to figure out whom I was going to vote for.
The candidates who are running are listed with contact information at city hall. You can call them on the telephone or write them an email asking detailed questions about whatever is relevant to your interests, and you will probably get an excellent reply. If you don't, then you can vote for their opponent or write in your own name.
We're launching it standalone so you can run them side by side if you wanted to. It IS built on top of AeroFS, so down the road we may offer a migration path :)
