Wanted to play with ES6 a bit. What's the recommended minimal setup if you just want to play with it without a browser (just node).
What I did is
1) install babel-register
2) create index.js in that file...
3) require('babel-register')
4) require all files I want to be transpiled and have one as the entry point that actually does stuff
5) node index.js

I'm reproducing a board game I own as a test so there's stuff like player.js, board.js and game.js in step 4 with game.js being the main file and the others are just modules that contain a single class.
In game.js I have
Works but I think as a next step I'd rather have a src and build folder or something and keep my ES6 files in src and the transpiled code in build. Easiest way of handling that? [gulp/grunt etc. I suppose]

Additional question:
What's the naming convention you use for arrow functions?
I used version a for now since it makes it more obvious that we use an anonymous function with one parameter. Version b seems more concise and once you get used to => it's probably better...but I feel like sticking with a

I think this is a clear binary argument. Either what you are saying is true or it is false.

If Elon Musk asked you to work for him at a new startup for equity-only (say 2%) for the first year, do you say no?

I think saying no to that because of some moral principle is clearly terrible.

It is an extreme but you only need to prove your idea wrong in any context, because clearly there are other scenarios that you would also answer yes for.

What if people you know are wanting to work on a startup nights and weekends?

Sorry guys I can't join you unless you pay me in straight cash for my time.

LL,

Don't forget that we can't give options to align interest to early stage employees unless it is above market rates. We also can't allow them to take lower pay for larger equity.

I don't know how you recruit a cofounder. Or what about active investors? The moral implications of this view are amazing. (As is the JIF peanut butter question.)

Crazy.

I would do nodemon with

nodemon --exec npm run babel-node -- ./path/to/file

also include in package.json

"scripts": {
"babel-node": "babel-node --stage 0"
}

this is babel 5 since 6 appears to have problems atm or is a pita idk.

I do version a for everything even if its "unnecessarily verbose" because I like my code to look similar across the board even if it doesn't have to.

Hi friends,

quick question,
i'm a third year student on a 4 year CS masters degree, I have never had an internship or did any work experience before, where should I start?

also, a friend told me about CompTIA certifications
https://certification.comptia.org/home
are these worth doing at all?

Start applying now. CompTIA is for IT. I am assuming you want to be a software developer since you are doing a CS degree. If so, I would start looking for internships like 2 months ago.

look for internships anywhere you look for jobs

like "software internship" instead of "software developer" on monster, indeed, etc.

Ask if your school has any job placement or job boards

study the heck out of how to apply properly, use any resources available to get your resume looking good

@clowntable I like b but only because it looks nicer.

I think applying for any company that is hiring and just sending that you want to intern is solid.
Its not like you lose by doing that in any way. You guys talking about rushing out applications for the summer already or you all talking about winter applications. If you want to get a paid internship, places usually look for someone that can work a decent amount of time to do something cool besides the companies that hire you to do nothing. Like a place might want you to work a year or summer + fall if they're paying decent.

i prefer b for the reasons you said.

"a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

Elon Musk busted himself to run Tesla and SpaceX. I know you are asking a hypothetical, but it feels a bit odd to consider because I know he wouldn't even consider asking people to work on equity only. Musk is a proven quantity, which makes it even stranger when someone who isn't proven is asking for equity-only work.

This guy says "only for the Christmas break, you aren't doing anything anyways and working on this won't prevent you from finding some other work."

Being friends with people doesn't change my thinking on this very much. I have my own projects that I gladly give away for free, but I wouldn't go out of my way to work on something that isn't the same project.

Some employees aren't financially prepared to take a multi-year no-pay risk against questionable equity numbers and promises. This is the entire crux of my issue. What incentive to I, or any employee, have to have to stick around when they can walk downstairs and get paying work at a restaurant?

The point I was making is that you can't buy Jiff at Whole Foods. They have products that aren't even in the same league as cheaper stores.

If you go buy meat, it is all very high grade and there is no chance you'll bring home green meat.

If you go to buy apples, you don't even have to check them for freshness because every apple is completely fresh. I've been to HEB more than once and wasn't able to find a single good apple in a huge pile.

Oh, and if you do find the organic oil-slick peanut butter in HEB or Wal-Mart, the stuff isn't cheap at all.

If you do find things at Whole Foods "other places" sell, you may be surprised to find that they are all within normal prices, and in fact, many common-brand products are cheaper (beer in particular). The fresh produce isn't that much more expensive, and it often the same price.

my face wash begs to differ. Like $10 at Hell Foods, around $7 at the Target across the street, often with 25% more product

If your savings are <= 0$ would you take a loan to cover living expenses for a year?

I think the biggest issue is that asymmetric information massively favours the person offering you equity only.

That's a good point, and one year seems highly optimistic.

Dave, do you at least accept that there are people out there that are quite happy to work without pay?

I've worked without getting paid for short periods of time before. And I would do the same thing again in those spots without hesitation.

And so to me your whole thing comes off as whining because you have different beliefs than other people. And you get offended (you can pretend like that's not the right word - but it clearly is) just by someone asking you if you're interested in something that many people are ok with. How can they know you're not ok without asking?

Of course I can accept that, and that's why I label it an ethical issue, but I feel that there has to be battle lines drawn. When people use equity (I'll not use quotes this time) as their main bargaining chip, I feel like that is outright immoral because, more often than not, they are attempting exploitation via the employee's naivete about how equity probably doesn't work at least 80% of the time, and by the employee's naivete about how the business they are attempting to disrupt works.

You can argue that the founder truly believes that the equity will run up to something that makes it all worthwhile, but I don't weigh intent in my thinking. Naive leading the naive is not an excuse.

I know that it sounds a little contradictory, but odesk is an option to get an MVP out there. If the person hasn't been able to finance their lives well enough to afford $5 / hour to someone, then they probably don't have enough of the sacrificial spirit to really put money into the business when and where it matters.

Whether you label my attitude as being offended or not, I see asking for sweat equity as a red flag, and I don't see how any prospective employee who cares to protect themselves wouldn't see it as such. Getting screwed is always, ultimately, the responsibility of the person who got screwed. I take a moral stance in not screwing people over, whether by accident or purpose. No matter how well-intended, it is not excusable to me.

It is possible that if I was well-off and haven't had to navigate decades of self-serving, manipulative people who are out to screw people with full maliciousness, I would be a little more forgiving, but by default, I take an extreme stance.

If you are explicitly focusing on people that have absolutely zero care in the world and couldn't care less about the the end value of the company, I can give a little leeway. When you are attempting to employ people who have to pay rent, feed kids, and are attempting to employ these people with what is possible as opposed to what is tangible... that's just irresponsible.

Not sure if I agree with the work-for-equity pitch being unethical but in practice it doesn't matter and if some stranger who hasn't qualified himself wants you to work for equity, the likelihood that you're talking to a scammer or a newb is extremely high that I probably would not bother paying attention to the rest of the pitch.

There is virtually no legal protection for the vague notion of equity at this stage and it doesn't really matter what the terms are, because the other party to the transaction is a company that has no value and can't pay you actual real money. For the equity to be worth something, it has to be backed by some kind of trust, whether from reputation, relationship or actual control and leverage over the company. Of course, people with some actual reputation to lose, don't go around offering work-for-equity arrangements to strangers, which leaves you with two possible ways this could work. One is that you're connected to this person in some way that allows you trust his competence and character. Or you see yourself as a qualified co-founder for the exact business you're being pitched, the arrangement gives you enough control over the company and the other person brings enough to the table for you to consider hiring him and giving him equity that he's implicitly asking for.

Yea I don't think anyone is in disagreement that you are speaking to a scammer/newb/tire kicker 99% of the time.

I think 80% is probably too low (meaning it probably works out even less than that), but let's go with it. When I worked without getting paid it was:

1. with the full knowledge that my equity would probably be worth zero, but could be worth a lot.
2. with people that I had a history with and a strong belief that they could be trusted.
3. doing things that would give me knowledge/experience that was highly valuable.

Just because you're not willing to trade salary in this situation, doesn't mean its a bad idea. It doesn't mean the employer or the employee are naive or that either one is getting screwed.


Not every startup is a consumer app that can have an MVP built by high school code monkeys in a couple of days.


I don't see how this is relevant to your arguments. You seem to keep switching between your specific offer and situation (which might have been immoral, I have no idea) and then sweeping generalizations. But it seems weird to base your morals on your personal financial situation.


How about we let the people with rent and responsibilities make their own decisions? Let's not try to stop them from getting opportunities based on your opinions.

I have a hard time thinking any honest, transparent, non-fraudulent offer is immoral.

To change topics, I have come to the conclusion that taking money from people is truly something to be avoided at all costs and is much worse than giving equity.

When you give equity to a great employee, you are almost always getting something of more value right away. By giving equity from yourself to this person, you are getting increased emotional and financial investment from that person, the total of which is substantial. That can instantly make your company more valuable.

When someone gives you money, it is impossible for it to be worth more. You aren't convincing anyone your $1 is worth $1.10. You also get limited emotional investment from that person, so limited that it might actually provide negative value. If the emotional investment does not provide value, which it seems to not do in a majority of cases, then your company is only worth the agreed upon amount, plus the money you received. Thus, no net increase is possible, only downside.

I do think Y Combinator puts a substantial emotional investment into its companies, and therefore adds positive value above the money (while also in some cases giving you a value >0 when you are actually closer to being = 0) but almost all other not highly-connected intimately involved early stage funding has to be negative value.

This goes back to what I wrote before about "hard truths" (not my term) about equity. And my point was just that these two scenarios aren't the same:

Scenario A: You work for a company that just raised a Series B round and has a current valuation of $100/share and you have 1000 options with an exercise price of $20/share.

Scenario B: You own 1000 shares of a publicly traded company that has a current valuation of $100/share where you bought the shares at $20/share.

These situations aren't even close to the same and the shares in scenario B are worth significantly more to you.

This isn't really true. I know in at least one case we landed a big customer after we closed a round largely because they weren't worried about us disappearing. Raising money increases your reputation (even if its just because you now have more money in the bank) and that can lead directly to increased business.


I'm not really sure how we're defining negative value here. In some cases the alternative to raising money is the company goes away or can't do what it needs to do (companies that require capital up front to get started).

Hi!

Can someone pls tell me why in the Ipoker client(william hill) I can not make the mouse move towards the tables? It seems like a win10 bug.thx