The last week for Zuckerberg:
Monday: Girlfriend got M.D.
Tuesday: 28th birthday.
Jokes aside, not many can boast a week like that. Wow!
In the photo, the sun is low and behind them. This makes great rim light--and looks fantastic through the veil--but it also means you need to use strobes or a reflector to light their faces.
It's probably a reflector, gold side up, something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/justin_fotog/6018934549/
They're super glare-y to look at; it's kind of hard to keep your eyes open and make any kind of normal face...
Apparently it was a surprise wedding, and they didn't even tell the photographer until last minute: http://fstoppers.com/zuckerbergs-photographer-also-caught-of...
Congratulations to them both as well.
You don't know them, I'm fairly confident. I don't know them. Almost no one here knows them. The single and only reason this has any relevance is because of Facebook, IPOs, from which a natural discussion is pre-nups, etc. Or are we to all pretend that we're pals?
I don't understand some of the materialistic comments (prenups etc.) on this thread. Zuck marrying his long time love is a beautiful blessing. PG, I'd met Zuck after you had invited him to your startup school 2007 and since then have interacted with him. He also kept his word on followups he'd announced during his talk then. He is such a humble person despite all his successes. I'm so happy for him.
Congratulating on his FB or Twitter would be more effective :)
(Kinda like Mr and Mrs Obama)
From what I hear, the pressure starts to build when your a public company. Those quarterly earnings should be interesting.
"Even after the IPO, Zuckerberg remains Facebook's single largest shareholder, with 503.6 million shares. And he controls the company with 56 percent of its voting stock." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47491836/ns/business/)
Does anyone know what sort of recourse the minority shareholders and the other 44% voting holders have if Mark runs the company into the ground?
Given how long such lawsuits take, it will of course be too late by then.
It still occurs with unsurprising regularity. Lots of interesting books out there which talk about why.
IPO and not married?
Oh, really? What are they going to do with 40% of the stock while MZ has 60%?
Maybe they will fire him and he wont be able to feed his family. It must be so stressful.
Sorry for asking a question that may seem obvious to others, but why were they waiting for the IPO? Is it for financial or legal reasons, such as a Community Property State?
Did Zuckerberg sign a prenuptial agreement? An internet search implies he didn't. This reminds me of Tom Leykis' advice that everyone have a prenup, for many reasons. On the other side, some spouses have created companies by divorcing a business owner and taking half of the company.
How has Mark Zuckerberg protected his ownership of Facebook from his marriage? How would you?
I don't doubt for a minute that they have some sort of agreement in place in the event of a separation. While most might think such an agreement would benefit Mark, the real beneficiary are Facebook shareholders if splitting up required selling shares to split proceeds. That could really move the stock unreasonably.
However, as I know a number of people who are (some of whom merely were :-) very very wealthy, they share a common difficulty in dating post wealth. Not that every potential spouse is a "gold digger" but the people who are inclined to be one come out of the wood work apparently. It can be a very sad thing, being lonely and knowing how that makes you a target. So having someone you know (and knew) when you were just a crazy dreamer, and they still wanted to be with you, is a very priceless thing.
Amen. I agree, minus the prenup part though - I'm not cynical about Mark/Priscilla's love for each other because of your last sentence there, like I highly doubt that the Gates have that kind of arrangement either. As someone who's young, crazy, and laser-focused on the startup game, and still so far away from where I want to be in life, that's something that's in the back of my mind all the time whenever I'm seeing someone special. Thanks for the comment.
Shouldn't you keep "I should get rich first" in the back of your mind instead? You can always not marry them.
Let's give Mark the benefit of the doubt and assume he's marrying for love.
How true and as anyone who has been through divorce will confirm.
In addition to the potential problem with what would be marrying simply a normal or a successful person I can't even begin to imagine the challenges of a marriage to someone with that much money and job responsibility. And no question marriage will detract from his work life (especially if he decides to have children). That even happened to Bill Gates as anyone who remembers the Gates before marriage will attest to.
Of course, but as a rational being you ought to understand you are fallible, and may occasionally misplace trust, no?
Lots of aspects of marriage, and society in general, don't stand up to rational scrutiny. We're not just fallible, we're downright wooey. That doesn't mean these institutions are valueless or predatory—just that the human experience is not primarily about the rational.
I could see this one either way. Maybe if you're a billionaire, the prenup makes it clear you're marrying for love rather than profit. From down here in the sub-sub-sub-billionaire world, it doesn't look that way, but who knows? Lots of things are different "at scale."
From what I have seen of the public persona of Mark you would think there would be something there. The guy has carefully crafted deals up to this stage to ensure he keeps maximum control.
I'm joking, but there's a hint of truth here. I can't imagine any level of wealth at which suddenly having half (or twice) as much would make any difference to me at all. A factor of two either way really wouldn't change my life appreciably.
You sure about that? I think $40k down to $20k could be a pretty jarring transition, especially if you have established expenses like dependents or a mortgage.
If you don't think that this will happen, it does. In the US court systems, the woman pretty much has all of the power. If she cheats on you and has a baby with another guy, you most likely will end up paying child support.
Disclaimer: I'm not married, and I honestly don't know which camp I'll fall into.
Mark's stake in Facebook is a lot of mere property.
Almost guaranteed the show will be about this on Monday.
For the unfamiliar: blowmeuptom.com
Yes. That's exactly the kind of questions that Google helps you solve.
For what it is worth, this is really very poor taste.
But then again, I don't have friends, so I don't see the need.
Facebook account. But have an upvote. I seem to be pretty short on friends of late as well.
Three degrees of separation isn't too bad.
Tech celebrity gets married: 200+ votes
Reddit is at least aware of the inevitable failings of any successful community and lets me hide boring stories and collapse boring discussion threads.
Monday: she earned her MD.
Friday: Facebook goes public.
Saturday: they get married, to the surprise of their guests. 
I mean, I know it's interesting to think about how you manage Facebook and a marriage at the same time, but this news doesn't seem god-thankingly urgent.
EDIT: Ah, sarcasm. The bane of net conversations everywhere.
Edit: great handle too!
California would shred through it anyway.
ps. He is wearing a suit to honor HIS WOMAN. He is showing her that he can suit up for her
There are some references to what I'm talking about on the wikipeda page on Mazdak. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdak
To stress that this was the type of ownership implied. Never has it been legal right for a husband to allow a third party to have sexual intercourse with his wife, at the third party's pleasure. Despite this being the simplistic understanding of the term "his wife" may imply this.
If you want to understand terms in it's simplistic understanding, then I think you better worry about terms like sunrise/sunset.
What? Since when do you need to "own the legal rights" to perform sexual intercourse? Are you saying I cannot legally have sex unless I'm married?
I'm having a hard time following what you're saying, because most of your post is just rambling. The Mazdakian? Nothing to do with us. Abrahamic religion abolishing sexist doctrines? Are you kidding me? The Bible is full of extremely sexist views. It treats women explicitly like objects.
None of your post has anything to do with my parent comment, nor the original. I feel there is a pattern here, because all of your other posts in this thread have been the same. Right now, in 2012, a man referring to his partner as "his woman" (or a woman referring to her partner as "her man") implies ownership and has a negative connotation.
Islam took over Persia and put an end to Mazdakian belief. This is a credit to Abrahamic religion. The society you were born in could have been very different had Mazdak's ideas won. The concept of family would not exist and the gene pool would have very few trees. The idea of monogamous relationships are a given in our society and this is built on the success of Abrahamic religion removing competing systems almost entirely out of the conscience of human thought.
In history one could find other competing systems and the Mazdakian is just one example.
One must remember the bible was written before it's ideas were successful. To re-interpret it's ideas are after it's success may lead one to the wrong conclusions about what it actually was trying to convey. It may appear to be a lot more sexist than what it actually meant.
Yeah ... 'cause I'm sure a guy that just became a multi-billionaire didn't have a prenup.
English translations translated freely taking preference for poetic sound.
So as long as the bible is part of English speaking culture the usage of woman as wife will be common.
Something I find interesting about Persian culture. In Persian the word Zan means both wife and woman, but there is another more formal word Khanom. Which is always to be used when speaking or referring to someone older than you. I wouldn't be surprised if this is due to the etymology of the two word being from different languages.
Mmm, except we're not talking about a transliteration of a Bible verse. This is colloquial usage of the term "his woman" in the English language with respect to American culture, which implies ownership. This has absolutely-- and I mean absolutely-- nothing to do with Hebrew.
> So as long as the bible is part of English speaking culture the usage of woman as wife will be common.
And has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The term implies ownership, and the Bible takes a very "man owns woman" stance. I assume your intent was not to prove my point?
This objection seems entirely fabricated and completely overblown.
Also, I think tersiag was stressing the person for which he wore a suit, not that he wore a suit for HIS woman (instead of someone else's woman).
Nice simple way to have a wedding.
Pages submitted to HN should simply not be behind login walls, which is why I flagged this.
This thread already has multiple references to the fact that you have to log in to see the submitted post. There are many HN users without a FB account. For them, the headline of the submission cannot be verified by clicking on the link.
Although there is a large intersection between the two groups of HN and FB users, you don't have to be signed up with any other webservice in order to use HN. This is not only about FB. As a matter of principle posts to HN should be accessible for all HN users without requiring them to sign up with any other webservice.
However, this is up to PG and the HN community. It would be good if PG provided a guideline whether submissions behind login walls are accepted or not.
Honestly, the comments on this thread are such an embarrassment.
The title tells me nothing, and I should probably use a search engine to check what's actually going on.
And if it turns out Zuckerberg simply got married, I just wasted my time researching celebrity gossip.
you just wasted your time commenting on this topic. what's the difference?
My vote is for updating the HN guidelines to discourage submissions behind login walls.
However, it looks like Asimov's three laws could use an addendum: Be a good sport and a gentleman when significant things happen to people in your community. Apply soft-skill known as "heart".
(Edit: cr4zy already addressed this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3997613)
(On a similar note, I've done some online math contests that gave the problems in Word .doc format. Once, on a collaborative contest, OpenOffice was not sufficient; there were images that got misaligned or didn't even display. I took the documents, sent them to an online Word -> PDF converter, and posted the results to the shared email account "for great justice". Things like not having Word should not be barriers to doing math contests.)
To be fair, they seem a cute couple and the pic made me smile.
As a kind of loose analogy, no one really has problems with links to pdfs, but you don't need to have a pdf reader to sign up for HN (and I often see the "[pdf]" notice appended to such links).
I vote for disallowing links that require login for the reasons explained in grand parent's comment.
And like somebody pointed out earlier, it can either mean that the subject is the one getting married or that they are performing the ceremony.
-Sleep apnea linked to cancer in latest studies
-Falcon 9 countdown aborted in last second before launch
-Apple, Samsung CEOs set for court talks
Incidentally, I suspect most bureaucracies emerge from a cargo-cultist/priest of a lost religion mentality where rules are enforced for their own sake without any insight or thought into what the rules were trying to achieve in the first place.
That explains why she isn't smiling :) . Seriously people, smile for crying out loud. You know billions of people will see that picture over the years.
why on earth do you feel any kind of right to be telling some random people you don't know how to behave? why does hn feel the need to have some private moment from these people's lives on the front page? why does this matter to me, a hacker? but is a wedding private? isn't it a public statement? why does a hacker like zuckenberg (sp?) need to make a public statement like this (i've been living w the same person for 20 years and neither of us see a need to get married)? and why rings? what the kind of ancient property-related crap is that? but that gets back to public statements. and why can't he do his tie up - he looks a mess? and now am i as bad as the person i am replying to?
and most of all, why take a photo with their washing line in the background?
On the heels of his decision to accept the public's money, Mark Zuckerberg ensures for himself a future tax break.
[just a few funny interesting vids]
Yet, it seems to be fact.
I believe Zuck believes Facebook is the vehicle for these announcements and interactions, ergo his play. The announcement via FB is fair and true. I think it's a good move.
I'm disheartened to see it right after the IPO. It's rare a wedding happens overnight, let alone an IPO, so it feels deliberate to me.
And yet, given how blindsided they were with Beacon and its ilk, I can imagine the circumstance being nothing more than.
tl;dr: I don't understand Zuckerberg or Facebook.