31–40 of 57 posts
A screenshot utility that is more powerful than the free Greenshot, yet less expensive than the over the top SnagIt. (Free unlimited trial, $5 to buy, Donating 10% to my favorite charity).
Its got a lot of great features, and a lot more in the works. (I've now started building a light-weight editor... Learning the 'Command pattern' for Undo/Redo'ing)
still a side project, using Python PyKE as the rules engine is anyone is familiar with that??, and socket.io, node and mongodb for the "real-time" stuff.
It will also provide some graphs along with insights/advice, for example, suggesting possible aliases to save time. Looking to get it out in the next week or two, would love to hear if you guys would be interested in something like this!
Basically, you upload your chat history and we show some nice visualizations (no, we do not store your chat).
I'm working on finding a co-founder in NYC. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10218445 Finding a co-founder is close to number 1 on the list of things a founder has to do, because the number 1 mistake that kills startups is being a single founder. Therefore learning from other people's search in finding a co-founder would be learning what to look for yourself. I can easily imagine finding a co-founder to be a star…
I noticed your other post the other day looking for someone to hack with in NYC. Ok, seems fair. But you're looking for a co-founder "for what"? For "a startup"? To build what? What is your passion? It's fun to say "I want to start a start up, I'll read Paul Graham and make sure not to make those mistakes, 1) Check, 2) Check..." and so on. In reality, having a marketable and economically viable idea is the key to fou…
"In reality, having a marketable and economically viable idea is the key to founding a successful business."
That's not 100% true. I mean, it is important, but it's not the one and only key. There's more to it than that. Here's a list of marketable and economically viable ideas that won't lead most people reading this comment have a successful business out of them. http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html People are more important than ideas.
I'm sorry my posts came off as my passion is not wanting to work in a large company. I don't work in a large company. My passion is to change the world, after becoming ramen profitable. If I had to pick between a business that makes lots of money but isn't fullfilling or a business that makes less money but has a shot at changing the world, I'd pick the latter. I don't know if this answers your question.
You are right that people who like sitting around together may be unable to come up with a viable, marketable idea and then become successful startup founders. It's not easy to generate ideas. It's hard to be a startup founder.
But you also may be presumptuous if you think I haven't found a problem or started solving it. And I may be presumptuous if I think you haven't found a problem or starting solving it too. I want to listen to other people's ideas. Valuable ideas can be risky or frightening enough that you don't even know you have them. Bouncing ideas with someone else can help them surface.
If I had to make one assumption, it'd be that people who like sitting around together, and like each other, and are exceptional, are more likely to come up with a viable, marketable idea and then become successful startup founders than people who don't like each other and aren't exceptional. If this "success" quality can be put into words better, similar to being formidable, I'm open to a definition.
One problem with people coming because they are interested in a problem you are solving is that they also leave when the solution doesn't work. People who stick together are more likely to stick with a solution longer. They are also more likely to be open to changing the idea.
I saw this problem with people who weren't friends first. They wouldn't be in sync. They would refuse to switch ideas.
This may be a very simplistic reasoning, but if you go from a single founder to two, you potentially double your growth rate. Or you at least double your productivity. Because now there are two people working to make some big tech breakthrough and get that initial toehold of users, assuming they can work together.
It seems to me growth rate is more important than equity. With growth rate you can get rich enough to not have to work again. With double the equity but no growth you don't.