I do it for all three reasons, but habit most of all.

But thanks for the links. There also seem to be (other?) lawyers on this comment thread who have pointed out how useless such notices are for enforceable copyright protection.

Interesting indeed, that goes against the grain of what I read here in opinions and links. So maybe it does matter? Thanks for the list.

That's right thanks. Yes, only the first year when published serves a purpose for copyright reasons. You just see so many of (c) boilerplates that give a year span. Or are there for not copyright reasons at all. But right, having a single dynamic year is not good for copyright reason.

Actually, it's all worthless. 100% worthless.

I have literally never seen an innocent infringement defense succeed due to a missing copyright notice in a situation around websites (and in fact, in a lot of countries, it's not even possible anymore)

Can you clarify this? Are you saying you have never seen a defense succeed, as in, a website has been using a name and didn't put up a copyright notice and wasn't able to claim inherent copyright? Or the opposite. Thanks.

That's it. I had to read this far before I realized that's exactly what their core is: "trying to normalize liquid diets" (as in make them normal, acceptable, approachable, I think?). There's nothing natural (as in biologically normal, desirable or standard) about a liquid diet, so that's going to be an uphill battle.

I have some kind of psychological problem where I chew 5x more than normal people. This causes me to fill up on very small quantities of food and it's very difficult to hit 2000 calories a day without eating a lot of small meals or taking liquid supplements. So, at least for me, a liquid diet would be highly desirable.

As for biologically normal, it all turns into a liquid sludge in your stomach, doesn't it? Past that point I don't see how your digestive system can tell the difference as long as the composition of the sludge is similar enough.

Awesome list, thanks! There's worse things to be addicted to...

It wasn't "up to". It was those amounts stated in the docs, using only the number of founders (from one to three) as the proxy.

Just as Mikko hinted, most startups took 191k for 27% of shares. The thing to remember is that HackFwd gets diluted in next rounds together with the founders, there are no anti-dilution clauses in Geek Agreement (which is public, btw).

There's tons of space to do this in without compromising the quality of the city. Bayview and south from there, all the way to South San Francisco where there is tons of undeveloped space, and where the combination of new large developments with high-speed commuter rail (i.e. modern fast BART, with a couple of branching lines - CalTrain is decades past prime) could end up being cheaper and faster to build. It doesn't have to be the heart of the city, nor does it have to be the suburban sprawl you commute to/from +2hrs per day. It should be a menu of options.

Again, there are sides to that. Paris is one of the few places more expensive than SF, and the quality of the density can be a subjective one. I for one dislike Paris and the kind of density it creates (comparable to London, just smells worse).

Yes

Not to mention London and Paris have a very good public transport system

In the Bay Area you have Caltrain and company shuttles mostly.

And BART and Muni and AC Transit and WestCAT and...

But yes, the SF<->SV corridor is Caltrain and company shuttles mostly.

I guess that's true. But I don't think anyone will tell you they don't want to live in Paris because of the 'crushing population density' or whathave you.

Nor will you have people in San Francisco saying they don't want to become the next Paris.

In a lot of people's mind there's only one way to have a high population density. And they're just incorrect.

I tweeted @hiddenapp 20 minutes ago to ask if this is legit or marketing. No response yet, though I'm pretty sure they're looking at their feed to capitalize on the publicity. Most likely a marketing stunt in my opinion. If turns out to be that, very dodgy.

As an employer I would want to block this in an instant. It's the perfect addition to any social engineering arsenal. If it works, great for finding out little details about a company that only an insider would know, to support a more thorough corporate espionage or hacking attempt.

Also, given that out of the volume of incoming queries that companies get only a tiny fraction is related to potential employment there, you'd have to figure out how to filter out people looking for 1) sales leads, 2) customer support, 3) freebies, 4) a direct line to the CEO for their complaints, 5) a direct line to the CEO for their charity sponsorship, etc.

Sorry about being harsh. I just think it could be a bit of a Pandora's Box.

Thanks for the feedback. So far the questions are mostly about what it's like to apply, interview, and work at a company. We'll let companies answer what they want to. The purpose is to make information about jobs more transparent. There are numerous questions that could help a job seeker / candidate (and thus an employer) that aren't harmful to anyone. Maybe they'll answer those, we'll see.

First off I love this site, wow what a great idea!

I think a solution to the concern is to allow employers to mark harmful information and for that information to be removed. I know that then the employers could attempt to remove bad reviews, but this is where you'd need human interaction at some level.

Give employers 5 strikes, if they attempt to take down something defaming just because it's a bad review that's a strike. If they get to 5 they can't make a request for a set time frame (to keep the amount of human intervention to a minimum). The reverse could be true of your anonymous users. The 5 strikes is arbitrary.