hsk0823's comments

Define reasonable because to the VC taking the large risk, 5% YoY isn't the goal.

The organization does, it's a non profit, it gets reinvested into the team coffers to be spent. There's no dividend or anything like that.

It's a scam because the equity have any decision making power. It's still controlled by a small group of people aka the board of directors, the stock structure is setup that fans could not mount a hostile takeover. It's called ownership, but it's not, it has no value, it cannot ever be sold back, it doesn't grant you any say over how the team operates. The Packers are not a community owned organization, it's operates no different than any other NFL team, decisions are not made by the fans. The Packers aren't really community owned organization, a real community owned organization whose members have actual power over the organization. Those are very few and far between, are generally non profits, and in the end, no ability for outside investors to get the profits they're looking for, thus they won't bother to invest.

You hear from time to time small to mid sized business that are "employees owned and operated" but that doesn't mean every employee has the same equity, the generally ownership will have the largest stake anyway with employees having very little control or equity compared to ownership

Dell may have been a dorm room startup, but VC influences exists even in it's first early years from Lee Walker who I don't believe was just a simple salaried employee but must have invested some of his own money for equity, and it had meteoric growth in the first few years from dorm room project to full fledged multinational company with a very quick IPO.

Of course. That's part of raising capital, is funding employee salary. Of course it's not a "they're set", it's a market rate salary given the size of the company and the role you do for the company.

What's to stop VC fraud? Generally when you accept VC money, you're giving a board seat to said VC, who is there to yes guide with experience, but is also there to protect their investment.

But that's a deal a VC wouldn't make in the first place.

The Packers model works because it's basically a scam, no one in Green Bay actually has any say over what the Packers do day to day but it feels good for Packer fans to say they own a part of the team. There's emotional buy in, it's not a rationale way to invest your money, and no one lends money with the idea that they're not going to see it again as a business.

Community support projects work for Kickstarter or Indiegogo marketing to the general public consumer, that's not the same thing as trying to build a B2B SaaS platform fixing a specific problem marketed at Fortune 500 companies.

Careful what you wish for, startups have people who will wear as many different hats as required to make it work. Corporate life may have had a really well defined job role, that may not be true in any startup you join.

VC money is not free, there's a real cost to it, it's written on the term sheet.

VC money is relatively easy money to obtain versus trying to grind for the same amount of capital yourself, but there's certainly a cost to any transaction.

Lots of good questions. Maybe a primer on the relationship between a VC and a founder would be helpful.

Say you are a founder, you've got a killer idea, you think you can change the world with this idea but you need capital to bring it to life. Say you can demonstrate on a small scale that your idea does work, you have analysis that the market will support your idea, but you need money again to make it a reality. VCs come in, say we'll give you a boat load of cash today, in exchange for a hefty portion of your company, based on an evaluation that we're going to make. They usually take a board seat, and will be a part of your company's leadership, but remember the goal of the VC on the board may not always align with what other board members want for the company, VCs are looking to make the company's evaluation value grow so their investment is worth more than they spent, usually for a set amount of time or some sort of liquidation event occurs, be it acquisition, IPO, or shutting it down.

VCs work within a fund, a set amount of capital to invest, and that fund generally has a timeline, say 10 years, for the fund to end and realize any and all profit and losses and close the fund down. Once a company goes public, the VC can choose to do what they want, including completely selling all the shares they can convert into straight cash, or holding onto it, or devise some other strategy to distribute stocks to it's limited parters (the other groups of capital such as pension funds, college endowments, etc. etc.) for them to do what they wish.

Early/Seed, Mid-Stage, Late stage, these are generally terms to describe where a company is, and sometimes can be seen as part of the VC chain, seed / series A, Series B-C, Series D and above if additional rounds of funding are needed.

There are plenty of companies that exist to purely exist and serve their customers, by the time a company goes public, VCs are generally long gone as their funds have run their course. The VC model is a relatively new investment invention compared to industrial companies of the early 1900s in manufacturing let's say.

The pros and cons of a public vs private company can fill an entire textbook. They're just different models of operating, with different legal ramifications, different things you can and cannot do as a public company versus a private company, as well as access to capital which as a public company comes much easier (sell your share to the public) than it can when you have to pitch private investors.

In the broader economy, VCs play a small part, endowments, pension funds, other investment groups, may as part of their investment strategy partner with various VC and PE firms. But there's there's a diversity of firms that operate VC funds, it's not all just in one company (although one could argue Softbank Vision fund is just that), and each VC and PE firm has their own investment philosophy on how they stay successful.

They're throwing AWS under the bus, but AWS has yet to acknowledge any outage, https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6488845...

That's great, where did your content for your Plex server originally come from?

It amazes me it took this long to make this happen and that Azure still doesn't have this as a feature

BeyondCorp for life?

Film can be "faked". Negatives can be modified. They're all chemical processes that can be coaxed into producing images that didn't exist when the photo was taken.

Who wrote this BS? I mean stuff like "especially dangerous are female psychopaths", it has zero place in our community.

Whoever wrote this has a good grasp of the possibilities of shadow IT and gets that it's a sign that your IT org isn't agile and responsive enough to changing needs and resistant to change in the name of security, but decides that this is a top level management problem, when it's probably not, it's a culture problem and I don't think this person.

The side articles about politics are just the icing on the cake here

but where are said chips being made?

Why would there be a bounty on basically a brute force attack?

Anyone can get a push certificate, it's not just businesses,

https://identity.apple.com/pushcert/

There are HN readers who are Directors of IT at their place of employment