Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Personal Finance Lessons for Technology Professionals (troyhunt.com)
173 points by piecu on Jan 10, 2019 | hide | past | favorite | 76 comments

I expected a better article to be honest. Some of the ideas are correct, but I think the perspective is overall wrong. For one he is probably ten times richer than the average tech worker.

But you don't want to be rich as much as you want to be wealthy. And that isn't just about money. My friends in other industries didn't make as much in their twenties, but the are relatively wealthy in their thirties. Their career, prospects and family life is generally better than my friends in the tech industry.

The whole article is basically all the other things you should do and manage to try to become successful. Most of it unrelated to technology. That isn't wealth in my book, nor is it happiness.

I agree. I respect Troy enormously on the subject of security (and making that subject more accessible) but I saw one of his "Hack your career" talks last year and found it to be much too focused on money, along with a big dollop of survivorship bias.

You need to remember this is an old school guy (late 40s, early 50s?), coming from a time where driving a loud car is seen as a "cool" thing to do and a way of measuring your dick size. Troy is a great speaker and he certainly makes a good career out of it (and selling stolen passwords to companies), but he also loves to show off his wealth which is a bit old school and weird nowadays.

From my experience, the happiest people I know never show off their wealth or put a lot of value on materialistic things, because they just see them as a way of means, not the end goal itself. Troy has a more traditional/conservative/old school outlook on life where the wealth is the end goal itself and the definition of happiness (to him).

I'm not too far from his age range. The "blatant brag" kind of plays out by your late 20s. At least it should, IMO. It's mostly just signalling to females, anyway.

At least it should, IMO.

It obviously should, but a casual observation of the world around me seems to indicate that it doesn't.

I'm not sure if this plays a major part in his psyche, but having dependents changes the game considerably. Suddenly, you're worried about providing for someone else's future (kids, potential grandkids) even after you're gone. But, then again, that makes flashy purchases look selfish and wasteful.

Yes. Being wealthy is a feeling, the feeling of abundance. That feeling can be achieved at many income levels. It depends on the person's character.

A person with modest material desires can feel very wealthy with only a modest amount of money. It is more than they ever need to be happy. They may be inspired to donate the excess to help others.

Another person can be making silly amounts of money but it is never enough, never feels like an abundance to them. They grasp for more, become ever greedier, needier. Despite having vast amounts of material things they are actually the opposite of weathy.

Wealth is only a feeling if you don't spend more than you earn. A lot of people who makes millions per year feel poor because with an increased income they exhibit an overly expensive life style. They are still in the same rat race as everyone else and that's why people with a lot of income still take drugs, feel lonely, get divorced and have partners cheating on them and all the other problems that every human being has.

The only thing money can really do is buying opportunity, and it is extremely subjective which opportunity makes one happy. An old person coming from a different time finds the opportunity to drive a loud car which makes a lot of noise and burns a lot of fuel to accelerate quickly from 0 to 100 a "pleasure", whilst other people find the opportunity to drink a Colombian coffee and eating an avocado sandwich a pleasure and someone else finds the opportunity to spend an evening playing board games with their family extremely enjoyable. You only need as much money in life as it requires to get the opportunities which make you happy. Beyond that you are wasting time and energy chasing something which doesn't buy you much. That is the advice we should give young people.

Great advice.

Also, it would make sense to cultivate hobbies and things to be happy with that don't need a lot of money.

Earlier in life is also a great time to experiment with lots of such things, as a parallel with Hunt's article. You can seek out new experiences at any age, but it's just easier when you're young and don't have a lot of responsibilities.

Out of curiosity, how do your define wealth and in what forms do your 30s non-tech friends have it and your tech friends don't?

Time. You can be a hot shot lawyer making $500k a year and working 12 hours a day, or a software developer making $200k a year with a SaaS product working a few hours a day.

Who is really richer here?


Also security. Imagine something happened and you got no income for the next 6 month. How big a deal would that be to you financially? is it "I would definitely default on my mortgage and lose my house" or "It would eat up a bit of my savings and perhaps I'll have to skip that one vacation I was planning"

Wealth is ultimately about outcome. On average more of my non-tech friends had to invest in education, work, housing and family because they didn't have a choice. Those things compounds just like money does. So now my non-tech friends, on average, have more going for them.

Don't get me wrong, I do absolutely have friend in tech that are doing exceedingly well both financially and personally. But mostly because they did something else that wasn't part of "the deal".

I mentioned my personal definition in a sibling comment. I say that being wealthy is a feeling, the feeling of abundance. You choose which things an abundance of makes you feel wealthy.

Quite a disagreeable post, in my opinion.

> Which leads me to the "but money can't buy happiness" position so many people have repeated over the years. Bull. Shit. Anyone who has ever said that simply doesn't know where to shop.

If happiness for you is about things you buy in shops, then you are a shallow person, and you are missing out. A lot. In fact you are poor, but in a spiritual sense. The next statement: "money spent on physical items can bring people a huge amount of pleasure" reinforces the impression that you have some concepts confused.

It's great to have cool stuff, and thanks for the probably sound advice on how to achieve that. You don't have to try to convince (yourself?) that this equates happiness.

Eh, to each their own. If Troy enjoys expensive cars, what the hell. It's his money. I'm not into expensive toys either but I don't judge other people for "materialism" and feel superior about my woo-woo individuality / spirituality.

I would agree with Troy's conclusion that "money buys happiness," but take a different tack. Money buys financial security, and financial security buys avoiding many kinds of hardship and grief.

You can have money and be unhappy, and you can be evicted because you can't meet rent and be happy, but it's probably easier to be happy when you aren't worried about paying the bills.

Money buys financial security

I'm not sure about that, there seems to be plenty of research that shows people never really feel financially secure, no matter how much they have. Clearly there is a minimum standard you need to reach but I don't think that's what we are talking about here.

Having financial security and feeling like you have financial security are quite likely to be two different things.

The latter is more subject to the hedonic treadmill of "financial security means I don't have to change anything about my current standard of living" as opposed to "I don't have to live on the streets or worry about where our next meal will come from".

I could stop working today and we'd eat and live for the next 50 years just fine. It would absolutely be at a dramatically reduced standard of living. I think I have basic financial security, but many people (myself included) would answer a survey that they don't feel totally financially secure.

Money doesn't buy financial security, because financial security depends on your lifestyle. Rich people become poor if they are so materialistic that they income cannot satisfy their lifestyle needs, therefore money couldn't buy them financial security.

Money can buy you opportunity, but not every opportunity makes people equally happy. Some people love to travel the world and see places for which you need very little money, some people like to drive their kids to school with an expensive car so they can dick measure with other parents and get a boost of self esteem when people look at their cars. Mostly the insecurities and desires in our lives determine which opportunities make us happy.

Here's the argument I think you're trying to make: Financial security is, at least, spending below your income. Also: people are different and enjoy different things.

I agree with those basic ideas! You're not disagreeing with me there. In fact, I already made a similar remark in my concluding sentence:

> You can have money and be unhappy, and you can be evicted because you can't meet rent and be happy, but it's probably easier to be happy when you aren't worried about paying the bills.

The piece you're either not considering or ignoring — which my comment spoke to — is that, controlling for local cost of living, the higher your income is, the easier it is to spend below your income. Necessities don't scale with income. Lifestyle choices can, but by definition, they are choices and can be reigned in. It's hard to choose between rent and food, though.

So I think your response, "money doesn't buy financial security," mostly comes from inaccurately interpreting an intentionally simplistic subclause of a larger argument and taking it too literally and without context.

There's more to it than material consumption too.

Money buys the ability to follow expensive hobbies. e.g. skiing, travel, anything that requires lessons to pick-up as a skill.

Money affords the ability to travel at convenient times instead of cheaper off-peak schedules, so that you ultimately spend more time with your family and friends.

Capital investment can help creative pursuits, such as a well-stocked kitchen greatly increasing the amount of joy you can have when cooking, or the benefits of being able to relax with a home cinema/gaming/sound system that you can be truly immersed in.

Most importantly, it brings peace of mind. In my opinion one of the greatest freedoms is not having to worry about the future. Something you don't appreciate until you gain it, and something you could never imagine giving up once you've experienced it.

Don't kid yourself that you can't buy happiness. It won't dig you out of a hole if you have deeper issues, but it's definitely a significant platform to stand upon.

He is not saying all hapiness can be bought with money, but it's quite obvious that many things that make one unhappy can be solved with money, as also many things that make people happy are bought with money.

And I'm not even talking about objects. For most people having something good to eat and a warm cozy place to live is already happiness. A happiness most people in the world can't afford BTW.

> For most people having something good to eat and a warm cozy place to live is already happiness. A happiness most people in the world can't afford BTW.

That last sentence isn't true. The first sentence defines a standard of extreme poverty or below[0], which is happily far less than "most people in the world" in 2019.[1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-population-in-extre...

I went from being very poor to above average thanks to the tech industry and at first it really seems that money solve all problems and bring happiness. Now I like to think about it as money make you live comfortable, healthy life but these things have nothing to do with happiness. They are important but you can be very comfortable and still unhappy. What makes you happy are good relationships with people and family, and achieving your goals (which might not be related to building wealth but more like helping your community or discovering the purpose of the universe...)


Money doesn't lead to happiness, but no money can quickly lead to unhappiness.

Classic Paper on that Topic:

Dunn, Gilbert, Wilson - If Money Doesn't Make You Happy Then You Probably Aren't Spending It Right



1. Buy experiences instead of things

2. Help others instead of yourself

3. Buy many small pleasures instead of a few big ones

4. Buy insurance that's worthwhile

5. Pay now and consume later

6. Think about what you're not thinking about

7. Follow the herd instead of your head (sometimes)

8. Beware of comparison shopping

For those who don't like the format of this pdf and have a way to access academic resources, a better-formatted pdf is available there (pay-walled):


From memory, 4. is "Buy Less Insurance", at least they suggest that most insurances we want are not worth it, is this what you meant?

Troy is talking about using money to get more choices on health and helping people. That doesn’t sound like shallow stuff. But being unable to help yourself or others sounds like a place of despair.

It doesn’t take a lot of creativity to imagine how money connects to important things in life, such as buying opportunity and safety for children. Or having someone who spent years in medical training and debt hover over your loved ones (does anyone have a prerogative to a doctor’s time?).

Opportunity isn’t shallow. Choice and freedom aren’t shallow. Will your loved ones never experience tragedy or malady?

> If happiness for you is about things you buy in shops, then you are a shallow person, and you are missing out. A lot. In fact you are poor, but in a spiritual sense.

That's a fair point. From my understanding he was talking about "buying happiness" in a broad sense. Sure he did mention material goods. But also the ability take out time out and being with family and friends and not having to worry about making ends meet.

I strongly encourage Technology professionals (and everyone else) to learn some basic personal finance and how to effectively (1) set aside some cash for emergencies, (2) pay off and keep off high interest debt, and (3) invest for the long term, i.e., retirement. But this rambling post which is heavily focused on Troy's personal experiences and anecdotes isn't a particularly great resource for teaching anyone personal finance; nor is it especially interesting.

You're right in the anecdotal nature of Troy's trajectory in life. In fairness to him I think he did acknowledge several slices of luck that he enjoyed. I'd regard him as an outlier and as some have point out there is an element of survivorship bias with respects to his outcomes and the narrative he's built around out. But I think you highlight the benefit of learning some basic personal finance principles and simply just taking the time and thinking 5, 10, 20 years into the future. Generally I think the key is about taking responsibility for my life and taking steps that might lead me to a better future regardless of the starting point.

I respect his work and contributions to the field but the message of this post has kind of been lost in the Tony Robbins style motivation fluff. Most of us, for example, didn't/wont have the capital to buy multiple investment properties at the age of 25.

The real takeaway: don't waste your money, don't get into too much debt, invest your money and invest in yourself. Every motivational speaker/guru/life coach will say the same thing.

The best piece of financial advice I can give people just starting out (e.g. early 20s), especially if they are working in startups, is this: make sure you have enough cash savings so that you can afford to be unemployed for at least 2-3 months. Besides the obvious safety net to ensure you aren't out on the streets in the event you leave/lose your job, the more important reason for this is so that you can afford to be picky about where you work next.

The opportunity cost of making a sub-optimal choice when it comes to employment is huge, both financially and in terms of your career. Taking a hit on a few months pay is a complete no-brainer if it means you can take a job that you find intellectually stimulating, gets you out of bed in the morning, and offers better long term compensation.

Seems he would have done very well out of property as Australia hasn't been affected by 2008 GFC. There are young people that would have invested in property in Ireland before GFC and would have dug themselves a financial hole. This guy doesn't like calling it luck but I don't know what you call different outcomes for investors between the two countries. We are living in the time of quantitative easing, cheap credit and this seems to result in speculative asset bubbles and busts. Dow Jones is over 200% up in last 10 years. I think outcome of central banks printing money at this scale is unknown and puts a big question mark on long term investing and the 'time in the market' advice.

> Dow Jones is over 200% up in last 10 years.

DJIA-30 has risen from ~9000 in early Jan of 2009 to ~24000 now, a gain of ~167%.

That is a CAGR of only 10.3%, which is fairly inline with historical price appreciation of the S&P-500 index (10% total return and ~8% price appreciation). To damp out some of the short-term gyrations, taking the same index and average close prices for all of 2018 vs all of 2008, implies a CAGR of 10.9%.

The S&P-500 index is more representative of the overall large cap market than the DJIA-30, IMO. That index is up ~200% in 10 years, for a CAGR of 11.5%.

These returns are not stratospherically higher than historic norms.

In a printing money environment (which I am similarly concerned about), you want to be invested in something other than money. Real estate and equities are hedges against deflating money. (Gold bugs would argue that precious metals are as well.)

It's at best just another "solid" save and invest advice, buried under bragging, overused motivational quotes and videos and a huge underestimation of personal luck and purely being a straight white smart male in a market that us is booming for decades...

No other takeaways for the general public here.

>> just take one simple truth away from a glance at it: investments grow over time

This statement is false. The truth is that "investments have grown over time". It's not necessarily true that they will continue to grow over time. The efficiency benefits of corporate growth have been reached long ago and are on the decline. Corporate growth today relies on crooked government policies, stock buybacks and other methods of wealth concentration without value creation - There is no guarantee that it will stay like this; people are already wising up to this.

I don't understand the ire against share buybacks. They're just a more tax efficient and flexible form of dividends to shareholders than traditional cash dividends.

Dividends (broadly construed) are the original reason an investor placed money into a firm. If you outlaw all forms of dividends, you end arms-length investing, which surely harms people more, IMO.

> I don't understand the ire against share buybacks. They're just a more tax efficient and flexible form of dividends to shareholders than traditional cash dividends.

Not OP, and I think his ire is misplaced here... but MY ire against share buybacks is because the flexibility is misused.

Setting aside taxes - share repurchases benefit stockholders more than dividends when a company's shares are undervalued; the converse is also true. However, management's incentive tends to be to maximize their comp (particularly stock options) by juicing the stock as it rises. Companies usually buy high, and suspend share repurchases when the stock is low.

There are exceptions; AAPL corporate finance does a great job. But as a rule, company treasuries do a lousy job of trading in their own shares because of poorly aligned incentives.

Those tweets seem more like something a rapper would do than a security guy.

What have we become?

He's a "tech celebrity", or whatever the term is

Influencer? Thought leader? Something along those lines.

Influenza is the correct term in 2019.

Not the best article I've read on finance, and far too consumerist for my liking but the basics are correct. If you are in your 20s in tech then the advice to get a retirement plan and to aggressively save and invest now (in said plan or not) is solid.

Lessons Troy talks about:

1: Money Buys Choices

2: The Money You Earn Young is the Most Valuable Money You'll Ever Earn

3: Invest in Financial Literacy

4: Learn the Tax System

5: Know Good Debt from Bad Debt

6: Diversify Earning Potential and Risk

7: Prepare for Luck

8: Put a Price on Your Time - and Your Family

9: Have a Goal

10: Financial Prosperity is a Partnership

Not really for tech professionals exclusively. His reasoning should really be replaced by: 0. Get a well paid job.

Theres also this "Bad debt is the likes you have on a credit card. It's almost always accrued on a depreciating asset (for example, a new TV) and it's very often at a high interest rate"

Why is depreciation always mentioned as a problem of bad debt? My house will depreciate if I don't maintain it.

Surely bad debt is a combination of interest rate, and whether you actually need, and can afford the thing you're buying on credit.

Housing debt is a little special because you have an obligation to provide yourself and your family shelter, so your best alternative is rent instead of going without or delaying the purchase until you can save enough money to buy it free and clear.

In general, debt is good if having it is cheaper than the alternative. The way that often happens is if the asset you buy with the debt is worth more, in income or appreciation, than the cost of the debt service. If the alternative also requires you to spend time or money, though, that alone can make debt worthwhile.

As I said, bad debt is a combination of whether you actually need, and can afford the thing, and interest rate.

You need a house, so an affordable house would be fine, one that you cant afford isn't.

Yes an appreciating asset shifts the balance somewhat, but doesn't inherently make bad debt good.

I suppose its best to look at where each outlook ends up? The appreciating asset = good view would suggest you buy the absolute most expensive house you can get. I would suggest you look at what you need and actually can afford.

Edit: Spelling

An appreciating asset bought with leverage provides one of the most readily available means to go from "I am in the bottom quartile of net worth" to "I have at/above the national median net worth".

I did buy basically the most expensive house we could afford (slightly less than the most expensive we could qualify for) in 2007 in a desirable city. That decision (vs continuing to rent or buying a $500K condo in that city) has likely added more to our net worth than our working for the last decade did. We bought it as a place to live and raise a family, but the financial upside (as yet still an unrealized gain) is large enough to not ignore.

That's with the benefit of hindsight though.

Were you thinking the same in 2009?

For us? Yes. We were still thinking that this is a good place to live and raise a family (that we just started that year).

On the money side, I continued to believe throughout the GFC that Cambridge, MA was going to continue to be a desirable place to live and work. I don't think the Zillow guesstimate on our house ever fell more than 5% below our purchase price, which was vastly better than our 401(k)s and brokerage accounts. (I changed my personal finance tracking spreadsheet in 2013, so I don't have records of house price estimates prior to then to confirm and Zillow only seems to go back 10 years.)

Well, it should be noted that appreciation only matters in this equation in the case of a sale. The idea of moving in order to liquidate assets isn’t something palatable to me, so I treated my home purchase like any other product: I bought the cheapest one that meets my requirements.

As long as the numbers work out, though, It does seem entirely reasonable to take a loan to buy a house with the intent of renting it out for income. If the rent you receive can cover the maintenance and loan interest, you can sell it on again any time you need your capital back and bank the appreciation (or lose the depreciation, prices move both ways).

As money is fungible, there's no such thing as bad debt or good debt. You can only look at an overall debt/cash/asset position, not debt is isolation.

The problem with the distinction between good and bad debt is that money is fungible. If you have some amount of "good" debt, then every penny you spend on "bad" depreciating assets is money that could have gone to pay down the good debt.

Conversely, if you have bad debt, every penny that goes towards paying it back could instead go towards the kinds of purchases he endorses using "good" debt for.

There's no principled distinction between the two.

While I’m sure this has worked for Troy his approach is way to high risk for my comfort zone. Dave Ramsey has a great approach that is no doubt slower but more suited to people like me that want a bit more security. Get debt free as fast as you can, get a good emergency fund. Then start saving / investing in low risk funds.

I'm in my (very) early 30s and I found it very interesting. I don't necessarily agree with the entire mindset, but overall is one of the "I should have read it 7 years ago" articles.

Most of the "lessons" are not groundbreaking, they are rather things that are obvious and most of us know about. The value for me came from having them all written down in an organized way. It's much easier to refer to something more tangible than your memory.

One thing that bugs me and puts me off is the financial literacy that Troy mentions. I try to translate some terms to my mother tongue only to find that, even then, I still don't really understand them.

Does anyone has any pointers on how you can start improving on this like finances 101 or something?

here's some material i found useful:

* the concept of savings rate, and relationship with time until retirement. e.g. https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...

* good books about investment. William J Bernstein has a reading list here: http://www.efficientfrontier.com/reading.htm

* Bernstein also has some advice for a younger US audience here: "If you can", very short book, free download: http://efficientfrontier.com/ef/0adhoc/2books.htm

* the other useful discovery, which wasn't a book, was randomly finding out that i could double my annual revenue for doing the same or easier (but more frustrating) development work by switching to contract work for large orgs rather than being a permanent employee at a small business. this will be very location / market dependent i guess, but perhaps the general lesson might be something like "consider if you could sell your skills in a slightly different market" & being open to exploring opportunities

Thanks for sharing!

I think it highly depends on where you live. Although some rules are universal, many aspects rely on taxes and laws in your country/area.

That's a good point. There are enough financial bloggers out there that you should be able to find one in your country, which will be easier to understand.

> Most of the "lessons" are not groundbreaking, they are rather things that are obvious and most of us know about.

Possibly. Looking at figures for unsecured household debt where I live I'd say these things are not that obvious. The other point is that fundamental truths don't always seem groundbreaking. E.g. spend less than you earn. Not groundbreaking...but I wonder how many people violate that principle...

There is some great advice here, and it simply echoes what is available elsewhere. Saving and investing a small portion of your income will make you rich over time.

Especially for those working in tech, there are ways to put the odds of becoming wealthy greatly in your favor. It's our choice to act on it or ignore it.

> "As we began planning [a child], we literally went to a quiet spot in a local restaurant with a laptop and drew up a spreadsheet of what having a baby would mean. We did this together and planned everything from loss of income due to maternity leave, government parental benefits, the taxation implications of both and even medical expenses and the maintenance cost of a child."

Money is important. But I hope I never get to the point where my mind is as anxious and clinical as this.

That Kerry Packer clip is terrible. In summary he says (and I'm trying to neutrally paraphrase his words):

"Since I was a boy, 10,000 new laws have been passed, and the country isn't any better. The new laws that have been passed are just for the sake of it, and you take away someone's freedom every time you pass a new law"

This sounds a lot like the Trumpian:

"If there’s a new regulation, they have to knock out two. But it goes far beyond that, we’re cutting regulations massively for small business and for large business"

Yes, there exists duplicitous and over-zealous legislation, but most of it is written to protect the rights of people. Since Mr Packer was a boy, Australia has new rights for gay people, aboriginal people, a great deal more environmental protection, and so on and so on.

The "rich person appeals to common sense by saying they shouldn't be regulated" meme needs to die a death.

He’s correct about it though. There’s so many laws that no sane person could possibly know and understand them all.

I enjoyed the clip on taxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBg7DnQjjcY

Yada Yada Taxes are theft... oh my.

Just gotta love how this white, Australian born cis-male was educated in a public school, going there every day over public roads, in a town kept safe by public police, in a house that never burned down because of public firefighters, never fearing saying the wrong thing in a free constitutional democracy protected by judges, politicians and a military — lecturing everyone about that TAXES ARE THEFT, BADLY SPENT and he did it ALL BY HIMSELF.

Smart boy, bravo you combined the vulnerabilities of three dozen international laws to get down to 1,3% combined tax rate.

I don't even have a word for people like this.

Here's my take:


While I enjoyed (and somewhat agreed with) the rant, I'm not sure what his gender, race or sexuality have to do with anything?

The odds are generally stacked towards straight, white, cis-males. Or atleast we don't have the disadvantages and discrimination most other groups do.

> Just gotta love how this white, Australian born cis-male [...]

He didn't bring sex or race into it. His points are just as valid regardless of your sex or race. You're the only one here discriminating based on sex or race.

Opportunities to make money vary for the most part according to sex, race, place of origin, etc.

But the guy in the clip wasn't talking about opportunities to make money, he was talking about laws and taxes.

Fair enough, I mistook your comment to be about the post, not the YouTube clip.

He never said he did it all by himself. He did say they were not spending the money accordingly, which is likely true of most governments.

I love my universal healthcare and pensions and am happy to pay a good tax rate for that, but many people seem to assume that it's just OK for governments to tax, and tax, and then tax some more.

Also, a motivated person is going to find loopholes in the tax code. That is essentially the result of being able to structure your own affairs the way you want, unlike, say, an employee. Don't blame the person understanding the rules well -- he's playing by the book after all.

I agree that smart people will find the loopholes. But I think governments should be held to account for not closing these loopholes. It’s near corruption to leave them open.

You can’t blame a smart business owner for minimising their tax bill. They’re in competition, they have to do what is possible to stay competitive. But you can blame the regulators for creating an unfair system.

But, I mean, why wouldn’t you? If that’s what the law allows, then there’s very little incentive not to do it.

You’ll get all those public services regardless of how many taxes you pay. And if somehow everyone else decides to do it as well, you can be sure the politicians will rapidly figure out a way to finally make it illegal.

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