HN user

sebleon

759 karma
Posts16
Comments327
View on HN

To be clear, it sounds like MoPub/Grindr/OKCupid aren't selling people's data. Instead, they reveal personal information (for free?) to hundreds of advertising networks when hosting auctions for ad inventory.

That would mean that after getting approved as an ad-network on MoPub, you can get all 1.5B users' data for free, just by participating in the auction (without even having to win and spending money in auctions).

Does anyone on HN happen to have a sample bid request from MoPub that demonstrates the actual data that's made available to ad networks (DSPs)?

They Rejected Us 8 years ago

The Big Co interview process is a binary classifier (hire/no hire). It's actually reasonable to tune it to minimize false-positives, since a bad hire can be disastrous for all parties involved - imagine an employer changing their minds on you during your first few months. Tradeoff is that this will increase false-negatives, saying No to great people, and lead to stories in the link above.

Other thing worth mentioning is that "culture fit" might make companies turn down excellent developers, who don't happen to have the founders' same personality type.

A closer analogy for a remedy to an illness would be: Whenever your yard gets overrun with bears, putting a rock on the porch makes them go away for an unknown reason. Don’t let yourself be limited by science, which is bounded by human intelligence.

Fair - correlation does not mean causation. That being said, countless experiments show placebo can have empirical results; even the simple belief in a remedy can improve healthcare outcomes.

Indeed, the US presidential election is a joke on various levels.

1. The president is not picked based on the people’s vote. The US is a republic, not a democracy, where government officials cast the deciding votes.

2. The voting infrastructure can be easily tampered with, likely by design as pointed out above.

3. There is no limits on campaign spending, enabling billionaires and corporations to own the winning candidates that got the most airtime.

4. Two private entities have a duopoly on the presidency. They’ve established rules that prevent any new parties from serious consideration.

5. As surfaced by the Wikileaks DNC dump, at least one (if not both) of these parties actively sabotage some of their candidates to ensure the party’s pick a spot in the final national election.

This is a lot like consumer cryptography - yes, technical exploits are a problem, but they're overshadowed by social engineering.

In the case of US elections - even with secure infrastructure, the election will be determined by billionaire-sponsored campaign budgets and policies that entrench the 2 party system.

After the DNC email leak, I'm amazed how little attention was placed on hard evidence that the Democratic Party methodically sabotaged candidates in the primaries. Shifting public focus to the "Russian Hacking" was amazing PR work.

How YC Has Changed 8 years ago

While Stripe is extremely developer-friendly, the alternatives aren’t that bad. They’re annoying to set up, but certainly not prohibitive to a determined founder starting out. Today, options like Braintree are comparable in terms of dev-friendliness.

There's a few reasonable reasons why FB should allow gender-specific job ad campaigns:

- Employers will likely see better ROI on their ad-spend by creating separate ad campaigns for every gender, with copy/creatives optimized for the target demo

- Employers may see that FB ads are ineffective for a specific gender, eg. fb ads are good for finding male candidates, while other marketing channels (radio, tv ads, etc) work better for female candidates.

Given these examples, I wouldn't blame Fb for allowing gender-specific ads. The onus should be on the employer to reach out to candidates of all genders throughout their recruiting campaigns, with gender balance when you aggregate efforts across different mediums.

Ha, venture math is pretty hilarious. VCs basically need to give back their investors a 300% return in 10 years to make up for the risk they handle. Eg. For a $40M fund that's trying to grow to $120M, $1M here and there doesn't really move the needle.

Ah, to clarify: Buffer threw the seed investors under the bus when they inked a deal with the Series A investors.

However, kudos to the founders for fixing this mistake later on. While their intentions at Series A were questionable (raising to pay themselves), they made things right later on, though they did pay the price of a co-founder and CTO departure. Everyone makes mistakes, but true character can be seen when you deal with them.

Our seed investors had been supporting the company for almost six years, and several were starting to ask when they may get a return

The Series A class of shares included a protective provision which meant that Buffer was unable to offer liquidity for other shareholders (seed or common) without approval from a majority of the Series A.

$2.5m of $3.5m was for founders and early team [of Series A money]

Terms:

Series A class of shares included a protective provision which meant that Buffer was unable to offer liquidity for other shareholders

a return of 9 percent annual interest on their investment at any point

So... the founders raised a series A mostly to give themselves liquidity, at the expense of a high interest loan that also threw their early investors under the bus? Well, they definitely achieved their vision of putting together an atypical round.

Given their lack of interest in going down the VC-startup path (high growth at all costs, keep raising, aim for IPO, etc), it's unclear what their motivations were to raise a VC round in the first place.