techtivist's comments

I really dislike these type of comments. Yes we all like to hate on PayPal. It has questionable business practices and its products aren't necessarily cutting edge as compared to say Stripe. But let's just pause and recognize this http://www.datanyze.com/market-share/payments/paypal-vs-stri...

So there's nothing wrong in creating a business that serves a wildly large number of customers out there. PayPal dominates the market outsides of startups and the valley tech companies, and as such a huge market to build a product or company around.

I think more than just a product decision, this seems to be a more strategic decision. Inbox is great for consumers, for your personal email. But for power email users, there's very little, which is perhaps why they haven't even opened it up to Google Apps users.

There's an underlying trend, while consumer mobile apps have been embracing more and more unbundling, the good business mobile apps out there are actually bundling more and more. Inbox replaced Mailbox for my personal email.

But for work, once I moved to Acompli https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/acompli-email/id829384901?mt..., there was no turning back.

Acompli leaves a lot to be desired in terms of design, but I really don't care because it has seamless multi platform file integration and integrated scheduling features, stuff that I don't need for my personal email. But mailbox and now inbox is great for my personal email, because it focuses on stuff I really care about: quick replies, adding simple tasks and most importantly snoozing emails that I don't need to reply to rightaway.

Here's the biggest underlying problem. Contrary to what one would expect, Japanese firms are actually flush with money, but due to Abenomics, the weakness of Yen means they are investing more and more abroad, rather than putting the resources in improving its own infrastructure. We all know about Softbank's recent investments in India and South East Asia. And it's not just limited to Tech or even the private sector, even infra firms are investing in troves abroad, especially in South East Asia. In a way the Japanese growth rate doesn't take into account the rent its entities are receiving from abroad. So the short term picture might actually be rosier than the numbers of would suggest.

The bigger problem is actually long term weaknesses that this trend will expose.

Another huge problem is consumer lending. Most Japanese banks are actually pretty stringent when it comes to lending to their own people. So even if low interest rates might encourage consumer borrowing appetite, there's very little supply out there. I think the PM and the central bank needs to address these, even if loosening lending might be contrary to what Japan has done in the past.

I think she's alright, but would have definitely liked someone like Sarah Lacy doing the interview. I know people have different opinions about her, but I really like her interviewing style, seems much more personal.

The question is asked at around 10 minutes, and PG answer around 12 after Jessica's answer.

I was really touched that PG's greatest regret was something related to his family, and not YC or his larger professional career. As young founders we tend to forget (or are expected to anyways) where our real long term priorities should be, and I hope PG's own regret reminds us to think about it from time to time.

It's on a Saturday, so traffic shouldn't be a big deal. Prices in SF and South Bay (MV/Sunnyvale/Cupertino) tend to be similar. So it's really up to you. But SF does have a lot of options for budget hostels (outside of the hackerhomes that are available on AirBnB). If you have the cash, I would rather spend it on a nice place in South Bay then on Uber.

I'll be renting a car from SF. For folks wanting to carpool with me, sign up here with "techtivist". Others with a car, feel free to add yourself here as well. http://www.groupcarpool.com/t/97khv4 First come first serve. It should come to around $20 each (including gas and rental) per head, against $80-90 Uber ONE WAY! I'll be leaving from Richmond, but can pick up from anywhere within SF or a short diversion from 101.

Exactly, my country isn't on the visa waiver program. So B1(/B2) is my only option.

Thanks, I am going to give it another try. My first thought was to register the company here, but it takes 2 months to do so! But worse comes to worst, I will have to do that and ask the accelerator to move be to a different batch.

The problem is the law, and I sort of sympathize with the interviewers because they have to be seen as being completely blind to the "subjectivity" of the personal case, and rely solely on documentation. Logically, it makes so sense for me to stay illegally in US. Not only will it screw my company, it wont help me in any way. I went to a very good CS school, and have ample high paid job opportunities here at home and legal ways to apply for a job in US.

My bad luck was that I had a new interviewer who was extra cautious, understandably. He was in a doubt and went to speak to the guy in the next counter, and came back and said no. Which is a little screwed up because the guy in the next counter didn't even speak to me!

But there's no scope for an appeal, so the only option I have is to reaply and this time take some document as evidence and hope I have an experienced interviewer.

Yeah, I do. I have my parents here, but we don't have any property that we own, which is the biggest problem. I honestly, do want to return in the short term because I am the only child and need to take care of my parents while I grow the company.

Yeah, but it's getting better now even if informally. See this link http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/b-1-business-visitor/und... under "How do I show that I intend to remain for a limited time?" It explicitly mentions accelerators. As long as you are not "employed" by the company, or more specifically the US incorporated entity, it's okay.

The problem is that there's no "directive" as such, so a lot depends on the interviewer one has, because it's so subjective. Mine was new and had never heard of what an accelerator was. He thought it was an MBA!

But there's no scope for an appeal, one has to reapply and pay the hefty application fee again!

Thanks for the response. The USCIS website actually now says that being in an accelerator is fine with a B1, and in fact if the accelerator has fixed start and end date that can act as a proof that I will return home after the accelerator ends. Look at http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/b-1-business-visitor/und... under "How do I show that I intend to remain for a limited time?", it's the 3rd point.

Silly me, I didn't see that before the interview. Anyways, my interviewer was new and had no idea what an accelerator was.

What I am doing now is interviewing in another city, with the same application, albeit with added true information that would support why I want to come back, which I honestly do in the short term as my parents are unwell. The city I interviewed in first has almost no startups, so they have never encountered a situation like this before. This time I am interviewing in a city that has a history of sending startups to US accelerators including YC and Techstars.

Let's see, I am interviewing this week. Taking all documents including my parents medical documents and a printout of the page above. Fingers crossed!

Thanks for sharing the details. My core problem isn't with the details, mainly because I haven't gone through it or even what percentage of Stellar is controlled by the organization. My problem is with the basis of having such a self-selected organization which seems to have given itself the de facto control over the flow of the monetary system.

As a good example what you mentioned: "As needed, the organization will also hold open auctions to raise funds from its remaining pool of stellars".

This is a huge thing! Who decides when "as needed" is? If it's the board, what's the basis of their authority? Just being a non=profit doesn't stop one or more of the board members to act in self-interest.

I keep hearing the argument about being a non-profit. It really means little in terms of accountability or credibility. Even in a for-profit public company shareholders have some amount of say on who gets elected to the board. But this board is entirely self-selected; which seems contrary to the inherently democratic if not flat idea behind crypto currencies.

And we are talking about a full fledged monetary system here with legal repercussions in terms of international law. With Bitcoin, no one was technically "responsible" for what folks did with Bitcoin. Will the Stellar organization be responsible for oversight and arbitration for any legal or financial fraud? And will the board BE held accountable or responsible for any systemic issues rising from speculation or any other activity?

It seems to me Stellar (the organization) will be "the Central Bank" a la Bank for International Settlements at the global level or Federal Reserve for Stellar (the cryptocurrency).

This is what makes me uncomfortable. The biggest point about cryptocurrencies is that they are not centralized. In that sense Stellar seems a lot worse than regular currency. With a regular currency, at least the respective Central Bank or other monetary regulatory authority has credibility and accountability in the sense that they are indirectly elected by citizens as they are selected by the elected government. As such they have to have a history of integrity and monetary experience, and can be removed if they act unethically.

Stellar's board, on the other hand, is self-elected, and with all due respect, don't need to have the level of accountability or have the credibility of running such an organization, which even if it owns "just 5%" (+2% of Stripe's) of the currency can potentially have substantial control over it. And being a non-profit doesn't add a stamp of either, means little.

It's a little unfortunate that rather than discussing the contents of the piece we are focusing on the individual

But I would like to comment on the substance because that is the link that was shared; and avoid all the on and on conflicts about the author of the piece.

I hate to be that guy, but while I appreciate the optimistic note (no pun intended), I think we really should introspect on how 2013 was actually a year of setbacks in fight against poverty and other related social problems including the ones listed by BillG, which I want to point out. I am writing on the basis of my knowledge (which I can assure you is credible) and will append references later.

1.Polio: While there are some obvious achievements, the question of Pakistan is one country that has taken long backward steps since being close to eradicating it just before 9/11, and most of that has to do with geopolitical reasons. Post 9/11 the insurgent groups started targeting polio workers and banning immunization programs alleging that they were American spies. Because none of these were allegations were substantiated, the village elders fought against their voices, and the immunization program continued with the insurgents not being able to do much. However that changed with the Laden killing which in a way vindicated the insurgents as the chief informant was a doctor affiliated with the polio program. Since then the elders lost their ability to object, and the insurgents gained their authority which has resulted in completely dismantling of the polio program with periodic killings of polio workers, the last one less than a week back.

The number of polio cases in Pakistan has grown about 40-50% since then. And one would argue there's a lot that the west can do to regain confidence for the local workers without jeopardizing the so-called continuing war on terror. This is a contentious issue, but ones that needs to be highlighted and not as simple as the Pak PM giving assurance to Gates.

2. Child mortality: Sure child mortality has gone down but it is far from the target set in the Millennium Development Goals (UN MDGs). More importantly its not just the poorer countries that are doing badly. Amongst the worst performing countries has been India which goes on to my next point that economic growth or the rate of poverty going down means nothing more than in numbers to the state of social welfare. The overall child mortality has gone down because of two separate factors: 1. Countries in latin america and south east Asia have improved drastically through better "socialistic" maternal and child welfare programs while the rest amongst the poorer countries languish. 2. The civil wars that plagued sub saharan countries before the 2000s have gone down both in their occurrences and their casualties, of which women and children formed a huge number. Sure you hear about the current violence in the likes of South Sudan, Mali, Syria and CAR but these are nothing compared to the violence of the past and the civilian casualties are much lower in number.

3. Poverty rate: From the point above while in absolute terms poverty has gone down, social inequality has grow. More importantly the measure of poverty line is highly debated as growth in income in low and middle income counties has also seen concurrent high real inflation on the ground which is highly under measured.

4. Rich counties re-committed to saving lives: This is actually perhaps the most concerning. Just read this piece by Jeffrey Sachs, one of the world's most well known development economist who was is a key advocate of the Global Fund that Gates mentions that http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/world-to-poor-dr...

Sorry if this sounds like a long rant. But I really strongly believe that we need to be realistic of what has been achieved. I appreciate what Gates is trying to do, but we need to introspect on how little we are doing to address these grave issues. And discussing the man and not the article itself is one of those key symptoms of our indifference and lethargy.

Ah! Now I feel stupid. Haha

To put things into perspective it's ~USD 13000 (1dc= 0.00062$), combined. Not saying that it's not a serious matter. OP on the forum lost $600 which is sizable. But Dogewallet have stated on reddit that they will return all the investment and close down the site, which might arguably be better customer service then we have seen by Coinbase lately with much more money from individual investors at stake.

Any ways, if cryptocurrencies are to be taken seriously and formally, these entities have to up their customer services, at least to a BOfA level, which isn't much to expect ;)