This is awesome. Twilight Struggle is one of my favourite games and the other implementations I have played are wrapped-up in too many unnecessary flourishes -- useless sound effects and video -- this looks clean and puts gameplay first. The focus is where it needs to be. I will definitely be using this.
The idea behind the blockchain is interesting too. Looking forward to hearing more discussion from people in the blockchain space about whether we can actually do this on POW and POS chains and whether the critique of bitcoin here is valid.
> “The type of person who is attracted to these jobs and thus to the Seattle area seems to be... strangely entitled...." Arlene said that she was once contacted by a Microsoft programmer on OKCupid who required that she read Neuromancer before “he would consider taking me out on a date. He was not joking.”
The idea that a guy should feel grateful for the opportunity to take a girl who looks down on him out to dinner is pretty far up there if we're chalking up examples of self-entitlement. Makes me suspect the real reason for her reaction was surprise at not being in the traditional position of judging and rejecting the guy first.
Complex initial agreements are a bad sign and suggest a lack of proper focus on how to achieve growth and share success. But if you are getting pushed in this direction, make sure the same agreement (ownership reflects performance) applies to non-technical founders as well. Document the obligations of your cofounders while you build the product, and establish ways to determine if they have met their goals. The point is not to be the only member of the founding team held to performance standards.
If the company cannot move forward until a technical product exists, you are investing in the company at a much earlier and riskier stage, since in addition to bearing product risk (will it work) and market risk (will it sell), you are also holding team risk (are your cofounders productive) and legal risk (if they bail, will you be sued for salvaging your investment as necessary).
Higher risk should translate into higher pay/equity. Don't let anyone negotiate your ownership down on any basis other than that their own disproportionately large contribution to the company (i.e. cash investment).
Milosevic was prosecuted by the ICC and died in jail four months before an almost certain conviction. The Pinochet case predates the ICC, but although the British government intervened to temporarily "halt" his extradition to Spain, the speed of his subsequent exit (he flew back to Santiago within hours) suggests the move was a political one to push things back to Chile, where Pinochet faced subsequent prosecution and died under house arrest.
So some cynicism is certainly deserved, but it is probably more accurate to say that the more political influence someone has, and the more dirt they hold on other countries, the more protracted the entire judicial process becomes.
Alnayyir isn't criticizing your desire to hire a friend. He is saying that the entire topic is judgmental and crass since it starts from an assumption of superiority over others. And I respectfully agree.
If the defining quality of friendship is wishing the best for others, it is hardly an act of friendship to think about one's friends in this fashion ("how can I dump them", "how can I exploit them"). The very possibility is paradoxical: how could a genuinely good person do anything but help his friends to the utmost of his ability? It is your conflating friendship with other dynamics that is being criticized, not your giving someone a job.
At risk of sounding like a complete asshat to apparently everyone else on this thread, a 9:00 - 4:00 workday is what I had in kindergarten. If I were running a company with this issue I'd consider it a big problem too.
Don't ask people to play a role in your company unless they're going to work for it. Once you start growing people will want to be associated with your success and you won't find it hard to engage.
Asking for recommendations from people who know what they're doing is an entirely different matter. I'd guess that's what they're looking for -- social proof you are reliable and not/crazy.
> I've seen a lot of great "website designs" done in Photoshop that wouldn't make terrible websites due to load speed, structure, or other unconsidered elements.
Agree. We've had designers deliver good looking stuff to us that ended up being unusable because they put a lot of time into delivering what they thought we needed instead of just reading the instructions. Tech knowledge helps eliminate communication problems.
The approach that works for me is keeping things simple and only adding graphic detail when it improves the look of the service. It helps to give developers examples of existing graphics to work with when you want a certain look. When you're looking for something very, very specific you can get an outside designer to put things together. I'd be surprised if you don't get responses from this post.
I don't see much evidence that the company was funding growth oriented small venture plays in China. Their role was to help Chinese companies line up foreign IPOs and cash out.
When you are not profitable you pay people as little as possible and deal in cash. Give work to friends and friends of friends at below market rates. Do not give out equity or anything that requires paying lawyers to do things. Don't make promises you cannot cash.
Don't get trapped by socialized norms of what it means to be a founder or how one goes about starting a company. Simply launch the business and iterate towards profitability - identify issues and fix those one-by-one. If you need cash to fix some problems, that's a challenge in and of itself. Get a job. Unless you are getting a lot of cash taking investment can be a bad move - see the point above about lawyers.
In my experience dealing with other people is time-expensive and making commitments to others significantly reduces flexibility in how products can be positioned and sold. You will know how valuable your company is after you understand the problems and time needed to execute. And then you will understand that the notion of fairness is defined by what different parties bring to the table. If you can quantify this and know its value then you know your limits for negotiating. Treat people with respect but ensure you get results for what you give up and that you're trading resources for something that will get you growth and profitability.