Women typically don't want to be founders. The ones that do generally lack the physical and emotional stamina, intuition, instincts, persistence, are too emotional in their decision making, lack natural leadership skills ETC. If all this somehow changes, any year could be the tipping point. Good luck ladies.
Women in general, I think your best bet would be to try to rid the world of all the no talent entertainers (such as Miley Cyrus, Beyonce singers actresses ETC). All these women do is shake their butt or breasts all over and try to sell sex. Speaking of selling sex, get rid of all hookers, strippers, porn stars, nude models, start dressing your teenagers and yourselves modestly (cover up), stop sleeping around, no more one night stands, having 4 kids from 3 daddies, stop stripping down in movies too, doing half naked fashion shows or miss X contests, ETC. You do nothing but lose respect when you do all of this. You think men are pigs for ignoring the fact that you have a good brain in that head and just staring at your chest, yet women doing all of the things I mentioned are why men think like this (a vicious cycle I know).
Do this and I guarantee that you will have a tipping point that is unprecedented. Men will take you seriously and the amount of respect that you get will be far greater than today.
I am not saying that this would guarantee or put you on equal footing as a founder because the skills and desire that is necessary are not common in women. But it would sure help you be taken seriously, and there is not much that is more important than that.
Thank you sir. I am going to print this off and put it up on my motivational wall. Being a female founder is difficult, and it's posts like this that give me the strength to keep pushing.
Now stop gabbing on HN and go get me a coffee, okay hon?
I've just been ignoring(well, downvoting a few) the HN-comments around these YC Female Founder. But this one, this one is just awful. You represent the absolute fringe worse-case scenario that I suspect a few of the other commenters are thinking just not foolish enough to actually post.
Get back in your time-machine and return to the 1950s.
> All these women do is shake their butt or breasts all over and try to sell sex.
Men sell sex just as much.
> You think men are pigs for ignoring the fact that you have a good brain in that head and just staring at your chest.
Women stare at mens bodies as well, you know.
> amount of respect that you get will be far greater than today.
I think most people respect those who deserve it. Never in my life I did respect women just because she is women and never did I respect men just because he's men.
There is really three simple reasons that we have this 'problem' today.
1. People who cannot afford it are choosing very expensive universities.
2. The government is giving money away like candy, there is a definite bubble here because this money will be defaulted on. I know a professor at an art school who says his students easily get $150k to go study art. Many won't even get a degree with that money. Getting a degree or being on a path to get a degree in x years is not a requirement of getting the money. He says that these students will graduate and be lucky to go on to make $25-30k a year. That is pretty rough. This also drives tuition way up because schools know they can just charge more and the thanks to the govt. students and money will still funnel in by the truckload.
3. Students with student loan money live like rock stars. These are teenagers here. They suddenly have a bunch of money. do you thing that they are carefully considering that every dollar they spend will have to be paid back with interest? Teenagers... I have seen this over and over again personally. Luxury apartments, nice cars, buying, spending... "A part time job? are you kidding? who has time for that, I've got to focus on my party life.. Errrr studies".
>* $400,000 in student loans. “If the money weren’t a problem I would live on my own,” says Rong. “My debt is hanging over my mind. I’m taking that all on myself.”*
How typical, someone complaining that education is so expensive and yet they are going to the most expensive school. This is ridiculous. This is like complaining that your Mercedes was too expensive when you could have bought a more reliable and efficient car for less money.
The article states that the average year at college today costs $18,497, yet this guy is going to rack up $400k in dept over 6 years? by my math that is $111k. This guy is spending 4 times the average and crying foul.
I personally know a dentist who worked part time all through school, he went to community college, state university, private grad/dental university and has the same diploma that this guy will have on his wall... The difference - the guy I know only had $40k in debt upon exiting school. He paid it off in two years (by the time he was 26). I'd say he did things the right way.
>Nonsense. People want to send their kids to the best schools because the best schools are the gatekeepers to the upper class. Someone who graduates from an Ivy League school gets to build a network with affluent alumni and has a high chance of landing a job that pays six-figures right off the bat. Someone who goes to a merely good state school though? There is a very good chance they won't even find a job after graduation.
If this is the case then these people need to quit whining. It's their choice - this is like saying that you need to mortgage your house to join a yacht or country club so you can make connections. Some people just have to work harder than others to make it, life isn't fair cry me a river. Many people from cheaper institutions are better at making connections because they excel in the personality and charm dept (thus they have the advantage). Is that fair? Many poorer people make it big because they are smarter or luckier... Is that fair? Your argument just shows how blatantly ridiculous this is.
People are complaining that education is so expensive and yet they are going to the most expensive school is ridiculous. This is like complaining that your Mercedes was too expensive when you could have bought a more reliable and efficient car for less money.
>How an unlikely group of high-tech wizards revived Obama's troubled HealthCare.gov website
How? With another 14 million dollars... that is how. You can do a lot of things with 14 million dollars, this is not especially true when you are talking about the govt spending this kind of money, but still - it is not pocket change to the average company.
>Do you not realise that means throwing away the entire web, and its history going back to the early 1990's? Backwards compatibility and platform stability are GOOD THINGS that we need more, not less of. Lest we perpetually build content for doomed platforms, and leave no mark, no history on the world.
the better course is evolution, not revolution.
Candles oil lamps, and torches were pretty good at providing light at night in the 18th century, then there came electricity and the light bulb, everyone slowly threw away their candles for something better. Many people tried to design better candles instead of switching over. Candles that would burn brighter and longer, candles that would not blow out as easily and did not put off as much smoke, but you know what? These were was mere evolutionary changes and could not "hold a candle" to the revolutionary benefits of the light bulb.
Sure it took a lot of work for people to take their oil lamps and candle fixtures off of the walls and ceilings. It was a lot of work to run wiring and put up new electric fixtures. But the time spent was an investment. Eventually it led to a lot better solution and a lot less effort in total.
You are one of these guys who was using and evolving candles and oil lamps. You just can't see the bigger picture.
These HNers who are not happy with still being forced to use candles are the real innovators... The technologists. You who are happy with the candle are merely paint and canvas artists.
Paint and canvas artists in the 80s and 90s started to scoff when computer art and graphics began to gain prominence. These artists lacked the skills to do art with new technology, and lacked the ambition and any passion which was required to learn something new that would have diversified their artistic talents. They had their tools and they didn't want new ones. Their opposition actually was a result of a fear of being displaced, they wanted to stay in their stagnated comfort zone.
Many web designers today are much the same. You want to make art with your old tools and are not really technologists at all, perhaps with new brushing techniques (JS libraries) in some instances, but never with any major evolutionary change.
This stagnates innovation, even worse you are actively supporting the suppression of choice because you are afraid that you may become obsolete in your complacence with the technology behind your art.
Simple, because they have personally experienced better. They are tired of libraries, CSS/JavaScript compilers and hacks to try to drag old clunky technology into new paradigms.
If XAML some open source project made by some hippie group of developers, HTML/JAVASCRIPT/CSS would be in the toilet today. It is miles ahead of the barely moving technologies held back by the standards committees.
I'm not sure where you are going with that, but if you think you're going to convince millions of people to rewrite their websites because $NEW_TECH is now on the market, think again.
He is politely giving an example of a superior mark-up language. Just because developers are effectively forced to eat shit we shouldn't pretend it's a piece of a nice cake. Things like angu-bootstrap-whatever are just a thin layer of icing on the top of a big pile of manure.
That's not what parent is saying. Parent is claiming that the only thing preventing us from welcoming our new XAML overlord is that it's made by Microsoft and not an "open source" project made by "some hippie group of developers". That's hogwash.
It's hogwash because nobody is going to invest billions to remake the Internet with a non-backward compatible technology, wherever said technology comes from.
Women in general, I think your best bet would be to try to rid the world of all the no talent entertainers (such as Miley Cyrus, Beyonce singers actresses ETC). All these women do is shake their butt or breasts all over and try to sell sex. Speaking of selling sex, get rid of all hookers, strippers, porn stars, nude models, start dressing your teenagers and yourselves modestly (cover up), stop sleeping around, no more one night stands, having 4 kids from 3 daddies, stop stripping down in movies too, doing half naked fashion shows or miss X contests, ETC. You do nothing but lose respect when you do all of this. You think men are pigs for ignoring the fact that you have a good brain in that head and just staring at your chest, yet women doing all of the things I mentioned are why men think like this (a vicious cycle I know).
Do this and I guarantee that you will have a tipping point that is unprecedented. Men will take you seriously and the amount of respect that you get will be far greater than today.
I am not saying that this would guarantee or put you on equal footing as a founder because the skills and desire that is necessary are not common in women. But it would sure help you be taken seriously, and there is not much that is more important than that.