hnnnnng

We're in the bay area.

Nope. As long as your idea is reasonable(which is a high chance assuming you have your head on straight which is clearly not the case if you're doing stuff like developing an 'elixir for immortality' or building a 'google killer'), you have some semblance of a product and at-least a seed round in funding, getting acquihired is not at all a problem. Trust me, I've already gotten offers for acquisitions and I've barely begun fundraising.

Thats silly. You never start out trying to get acquihired unless you know exactly what the company you want to get acquihired by, wants. You aim super high for an ipo but if stuff goes south, you can always get acquihired.

Except they're not doing that. Quite the opposite infact, they've invented a lot of the malware themselves. maybe this too. If I cant have my cake at least i can choose not to fucking pay for someone else(taxes). Smartass.

only in a "free-"market. Also there is a concept of "fair price" for a reason. You can't charge insane prices everywhere, especially for essential items.

Performance would grant us the best reason to switch. Because otherwise we are quite satisfied with mongo. I have seen the technical comparison. I will keep an eye out for the performance results. Thanks for letting me know.

I really like the idea behind rethink and the concept as well. I've also looked at documentation and it seems very simple to use.

Also, I understand that 'benchmarking' databases is extremely situational and generally inaccurate. However, without reasonable ways to measure an increase in performance, its really hard for me to make the decision to switch from mongo to rethink.

What I'm trying to ask is, does anyone have any information that can help me decide where, how, when and why should I use make the decision to switch from mongo to rethink? Not just for me but also so that I can show others in my team to get a consensus to switch.

Unfortunately, lack of evidence that he has funded YC Companies is not evidence that hes a bad VC. I'm not saying he isn't, instead, if you could provide proof from various (more than 5) founders that have obtained funding from him and yet feel this way, it might make for a better argument.

Theres no way to win, is there?

One doesn't state that he/she has probably made mistakes == person is implying he's never given bad advice.

One does state that he/she has probably made mistakes == its the "ol' Damning Admission" strategy

Do you even think?

Insane overreactions are becoming extremely commonplace and quite frankly, its very disillusioning. I'm extremely disappointed in the tech community. Being an ass is not the same as discriminating against or hating a group of people.

So, loans are the answer to everything? Are corporations guaranteeing higher wages and certain jobs to everyone with degrees?

What about : http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-... from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6224982

Did you even look at that? Just because you were lucky enough to be able to pay off your loans doesnt mean everyone is. What if they dont find a job in their field? And have to work at minimum wage?

What about the veterans that come back from fighting for the country which includes these 'corporations'? Do the corporations guarantee them a higher salary?

http://www.epi.org/blog/raising-minimum-wage-benefits-millio...

What about : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-28/minimum-wage-in-u-s...

How is that not EXPLOITATION? Just because the rich people are able to keep minimum wage low by having funds and time to spend lobbying, does that mean that it is correct?

How? Because of a vicious cycle that begins with the low wages. You pay someone low wages so: 1) their kids can't pay for college => they can't get a proper education => lack of education/skillset in the kids 2) their kids have to work at these 'corporations' because of lack of education so they can put food on the table 3) their kids resort to stealing or some other illegal activity because they didnt have much of a choice => go to juvenile detention => no college => no skillset that you claim is not your fault

Is that enough or do you want me to go out and get some case studies as well?

The solution? How about increasing the wage so that these guys dont have to work more than 20 hours a day? How about taking a loss of a billion dollars to reduce profit from 7 billion to 6 billion but in return provide for a better life for the thousands of less fortunate people? If some shareholder makes a few million dollars less, hes not going to die. But the people that are living on food stamps, might very well.

How does costco manage to do this without going into the red? Im not whining that theres no security, i'm stating that making the claim that there is security is WRONG. How about you read with your eyes open? thanks.

Edit: clarification. Edit2: another proof that you can make a profit while actually caring for employees: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/the-trad... Edit3: The supply and demand crap you spew is total garbage. Nothing is 'just supply and demand'. There is much more including profit creation as a result of fulfilling demand with supply. All I suggest is reduce the profit slightly so you pay your low level workers more. They already make less than a third of what people with education do. How about making it equal to or slightly more than a THIRD?

#1 is flat out wrong. THERE IS NO SECURITY! Is mcdonalds right? paying people so little that they need another job to not be out on the street? How is that TAKING CARE of employees? Before you say mcdonalds is an exception, theres so many others so dont give me the bullshit about wealth exists because blah.

So beautifully voices exactly what I've been thinking.

If you're being picky please THINK before blurting. It says life could involve CELLS. Which is plural. Which points towards multi-cellular and NOT single-cellular organisms. Also look at definitions of cell. All of which imply cell as being a smaller unit of a LARGER whole. As for your utterly stupid question of why compare it to a cell: BECAUSE they are the basic units of which larger life forms are generally composed.

Do risks make something not worth doing? If it was the case, we wouldnt have airplanes because they can cause a fatal accidents. NASA wouldn't have attempted any shuttle launches because that can and has caused fatal accidents. Medicines can cause fatal accidents. DRIVING can cause fatal accidents. So would you rather sit at home in fear or attempt to do amazing things after doing everything you can to make them as safe as possible.

'infiltrated by feds' is a presumption based on speculation at this point. Assumptions dont 'correctly reflect events'. If you want to fix something, fix it entirely.

If cops have to break the law to save someone then the law is at fault. But I cannot, for the life of me, think of any such scenario. As for exposing corruption or being a whistleblower, there are many who want to modify laws to make it easier(Infact, Obama's stance on it during his elections is a prominent example.), but by definition, whistleblowers are fighting against the more powerful and/or the rich which has made it a losing battle.

Whats gonna happen? People are not going to stop going to MIT. The market it is in is education which is always growing and (sadly) the majority of people don't care what happened to Aaron Schwartz. MIT will still retain its top position and frankly I cannot fathom a scenario where it would have to face any serious consequences. So its most likely trying to hide something thats worth the loss of 'face' by filing this. But even if it fails, I don't think they give a fk.

Well by funding, they are helping adblock. And, assuming its true that their(Google's) own ads are NOT blocked, it means adblock(and by extension Google) is negatively impacting only the competitors. So in this case, the comparison is very valid.

Obviously they(Google) can't outright put out an adblocker of their own, but if someone else puts it out and they support it, and it just so happens to whitelist their ads, you must admit its definitely worth at least questioning. Plus Google is not the stellar company it pretends to be, with the recent news about its tax evasion in Europe and PRISM participation.

You make valid points but his are more valid. Certainly the reward should reflect the risk taken but at present the reward is horribly skewed in the direction of founders + investors. Employees, who are extremely important, get much less in return. Founders + investors end up with ~ 85% of the stock while the first 10 employees have 14% at the time of an exit/ipo, despite the employees having joined anywhere from 3months to 1 year after the founders. This is ridiculously skewed. Where did you get the number 90%? If the founders fail, does that not mean the employees failed too? All said and done, at the end of the day, the founders can claim stuff like "founded something. got so far and failed" and they'd still be worshipped. What can the first 10 employees claim? "Wrote some code"?

Do not jump to respond aggressively without any actual thought.