IANAL but supplemental agreements may not even be necessary.
You must not live in the US, must not be aware of how religion influences scientific research, and must not pay much attention to the news.
> In fact, you make a whole shitload of biased, uncited claims in your first paragraph. ...fearmongering.
This is so typical of HN. Disagree? No problem. Dismiss everything said with a "citation needed". Your entire blog post was an uncited claim. But I'm not going to even bother making that a point of contention. This game is juvenile, especially on matters of common knowledge. Only a jackass walks around saying "citation needed" to every claim someone makes. Re: fearmongering, is this some kind of joke? Are you really questioning that the religious majority controls politically the United States? Are you really questioning that religion shapes public policy in ways detrimental to scientific advancement and societal progress? Do you really think the ideas behind the second coming of Christ encourage self reliance as opposed to say extreme apathy, since their Lord and Savior will soon descend from heaven to judge, condemn, and then magically fix all the problems of the world for us, creating an eternal paradise for all believers? Are you really unaware of the common objection to climate change among Christians in America that climate change is bogus because "God wouldn't let that happen"? Do you really contest my assertion that religion lacks empirical evidence? Have you yourself seen signs, wonders, and miracles on the order of Biblical proportions? Do you often see water turned to wine, great waters parted on command, the sick healed and the dead raised? Because those are the claims of Christianity.
> If you don't see the power of a community, I cannot help you
I never said community wasn't a great thing, I only said, in so many words, that a community based on ignorance and nonsense is not a net "good". Do you argue that the "community" created around Hitler's ideologies was a net "good"? That's absurd. Not everything that unites is good.
> I would argue that it was another war fought for the same reason that every war has ever been fought: for power
Right. Except, of course, that you're wrong.
> How many people died during the crusades? Was it less than 40 million? I did a little bit of googling, and it seems to be way less than 40 million, so it still pales in comparison to Mao or Genghis Kahn.
Do you really think it somehow makes what happened during the Crusades any better? Your point is completely irrelevant. If religion did not exist those tens of millions of people would not have been killed. That's the only thing that matters.
But I'm supposed to forget about all of that because of "community". It's somehow a GOOD thing that ignorant birds of a feather flock together? It's somehow a GOOD thing that the scientifically illiterate majority control the public policy of the largest superpower in the world?
But I'm supposed to forget all of that because it "makes them happy"? That their ignorance is bliss? That simpleminded people don't suffer existential angst? That having a book that makes up answers to all of life's questions instead of providing anything remotely approaching anything empirical is somehow "comforting"?
But I'm supposed to forget all of that because religion has been around since all of recorded human history.. and that that is somehow significant?
Go ahead max, dismiss the critics by forgetting that the Crusades was entirely motivated by religion, dismiss the philosophical problem of evil because you think you've found a satisfactory answer to it, dismiss the fact that the Bible is riddled with factual and historical inaccuracies, dismiss religion's blatant disregard for Science Fact because "people are inconsistent about their beliefs all the time" (because that's such a good reason). ...and by all means, continue making spectacularly ignorant blog posts and don't both enabling comments because, heaven forbid, someone might call you out on your nonsense and set you straight.
Stay in school, Max, and keep thinking through these things. You've got a ways to go.
As a soon-to-be small business owner (web-based) one thing that's been on my mind lately is the potential for DDOS attacks to take down my site, lose me customers, and cost me business. I've found a number of different services that claim to provide DDOS protection but can't seem to figure out which one is the right one for me. I'm planning on deploying on EC2 and have found a product there...
From what I've read it seems that Reddit is unprofitable more by choice than by anything else though. They refuse any serious attempt to monetize with ads, thinking (foolishly, I would say) that it would scare their audience away. The types of ads they do run are silly and light-hearted. An Amazon affiliate ad for the book "Crafting With Cat Hair" was a personal favorite. So while you do have a valid point -- they're not (or barely) profitable, I think it should be framed in this context for understanding: they're not profitable by choice. I personally don't think making a switch and putting "real" ads up on their site would make a damn bit of difference. Why should anyone care? They're a business, they should make money. People are used to ads. They're No Big Deal at all. Besides, where else would be people go? It's not like there's a better alternative.
If implementation is so difficult, outsource to me! Give me your executive summary, 20 grand, and a 20% stake, and my team and I can have your project implemented in under 6 months. I'll call it the HN 20/20/6 deal. (I'll do it for 10 grand if I think the idea really has potential.)
What was your startup? What was your business model?
I think the real question to ask then is what is religious breakdown of the various Nobel committee's?
1. Your one top-notch guy who getting in a car crash would put your business on hold for months until you could find a replacement. My 5 "ok" guys are fault tolerant, providing constant development regardless of what life throws at them.
2. My 2 developers aren't just "ok", they're rock stars. 1st class all the way. I pay them $5/hr. Don't underestimate India or the Philippines because they're low cost. Don't overestimate the difficulty of programming. It may seem hard to you but to someone who knows how to program it's incredibly simple. To a fluent developer, writing code is like writing an essay.
Do you really need VC money? I mean really need it. Most projects I've come across can be bootstrapped.
> they all insist on it
Did you counter them with "I have 3 contractors at my disposal on-call, round-the-clock"?
> I can't afford to hire someone on good money
£30k is a lot of money. Nearly $50,000 USD. How much do you have left? How much are you paying your Russian developer? (too much, I'd bet). $50,000 is 5 developers salaries, full-time, from India, for a year.
> I'd rather find someone who is passionate about the idea and with whom I could work well.
If that's the direction you want to take it, I wish you all the best of luck. I personally would go a different route.
> I am working with a great contractor.
It's entirely plausible that a business run by 1 technical contractor will fall apart (life happens... I've had contractors break contract several times due to personal issues that arose). It is, however, much less likely that a business run by 5, competent, well managed developers will fall apart.
Just sharing what's worked for me. Best of luck whichever direction you go.