Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
A Former Tesla Staffer Became an Internet Millionaire in His Spare Time (bloomberg.com)
132 points by pdog on June 5, 2018 | hide | past | favorite | 115 comments

Why are we singing his praises here? He sells a hangover drink, and in order to not have to get FDA approval he calls it a dietary supplement. Chances are this does not work at all, and he's selling something with false promises and no regulation. Are we praising snake oil salesmen for their businesses acumen now?

The Tesla connection seems like nothing more than click bait since it's not related, except maybe gave him connections to be able to raise $450 000 from angel investors.

There are a wide range of thing you can do that reduce or eliminate Hangovers. If he was using Gatorade it would 'work' which IMO is a step beyond the classic snake oil.

Even water "works."

Come to think of it, how do you test a hangover cure drink? What is your control?

as a regular drunk and consumer of large quantities of water when drunk and when sober I have to admit Gatorade is so much more effective in preventing hangover headache compared to water, I couldn't believe it myself

I can't remember where I read this, but if you're prone to dehydration headaches (which is what a hangover headache typically is), don't drink water, or at least not just water.

Instead, mix a pinch of sugar and a pinch of salt into a quarter-glass of water. Mix well, drink. You'll rehydrate far better and faster with this than with just water.

This is probably why Gatorade works so much better than just water, but this method is far, far cheaper.

Around our parts 7up is consider medicinal if you've the flu as it's the right balance of sugar and salt in it. Hot toddy to prevent a cold. I'm not sure of any studies.

7up has 132 mg of sodium and 112 g of sugar per liter. Oral Rehydration Solution has 1000mg of sodium and 14g of sugar per liter. Gatorade is much closer with 440 mg of sodium and 58g of sugar per liter.

>if you're prone to dehydration headaches

Why does dehydration give a person a headache?

not sure if I remember it correctly but what happens is alcohol molecules consume water molecules in your blood and your brain does not get the usual amount of water molecules delivered to it by the blood in circulation. I think.

Seems to be a likely reason.

I heard that when organs lose water they shrink and your spinal cord pulls on your brain. However, then I'd think the back of your head would hurt more than the front.

That's complete nonsense. The pain we feel is the result of the calcium hydroxylapatite matrix in our bones shrinking (up to 1.2% in cases of severe dehydration) due to lack of water. This leads to blockage of the Haversian canals which, obviously, inhibits the normal production of osteoblasts, irritating the periosteum which triggers the familiar aching feelings.

Google "why does dehydration cause headache" and see "the brain can temporarily contract or shrink from fluid loss. This mechanism causes the brain to pull away from the skull, causing pain and resulting in a dehydration headache"

Why can't the brain pull back to make things even? I'd think the brain should be smarter than the spinal cord.

Nonsense. If you're trolling, try harder. If not, I don't believe it anyway.

Surprised no one's mentioned it... Electrolytes. That's why gatorade works. And it's also why putting some salt (+ sugar for flavor) in water works.

I think that's an overly negative view of the article.

People are more interested in how he got where he is, not the product itself.

Just because it's not FDA approved yet, doesn't mean its garbage. Not to mention the countless harmful and down right useless products that are pushed and approved by the FDA every year.

Tesla connection is important because people have been on an anti-Tesla tear lately, and this paints them in a pretty good light as far as big companies go.

He is being praised for his cautious and systematic approach to building a start-up, versus the rockstar/reckless founder meme that is prevalent these days.

FDA approval is actually relatively lax as it is. To pass the FDA, you pretty much have to do better than a placebo.

There's no comparative studies, there's no cross-drug studies, there's no major side-effect studies. FDA testing is almost purely Drug vs Placebo.

So if things aren't FDA approved or otherwise are avoiding FDA studies, you need to be cautious with those products.

The reason why so many "harmful" products get past the FDA is due to the lack of testing btw. Its a known problem, but no one wants to make FDA testing harder for some reason. I guess the drug lobby has done a good job at making people distrust the FDA.

For more details, look up "Phase IV Clinical Trials", which are the studies people want to standardize that go above and beyond the FDA minimums. (Including cross-drug interactions, better studies into side-effects, comparative studies, cost-benefit studies, patient-centered surveys, etc. etc. There's a LOT of studies that simply aren't done)

> FDA approval is actually relatively lax as it is. To pass the FDA, you pretty much have to do better than a placebo.

That's the D part of the FDA. The article specifies that he was advised not to call it either of a "cure" or a "drink".

Drinks fall under the FDA's core F responsibility. But he's ordering this drink from a factory that already produces enormous quantities of the same drink for consumption by Koreans. I'm not really worried that drinking it is unsafe, so the dietary supplement branding seems fair.

As to drug testing, doing better than placebo in a trial the FDA will accept is incredibly expensive regardless of how effective your drug is.

> Why are we singing his praises here?

It seems that on HN -- and in the startup culture, in general -- this is considered a "hack" and is something to be proud of.

Kinda like how Uber skirting around those pesky laws and lawmakers was seen as clever and inspirational.

It's disgusting, really.

A great many things the FDA has approved have been recalled. A great many more things do not have FDA approval at all but have the approval of regulatory agencies in the EU, Canada, and the rest of the world.

My point being we should not rely on government agencies as our source of truth.

Additionally, the misuse (or overuse) of "snake oil" is becoming cliche. This hangover cure may work or it may not. But it certainly isn't snake oil because it has a limited scope of operation. And, until proven otherwise, was created as an honest attempt to alleviate hangover symptoms. Rather than being a callous money grab at the expense of people's health.

hn eats up get rich quick clickbait

Not just HN, either. The audience for business "news" absolutely loves this shit. It's really depressing to work in business journalism (my previous job) and see what gets the most traffic.

try just plain journalism. We will put out in depth articles on important subject and barely get any views. We get a pdf of the Sherriff's office booking reports with mugshots that we convert to a gallery of images. and everyone and their mother looks at them.

I enjoy in-depth articles and so do many others. Keep'em up.

As long as you don't do a "to understand how this came to be, we have to start in 1998..." after the first paragraph. I hate those articles.

(yes i realize i clicked the article too). but really this is on the front page?

ps: the cure for hangover is breakfast

Realistically speaking the correct hangover cure is n-acetylcysteine (NAC)[0], vitamin C, thiamine [1], water, and activated carbon to absorb toxins from alcohol breakdown.

NAC improves the performance of your liver enzymes, helping break down alcohol and lessening alcohol-related liver damage.

Vitamin C helps replenish lost vitamins through alcohol consumption.

Thiamine helps replenish vitamins necessary for energy production in your brain, lessening alcohol-related brain damage. And water. Cuz water.

This combo as you drink or after you've finished consumption will severely reduce any adverse hangover effects. Maybe I should make a hangover drink.

[0] https://medium.com/@researchangover/n-acetyl-cysteine-hangov...

[1] https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-2/134-142.htm

Great, where can I fing a pill/drink/bar/... that contains a bit of NAC, vitC, thiamine and activated carbon that I can just consume before going to bed when I come home from the party ?

Well, that's not true. Just refuted by new research.


Anecdotally, I always make myself drink a full glass of water before bed if I've been drinking, and give the same to anyone I've been drinking with, and it seems to prevent hangover every time. Correlation is not causation, of course, but it can't hurt.

Or pho

I've found eating a banana and a glass of water before passing out seems to stop most hangovers. Problem is the eating-before-passing-out part.

> ps: the cure for hangover is breakfast

And sleep and plenty of water ;)

Because it's capitalism and that's how capitalism works.

I don't like capitalism but I like games, and this guy played the game very well. If we don't like the constraints/rules why are we blaming the people who followed those constraints when establishing their algorithms, especially when culture tells them to do so?

Basically, don't hate the player, hate the game.

(Also let's go ahead and get post scarcity asap please starting to get tired of capitalism)

"don't hate the player, hate the game."

Why can't I hate both? That's how values work, I don't value his methods, and I don't value the person that chooses the methods I don't value.

You can hate both. I'm challenging your values. I'm saying they're misdirected.

I also don't like snake oil, but I don't blame agents for acting in a fit manner.

Sounds more like I'm challenging your values . . . how can you not blame agents (people) for acting to further something you don't like? Those people have a choice, and they're choosing to further something you don't like, how is it not logical to blame the people for making that choice?

What you're saying is what's usually said about animals, "don't blame the bear for eating you if it's hungry and you're there". Only difference is that animals are pure instinct, whereas people aren't.

I'm taking a population-wide perspective. It is unrealistic for me to individually scold every person that runs against my values. Therefore, it is a waste of energy to do so for even one. Instead, I should spend energy focusing on the systems that allowed the behavior at all.

Personally, I find the idea of changing how people act on an individual level way more progressive than to change the system first, and then make people adapt. Changing your behavior have an instant effect on the society - for better or for worse - compared to waiting for someone else to do it for you.

Honestly reminds me a lot of the Sharktank episode where the guy with SEO experience was selling magnetic healing bracelets. He was making money, but all the sharks passed on his business because as you said it was all a scam.

agree. found this article lacking and click-baity. I dunno why it got so many votes

Kudos to Tesla for not only being OK with this guy having a sidegig but also not trying to be a jerk in demanding a cut. I know that seems like status quo for companies not to demand control over what employees create outside of work, but seems like that line can be blurred when there's enough money involved.

(edit: not just having a sidegig, but being able to launch and run his startup for ~1 year while employed at Tesla)

I also have a low bar after reading "Bad Blood", the book about Theranos. One of Theranos's chief engineers, on his own time, came up with a cool idea for bike lights and ran a successful KickStarter [0]. Elizabeth Holmes' response:

> Kent told Elizabeth about his successful Kickstarter campaign, thinking she wouldn’t mind. But he badly miscalculated: she and Sunny were furious. They viewed it as a major conflict of interest and asked him to transfer his bike-lights patent to Theranos. The paperwork Kent had signed when he joined the company entitled them to any intellectual property he produced while employed there, they contended. Kent disagreed. He’d worked on his little venture during his free time and felt he had done nothing wrong. He also failed to see how a new type of bicycle light posed a threat to a maker of blood-testing equipment. But Elizabeth and Sunny wouldn’t let it go. In meeting after meeting, they tried to get him to turn over the patent. They ratcheted up the pressure by bringing Theranos’s new senior counsel, David Doyle, to some of the meetings.

Eventually Kent, the engineer, was allowed to go on leave of absence to work on his bike-light. I don't think he ever came back, and he was the guy who was the chief architect of the piece of crap that Holmes would later describe as "the most important thing humanity has ever built".

[0] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/revolights/revolights-j...

"Kudos to Tesla for not only being OK with this guy having a sidegig, but also not trying to be a jerk in demanding a cut. "

Please don't give them kudos. This has to be normal behavior. Being employed by a company doesn't mean being owned by them.

Sadly, I think the bad behavior is relatively common. Two of the last three SV companies I’ve worked for assert ownership over everything you do or invent, even on your own time and on your own equipment at home. I don’t know if this is super common or not, or whether or not it’s legal, and I’m certainly not going to spend $XXX,XXX on a lawyer to find out!

That's why this needs to be illegal. The regular guy doesn't have the money to fight stupid contracts.

It is illegal in Silicon Valley, which is governed by California law. (I'm making an assumption about the meaning of "SV".)

But that just means they can't enforce the contract as to work it can't legally apply to, not that they can be hit with penalties for drafting the contract that way. If they choose to fight over it, you'll still have to fight.

Or, more realistically, since societally we are ok with companies doing pretty much anything that is within the bounds of the law and this behavior seems to be legal, maybe we should be giving them kudos?

We should not give them kudos but advocate for changing the law and and mark companies that do stuff like this as assholes.

That works too :)

Unfortunately, there are quite a few "abnormal" companies in that regard.

Kudos to Tesla for not only being OK with this guy having a sidegig but also not trying to be a jerk in demanding a cut.

No kudos for Tesla. In California, they're not allowed to demand a cut of employees' side income streams if that income is unrelated to Tesla's business. The CA Dept of Labor punishes such things very heavily.

(This is why Theranos failed to acquire Kent's patent. In California, the IP assignment clause in his contract legally does not extend beyond inventions within the scope of Theranos' business lines if developed independently.)

FWIW, found this useful thread 2011 HN thread about the topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208056

Though it's not just about trying to grab rights. Here's a blog post the founder last year, which describes in detail what he was doing from 2016 to June 2017:


He sounds like a hard worker and seems to have been at enough places (Facebook and Uber) to know not to mix hobby with work. But it sounds like he really hustled over the year to the point of his startup being a second job. He doesn't say anything more about Tesla, but I guess I'm assuming his startup passion couldn't have been a total secret. And despite his likely well-paid role at Tesla, they seemed to have tolerated his work-life balance to the point that he got to pick the time of quitting.

Yes, I agree that's the way things should be, that companies don't have any influence what you do once you've put in your 40/week. But that doesn't seem to be the status quo in tech, especially at highly ambitious companies like Tesla

Man, don't be giving a corporation kudos for NOT doing shit they OUGHT NOT do in the first place.

Why not? Tesla is seen as a company with ambitious grandiose plans. It's a common Silicon Valley cliché for startups and companies to claim they're changing the world. Tesla is one of the few companies that can legitimately claim an important mission. With all the stories (Tesla or otherwise) about SV companies overworking their employees in the name of holy missions, it's nice to see an example of what looks like an amicable parting.

According to the article, Lee was able to launch and his own startup for a year, while still working full time as a product manager at Tesla. Would most startup or startup-like (trying to reach stable profit) companies be OK with that?

As someone who has worked at Tesla and a couple startups, there's never been anything in their contracts about other jobs as long as it's not with a competitor.

I encourage everyone to push back against wording that is more restrictive than that. In fact CA (and I believe WA as well), it is unlawful for employers to be more restrictive than that[0]. Employment shouldn't make an employer the owner.

Tesla had no legal leverage whatsoever to ask for a cut.

[0]: https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/03/ar...

I'm still unclear on the concept of giving a company kudos for not doing something the law will punish them for doing.

It's the equivalent of saying we should all get kudos for not stealing from each other. You've made the act of stealing the baseline for moral judgment rather than the reprehensible exception.

My full first sentence gave kudos for both being a company that allowed a sidegig and not being a jerk about demanding a cut. Yes, the law protects employees from a company seizing IP outright, or from pressuring them to work longer hours. But there's nothing stopping a company from being hostile -- either not taking the employee's word that he didn't use any company time/resources on his hobby, or pressuring/firing him for not staying late like his co-workers. By his account, he was able to pick a comfortable time to leave:


"According to the article, Lee was able to launch and his own startup for a year, while still working full time as a product manager at Tesla. Would most startup or startup-like (trying to reach stable profit) companies be OK with that?


If he doesn't fulfill his duties they can fire him. Otherwise it's not their business what someone does in his free time.

shit they probably can't legally do in California anyway.

If powerful people are butt-raping people left and right you betcha I’m giving kudos to any person I see who decides it’s a no-go

What could have motivated them to waste so much time on that? Ego?

Elizabeth and Sunny are incredibly corrupt and dishonest people. They simply saw and easy mark in this guy and tried to fleece him. I mean, they've already fleeced millions from investors, whats another con job for them?

The work environment was incredibly toxic as well:

For example, Balwani took it upon himself to keep track of how long employees were working. In one encounter, Balwani brought up security footage that showed a software engineer only working an eight-hour day. He told the employee, "I'm going to fix you." The engineer promptly resigned and left the building, even as Balwani sent a security officer to try and stop him. Balwani then called the cops on the employee.


The author's conclusion stops short of calling her a sociopath but "there is no question that her moral compass was badly askew...Her ambition was voracious and it brooked no interference".

One of the main themes of the book is her worship of Steve Jobs. Ripping someone for having a side project, instead of full dedication to the company, does sound like something Steve Jobs would've done.

The bike light had more value than Theranos' actual "product"?

i think (IANAL) that CA moonlighting law protects the [small] guys in both cases.

Yep, as long as you're doing it on your own time, own equipment, with none of your employer's trade secrets.

Seems like this guy hedged his bets every step of the way:

- kept his day job while working on startup - did fake campaign on FB to gauge demand - got friends to try product - croudfunded the first batch

This is a really risk averse guy who is making it big. Sort of the opposite of the bombastic risk-it-all founder we often see in SV hero stories.

One thing that Adam Grant writes about in his book, "Originals", is how it's a bit of a fallacy that founders often dive head first and risk it all when starting their companies. Could be somewhat of a confirmation bias but he gives some great examples of how risk averse many founders actually are when starting their companies (Warby Parker was the main example if I remember correctly).


I came to say just this! He goes on to say that the great startup risk takers are confused with great "risk mitigators" who often hedge these risky bets. One example he gave was Woz who was working with HP when focusing with the creation of Apple.

It's rather inspiring. It shows you can swing for the fences without sacrificing much.

"[Swinging] for the fences" literally means to swing a baseball bat as hard as you can at where you think a baseball will be thrown[1]. You're far less likely to connect with the ball, but you will propel the ball much farther if you do manage to.

Swinging for the fences is more apt for companies like Magic Leap, Groupon, Gilt, Pebble, etc.

I'd characterize this guy's approach as being more like "Moneyball." [2]

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/swing_for_the_fences

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball

"Swing for the fences" is basically the same as "go big or go home." You are going to either strike out or hit a home run.

I'm not sure "Moneyball" fits here, the premise of Moneyball was using advanced analytics to take advantage of market inefficiencies.

I would say the baseball idiom that fits here is "cover (one's) bases"


>cover (one's) bases To ensure one's safety or success by dealing with every potentially problematic aspect of a situation or activity. A reference to baseball, in which the defensive players must make sure all bases (and baserunners who may occupy them) are accounted for.

(I am fascinated about how many English (American?) idioms are derived from baseball and how I never really thought about it until a couple years ago)

To me, being able to play again is vital if you're going to play a high-risk game.

Eg. making 101 100:1 bets makes way more sense than risking everything on a single victory-or-bust gamble.

This is play for play the 4 hour work week strategy. I keep meaning to test out something with it, just got no ideas :(

This is how I built mark II of my startup. As long as you are willing to work hard for a few years it is the best way. Three years of doing nothing but working and sleeping and I was able to resign from my job and still owned 100% of my startup.

This is one of my most favourite "start up" stories ever. It almost feels like the "millennial" way of starting any business nowadays.

Quitting your day-job, sitting in a co-op space, risking thousands of personal funds, building, and building, and building, and building, and then finally releasing something with no real idea of it's potential is an almost sure-fire way of failing, and risking your well being at the same time.

This "prove-everything-at-each-step" side hustle method is how most businesses should be started.

Take notes, well done.

Back in the day we just called this "starting a small business". It was the normal way of doing things before VCs were willing to piss away millions on mostly dumb ideas.

It's funny how quickly phrases become parodies of themselves after being repeated enough times. I can already feel the sarcasm machine weaponizing "back in the day we just called this starting a small business".

I don't get the obsession americans have with reducing huge demographics into single buckets. (I think part of it is historical, but another part of it might just be because the country is so big that you have to develop some way of reducing all that complexity.) I don't want to be overly negative in response to your largely optimistic post, but the behaviour of millenials lie in a hugely diverse spectrum which needn't be reduced to a single canonical element. Maybe a first good step is to dehabit yourself from always saying "demographic X always seems to behave in Y manner".

> I don't get the obsession americans have with reducing huge demographics into single buckets.

The irony.

Baby boomers were/are a large economic force due to sheer numbers and similar age related needs as they progress down the histogram. But it probably doesn't often make sense to keep arbitrary grouping of generations after them, as you suggest.

Yup, and the process has been crystallized in a book called The Lean Startup.

This method is how many small businesses are started. It's just not glamorous so we don't hear stories about it.

I think it reflects different life phases. I did the "risk it all" approach when I was 19, when "risking it all" meant potentially being back to living at my parents and going back to university.

These days I wouldn't do that, because I have a kid and a mortgage, but I don't regret doing it at 19 - it taught me a hell of a lot of things that I'm not sure I would have if I'd only tried the cautious approach, and it still I think affects how I do things (e.g. it taught me that as much as testing and validating is important, sometimes it's better to just dive in, try, and fail fast - which is right depends how much you're risking and for what; you just need to actually assess your risks first).

Perhaps the most fascinating part (to me at least) in the article was his second step - he knowingly and purposefully created a vaporware product and took orders for it. He refunded the money from the customers, but used this as a validation step.

I'm not sure if there's a moral judgement to be made here that's meaningful, but it's an interesting approach to product validation. I feel like we see this approach with Kickstarter style approaches, but without the refund step (and without ultimately delivering the product), but this idea of getting transactions and refunding them to validate interest is... well it feels a bit off-putting(?), but interesting none the less.

It's called "dry testing", and the FTC might come after you if you're not clear about what you're doing https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/adv...

This approach was popularized (even if not pioneered - not sure who came up with the idea originally) by Tim Ferris in the book "The 4-Hour Workweek". He stopped short of actually accepting payment though, and took an attempt to purchase as validation.

I've heard this called shadow testing, and it's a fairly common trick.

Headline is rather misleading as neither 1) hitting a $1M in sales or 2) raising $8M in venture funding necessarily means he actually became a millionaire.

Both of those things make a company worth more than $1 million. It's only wealth on paper, but it's legitimate to call a person a millionaire who owns a company who's done one of those.

I would disagree, and I believe that others would as well. A 'millionaire' in my mind is someone with liquid assets of at least one million dollars.

The company isn't worth more than $1 million until someone else exchanges shares or money for it for over a million dollars. VC funding does not make someone a millionaire, except in rare cases where founders are allowed to sell shares to 'take money off the table'. VC money is the hope that the company will be worth $X in the future.

That's pretty much the age old debate about wealth. But the actual definition of millionaire is "someone whose assets are worth more than $1 million".

A VC investment is literally the exchanging shares for money. No it doesn't make someone liquid. Yes it does set something sorta like a market value, though it's usually really high. In more meaningful terms, that company now has $8 million in cash. There's almost no scenario where it's worth less than $8 million now, because companies at that stage usually have very little debt.

There are many scenarios where the founder is less than $8 million though, even on paper. The article doesn't give details about what % of the company Lee still owns or what their balance sheet or margins look like.

Based on that article, we don't actually know if Lee has assets worth $1 million. This is all before even bringing up how liquid he is.

I agree with all of your points. However, the 'company' having $8 million in the bank does not mean that the 'founder' has or will ever have $1 million.

The expectation of funding is that it is spent growing the company (employees, inventory, etc), not immediately paid out to the founders.

Value comes before an exchange. How can you buy something without an established value? So, yes something can, in fact MUST be worth something before an exchange happens. In this case the company itself has raised $8 million in capital with a worth of $33 million.

Now we don't know the exact nature of the share distribution, but since this is such a lean company I'm willing to wager that the found is still in the vast majority.

That's why taking vc money is not alway the best option. In many cases it forces you into decisions that may not be best in the long or short term.

Having seen too many companies raise millions in venture funding and burn through it to generate millions in revenue (at a loss) with the founders ultimately walking away with nothing, I think that's absurd.

You don't think wealth can be gained and lost? It's weird to quibble over the definition of millionaire when what you really think is absurd is highly volatile assets.

It's really not the same thing until the money can be legally transferred to him.

Well, he has to own above a certain percentage (about 3.04%) of the company, which to be fair he almost certainly does ;)

This kind of side-hustle is much more exciting to me than the "quit the day job roll the dice" entrepreneur stories. It reminds me of the Shopify features where team members proved the product by creating dropshipping side-hustles.



For a hangover cure. The shit I can walk into half a dozen different convenience stores and whole foods and find half a dozen varieties by the front counter.

This person must have been a good PM.

The step by step guide is a really great "how to become an entrepreneur"

You can buy Hovenia Dulcis tea at any convenience store in Korea, or at most Korean markets in the States. The studies do seem to show that it works for hangovers.



One factor that seems to have played in his favor is the unlikely pre-launch competitive threat. The fact that no beverage company has emerged in the US as a hangover cure till now gave him time to move deliberately, snake oil or not.

Many other startups (I'm looking at this week's LiDAR fundings) live in a headlong footrace as they try to get to market sooner with a better solution. No time to measure twice.

However, now that the cat's out of the bag....

I've followed this company carefully since its start and also know the founder when he used to work at Facebook. He's a talented PM.

I'm always curious how this company will truly scale? Having this club at nightclub and bars is cool but what's next? How is it going to deal with multiple competitors coming out with "better" drinks?

Does it have to?

Is it me, or does this process sound just like the one outlined in the 4 Hour Work Week?

The number one thing that kills a startup is lack of market demand. His real genius is in determining market demand ahead of time, and in a low-cost way. This separates true entrepreneurs from the wannabes.

He should be distributing these in Ubers/Lyfts for late night on their way home riders. $10/bottle people would eat it up.

Great way to build something in a very risk averse process. I wonder how effective this will be as a 'supplement'?

Seems to me that 50% of the news lately has been business clickbait lately. What's happening to HN? :-(

I hate that word "Staffer"

Applications are open for YC Winter 2022

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact