A connected and collaborative FP&A platform to make multi-entity planning more efficient than ever. From siloed data to clunky collaboration and static models, spreadsheets block progress rather than accelerate it. Francis help companies plan, how they can be better. It is done by offering the most flexible, intuitive and efficient financial planning tool. At Francis, we’re reimagining the financial modeling experience by combining the spreadsheet interface with connectivity, collaboration, and embedded FP&A features. We help finance teams move faster while staying in control. Read more at https://www.francis.app/

Francis App Inc

The concept of ideas being trumped by execution in the startup world is so prevalent that there is no single adage to capture it. It is such a common idea that I could have opened with quotes from any one of: , , , Goethe, (Pony), Luckey - this eclectic list could go on indefinitely. Jobs Stravinsky Neistat Ma While the sentiment of all these great thinkers is entirely correct, it also remains true that for anything to be executed on top of. ideas are a prerequisite In an age where increasingly intelligent machines are reducing the cost and pace of execution at a rate of knots, the demand for big ideas to solve both objective (i.e scientific) and subjective (i.e humanistic) functions in our world becomes ever more apparent. In 2018, USV’s Nick Grossman and Dani Grant wrote a now canonical article titled This article broke down the cycles by which new apps tend to appear en masse more or less right off the back of the development of the infrastructural foundations necessary for those apps to exist. ‘The Myth of the Infrastructure Phase’. To use their words: “First, apps inspire infrastructure. Then that infrastructure enables new apps.” We live at a critical juncture in human history where our species is fast becoming the second best of ideas. For this reason, it is worth taking a step back from Grossman and Grant’s theory of the infrastructure stack and stripping it all the way back to ‘ideafrastructure’. producers Where the infrastructure-app cycle visualises incremental improvements in technology over time, the ideafrastructure cycle appears incremental but in practice delivers complete transformations in human output and wellbeing as each new inflection point is reached. The reason that the ideafrastructure cycle can appear incremental as in the diagram above is because of the . New idea generation is by-and-large a function of the cross-pollination of two or more pre-existing ideas. composability of ideas In reality, composability =! incrementalism. The product of two cross-pollinating ideas in our case can have entirely transformative impacts on productive capacity. As our powers of execution expand, the ambitiousness and size of the ideas needed to level up collective surplus grows to fill these new capabilities and push them further. This is a weird kind of intellectual . As we improve the efficiency by which we create new things to improve our lives, our satisfaction seems to diminish. More creative and ambitious ways to increase our expected wellbeing pop up to fill the new capabilities enabled by new technology. Jevon’s Paradox Once the capacity of the latest generation of productive assets to improve wellbeing has been exhausted, a new generation of idea takes its place and inspires new productive assets altogether (or vice versa). Intentionally or not, the curves in USV’s infrastructure framework provide an interesting way of observing this. Ideas lay the groundwork for foundational changes in innovation cycles by enhancing our productive possibilities. In turn, improved production possibilities expand the ambition and scope of our ideas to drive even more advances in production and wellbeing. Now that I have had the chance to try and explain , the practical question: how do we make more? why we want/need more ideas What constitutes an Idea? Many people have tried asserting different answers to the above question. Some of them are more assertive than others (ironically, the most assertive ideas about ideas are from some of history’s most prominent idea-benders - the ). ancient philosophers For the sake of this piece, I will follow two similar definitions that I think best fit the context of ideas as they apply to entrepreneurship. Those explanations are as follows: “An idea is a or used to or something.” concept, thought representation describe explain “An idea involves the in a novel or innovative way, leading to new insights or perspectives. synthesis of existing knowledge or concepts It can be a , a , a for a product or system, a philosophical , an artistic , or a for the future.” solution to a problem hypothesis to be tested design concept expression vision The Market for Ideas Today The would-be founder in the market for ideas is fortunate and unfortunate in equal measure. Fortunate, because they have the pleasure of competing against some of the most rigid, unprogressive institutions on the face of the earth. Unfortunately, these institutions hold significant power in the public domain and an entrenched position in the marketplace of ideas. If having a marketplace for ideas dominated by a small number of institutions sounds paradoxical, that’s because it is. IBISWorld values the market for scientific research & development (both academic and institutional) at $227.5bn annually. This covers the functions of research & discovery, peer review & validation, IP transfers, contributions to policy formation and much more. Because of the foundational role that research plays in any market (being the basis for technological development and all), its disproportionately large problems have disproportionately large flow-on effects. To name but a few: Multibillion dollar institutions like Elsevier, Harvard, thrive on a price-making ability driven through manufactured scarcity. As mentioned above, ideas are composable. By close-sourcing this knowledge, the reputed gatekeepers of today’s knowledge are kneecapping the potential growth in production possibilities cited above. Inaccessibility. The incentives for academics are largely geared such that they are remembered for their discoveries. This creates a bias for publishing positive results. Often, these positive results are actually not so positive. But who has time for verifying these when you need to be publishing your own positive results? Incentives are needed to ensure that 1) research is validated and 2) academics are rewarded for producing productive research. Publication Bias and the Replication Crisis. actually To be an expert in any field requires niching down to an extreme degree. The corpus of existing research has been so large for a long enough time that in order to ‘make it’ in academia requires devoting one’s self to a field and taking the time to learn that field inside out. Siloes. First, the time is spent learning informational precedents inside out. Only after the decades that this step takes can researchers strive to create original knowledge. By the time they’re creating this original knowledge, their existing knowledge base is often so esoteric that it is hard to apply at scale to real-world problems that tend to have problem drivers from multiple disciplines. This creates a culture of academic introspection and incrementalism. More mechanisms need to be in place to break up interdisciplinary boundaries and incentivise cross-pollination of research. Anyone who has read a research paper from an unfamiliar field knows this one too well. New knowledge, almost by definition, is esoteric. This is not helped by the silo effect described above. Without the ability to sell research through stories that people can relate to and understand, it is hard to drum up the reach needed for the idea to leave a footprint on the world. Dissemination & Storytelling. If there are so many problems, why are the incumbents still winning? . The most obvious example of economies of scale in the market for new knowledge creation is the ability of major institutions to gain access to advanced technology that is difficult to produce or distribute at scale (e.g. large Hadron colliders). Beyond being symbols of progressiveness, these are key resources for driving new discoveries and ideas as outlined in the Ideafrastructure diagram above. A second, derivative version of economies of scale comes through the exclusivity effect that gatekeepers like Elsevier or Taylor & Francis possess. Economies of Scale . Research institutions, particularly universities, have accumulated immense brand value over time. Harvard is not just a research institution. Like a few other old universities, It has evolved into a universal symbol for intelligence and achievement. This provides institutions like Harvard with both incredible reach and credence - two points that will be expanded upon below. Legacy Effects Which Ideas win? Once again, a major philosophical question is posed that is very open to interpretation. For the sake of any founders reading this Substack, I will again oversimplify it. To bastardise Justin Kan’s theory of product above: The ideas that win are those that achieve the most effective distribution with regards to 1) reach, 2) credence and 3) validity. refers to the size of the audience that engages with the idea. This is best achieved through the media platforms and KOLs that promote any given idea. For example, the idea of killer AGI. The idea of red wine being an aid for {insert most human problems} appeals to the masses and achieves reach through many a weekend magazine and lifestyle article. Reach Beyond getting the research into the right hands (i.e magazines, newspapers, Twitter KOLs, non-fiction books), a key part of achieving reach through research is via storytelling. Research around red wine works because it’s easy to digest and gets hits. Quantum physics less so. is concerned with the reputation of the institutions and KOLs that originate or promote a given idea. This most obviously applies to the reputations of research institutions and professors that originate new discoveries in research papers, but also appears in less obvious contexts. To borrow the example of red wine extending longevity used above - this argument gained a lot of credence through the empirical evidence lended to it by . Credence centenarians who attribute their drinking habits to their longevity shares a lot of crossover with credence. Validity here refers to the replicability of ideas to ensure their truth in practice. This is a key area where . The incentives for scientists today revolve around producing ideas to achieve acclaim. Validity science suffers today If protocols were to come online that take their place as the pre-eminent producers of knowledge, it is my belief that a larger portion of scientific practice can be devoted to validating the ideas of others. In designing generative knowledge creators, some of the major long-term questions that need to be asked will be around how to balance and optimise this triumvirate in order to ensure that new ideas can be distributed effectively at scale whilst also remaining true. The more replicable ideas are distributed at scale, the more validity will be optimised and the more trust will be instilled in synthetic new knowledge. The Future of Ideas Different Forms of Ideas Beofre going deeper, a breakdown of the essential ingredients for idea-generation protocols. Taking the bolded wording from the definitions used above, we can divide the idea of the idea into varying levels of actionability from a product development perspective. For the sake of the theme of ‘Requests for Startups’ as a newsletter, I intend to focus on the leftmost items on the venn diagram above to help inspire would-be ideamakers. That is not to discount the forms of ideas covered elsewhere as many of them are also necessary ingredients to the next generation of idea-creation protocols. The aim of condensing the components of what makes an idea are ultimately to help define the objective functions of future products & protocols who specialise in synthesising, judging, distributing and creating competitions for ideas. What is important in each of these potential functions of new idea-centric products? Synthesis The current methods of knowledge creation practiced in academia and corporate R&D facilities follow very straightforward processes. Hypotheses are made around potential outcomes of an experiment based on previous knowledge, tested in a laboratory setting and then validated again against the pre-existing knowledge base. This is essentially how new ideas are rubber-stamped today. The dependence of this system on previous citation, often within a single field, fosters incrementalism. What if methods for new knowledge creation occurred in a manner similar to which a neural network operates? Two fields of knowledge are thrown in as inputs, with all pre-existing research and ideas comingling with one another to develop a massive array of potential hypotheses. Humans or agents can enter a marketplace to vote on the potential impacts of any given hypothesis, with those ‘winners’ being submitted for validation and testing in laboratories. The function of ideation is outsourced to the machines, whilst humans (for the time being) are still required in the loop for the physical validation of these ideas. Competition How should a marketplace be designed to evaluate the potential future impacts of new ideas - whether human or machine generated? The most common idea to date has been the idea of prediction markets, first credited to . This is how Hanson views the application of prediction markets to science: Robin Hanson Imagine , with the going odds available to the popular media, and treated socially as the current academic consensus. a betting pool or market on most disputed science questions Imagine that academics are expected to "put up or shut up" and accompany claims with at least token bets, and that statistics are collected on how well people do. Imagine that funding agencies subsidize pools on questions of interest to them, and that research labs pay for much of their research with winnings from previous pools. And imagine that anyone could play, either to take a stand on an important issue, or to insure against technological risk. This would be an market, which I offer as an alternative to existing academic social institutions. "idea futures" Somewhat like a corn futures market, where one can bet on the future price of corn, here one bets on the future settlement of a present scientific controversy. This is admittedly an unusual suggestion. But consider what might happen. Inspired by Hanson, the protocol (disclaimer: incubated by my employer) aims to create a market for knowledge whereby researchers upload papers and vote on the possible future effects of it. This creates an incentive for replication as other researchers/financial professionals can gain a financial advantage by proving or disproving the current validity of the research. Rosetta The rewards from future research are distributed 1) to those who staked a vote on the winning side of the argument, 2) to the researchers who posited the argument and 3) to the precedent researchers cited as contributors to the researcher’s idea. Storytelling Many a non-fiction writer (see: Gladwell, Harari, Taleb) has made a killing by interweaving academic knowledge with experiences in the real-world to create digestible ideas for the layman. These are prominent literary careers built off the back of arbitraging the obnoxious tendency of research papers to be virtually incomprehensible. With the expanding context windows available in today’s LLMs, the scope for summarising and reframing research in a real-world context is becoming infinitely easier. Finding broadly applicable examples and affects to apply to once esoteric research becomes infinitely easier. We can also have markets for how research stories are told in order to elicit the greatest public interest whilst not compromising the integrity of the actual ideas themselves. Twitter operates as the largest story marketplace today - what if there were new media platforms that replaced social’s currency of likes and follows with monetary incentives for understanding and communicating new knowledge. Besides the obvious educational impacts this may have, better stories also serve the function of condensing complex research into easy-to-digest logic that can be used as inspiration for product development. Commercialisation has a strong claim to being the godfather of commercialisation theory in the startup world. His claim (reflected by Marc Andreesen ) is that any startup innovation can be traced to basic (often federal) research funding from as long as 50 years prior waiting to be productised. This means that today, there is a full and growing repository of insights waiting to be converted into entrepreneurial opportunity. Bill Janeway here With the proliferation of autonomous agents that are taking on large portions of roles in (admittedly simple) startups, how far away could we be from near instant commercialisation or commercial testing of novel ideas? already Picture this. A researcher or neural network-based hypothesis creator posits a novel idea. A storytelling protocol summarises the research and turns it into a digestible story that is matched to existing customer needs - these needs can be determined by media sentiment analysis or from some other form of intuition. From here, a human (or autonomous) manager can segment the key tasks or functions to be completed in order to find the best method for this research to be productised based on the market needs identified above. This can trigger a task execution loop spanning years or even decades to ensure the consistent growth of the product/business/software/protocol. These loops can be monitored by a single human manager overseeing its operation. Rewards can be distributed to all of those who contributed research in the training data used by the agent to breakdown the product strategy at the beginning. Requests for Startups: This concerns both knowledge made ‘organically’ by today’s scientists or hypothesised ‘synthetically’ via neural networks trained on the existing corpus of research. How can we a) allow researchers to have to vote on the potential impacts of their research. Genuine, No BS Markets for new knowledge creation. skin in the game There are volumes upon volumes of research in existence that are i) hard for entrepreneurs to understand and ii) difficult to commercialise by turning into product & marketing logic. The capabilities of LLMs even today to summarise and reframe arguments means that this unnecessary complexity can be a thing of the past. Can anyone build a living protocol that scrapes & trains on popular recent research on arXiv or other open-source research platforms, combines ideas and retells them as stories that would-be founders can turn into solutions to problems? Autonomous Storytellers. Marco Mascorro has already made some inroads with the paper summariser . What does this look like if it goes a step further and finds stories that interweave between different fields and identifies the problems they may be able to solve? arXiv GPT . What if methods for new knowledge creation occurred in a manner similar to which a neural network operates? Two fields of knowledge are thrown in as inputs, with all pre-existing research and ideas comingling with one another to develop a massive array of potential hypotheses. Humans or agents can enter a marketplace to vote on the potential impacts of any given hypothesis, with those ‘winners’ being submitted for validation and testing in laboratories. Pseudo-Laboratories Also published . here

Idea Factories — How Do we Create More and Better Ideas for Humanity

According to knowledgeable expert economists, something like 85% of our economic growth derives from technological innovation. Paul Romer, among others, has demonstrated the truth of this. Nobel Prize winning economist The Tech-Ignorant Weirdness of the Presidential Field How weird is it, then, that only one of the current 2024 presidential candidates  – Miami’s Mayor Francis X. Suarez (Let’s call him FX) – seems to know his way around tech?  FX seems the only one out of presidential aspirants to get the importance of tech. the dozen-and-a-half Tech-truculence, from the Army’s circling Klaatu and Gort’s to the crazed fatwa of current SEC chair Gensler against the blockchain sector, isn’t partisan.  Luddites have been with us since, well, the fictional . flying saucer on the national mall in 1951 Ned Ludd Almost none of the aspirants for a presidential nomination, from any party, have shown much awareness of the importance of technology (tools!) to general prosperity.  This curious absence is present at both “the grownups’ table” (the Donks and the Pachyderms) and “the kiddies’ table” (“No Labels” and the Green Party). Enter FX Suarez, “America’s Wunderkind” Mayor Miami’s Mayor (and former president of the National Conference of Mayors) Francis X. Suarez alone has, with complete intentionality, lured billions of dollars of finance and emerging tech companies to Miami. How? It started with his cutting taxes and crime to generationally low levels. Couple that with some real passion to make tech firms feel wanted and welcome. Suarez is famous for his Direct Tweets to tech startups saying (and meaning) “How Can I Help You?” Tech started flocking to Miami. And, with it, unrivaled prosperity.  Now FX wants to scale up from mayor to president. Pay attention! Suarez was written up by Forbes’s Peter Lane Taylor two years ago as “ .” America’s Wunderkind Mayor On December 4th, 2020 at 5:41 p.m. PDT, tech entrepreneur and tweeted from San Francisco, “ok guys hear me out, what if we move silicon valley to Miami?” Founders Fund Principal Delian Asparouhov At home putting his kids to bed 3,200 hundred miles away, 43-year old Miami mayor Francis Suarez fired back two minutes later: “How can I help?”. By 10:00 p.m. EDT, Asparouhov’s thread was going viral. When Suarez woke up the next morning, the venture capital intelligentsia from Menlo Park to Austin to Boston were calling it the “tweet heard round the tech world” (it now has more than 2.5 million impressions and counting). … “In Miami, we’re offering an alternative. There are two basic things that people who are creating great companies want while simultaneously creating thriving communities: They don't want to be taxed any more than they have to, because they often know that that money is not being spent effectively. And secondly, they want to feel welcome.” FX’s savvy is, of course, on the enterprise, not the engineering, side.  But he’s at home with emerging tech. Donald Trump Doesn’t Use a Computer Donald Trump was a Twitter maniac. All that takes is the mastery of one app and a smartphone keyboard. . Trump, like Hilary Clinton, doesn’t use a personal computer “Donald Trump isn’t exactly tech-savvy either. The reported on Nov. 6 that Trump “does not use a computer,” which explains at his campaign spending millions of dollars on digital ads. Court notes have revealed that while Clinton was blundering about emails as secretary of state, Trump seemingly wasn’t using them at all. “I don’t do the email thing,” . Six years later, he’d moved forward just a touch, saying he used email “very rarely.” New York Times why he was perplexed analyzed by the Times he said in 2007 “Indeed, the only known photograph of him using a computer was produced 45 minutes into his Reddit Ask-Me-Anything session this year, when aides realized the only way to verify that he was the one typing was to —having, we presume, just magisterially struck a key. photograph him in front of a computer “This, perhaps, explains his amazement at his son’s computer skills, expressed during the first presidential debate: “I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable,” he said, ostensibly explaining the need to fight cyber warfare. God, help us.” Except FX, the rest of the presidential field is as close to luddite as is Trump. Sometimes one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at Trump’s grasp of technology, for instance . Luckily, cooler heads prevailed.  (So far.) when he suggested that we drop nuclear bombs on hurricanes Biden, at least, has the imperfect but constructive (and bipartisan) to his credit. . CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 And sports an Apple watch and uses the Apple News App Why Consider Suarez Tech Savvy? Consider the human terrain. As reported by the , Suarez stated: University of Miami “If you would have told me … that the next day I was going to send out a tweet that was going to be seen by 2.7 million people and lead me to talk to Jack Dorsey, Elon Musk, the Winklevoss twins, Fred Ehrsam, Bryan Armstrong from Coinbase, Kevin O'Leary, Kevin McCarthy, Nikki Haley, Dave Portnoy, and all the people that have come through our office, I would have told you, you were crazy,” he exclaimed. ‘I would have told you there's no way you can create a world where all these things are going to collide and that Miami would go from relative obscurity in tech to being the most talked about city in America and in the world and tech in six months,’ Suarez added.” Tech is the wellspring of prosperity. Let’s explicitly recognize this as such. It is important, for us, that those who aspire to become our paramount leaders also recognize that fundamental fact.  Tech means tools to enhance productivity, from the shovel to the rho calculus-enabled blockchain. Tech supremacy also is important to America for many other reasons. Alas, most politicians seem mired in a technologically primordial era. As if they still use manual typewriters. Or, yes, really, . quill pens Make America Prosper Again If you, like me, wish to MAPA (Make America Prosper Again), America needs to take, and even raise, its customary but now imperiled lead in innovation. Enter the Dragon China, our chief rival, gets it! In October 2019, president of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping : declared “The application of blockchain technology has already extended to digital finance, Internet of Things, intelligent manufacturing, supply chain management, digital asset trading and other fields. At present, major countries in the world are accelerating the development of blockchain technology. China has a good foundation in the field of blockchain. It is necessary to accelerate the development of blockchain technology and industrial innovation, and actively promote the development of blockchain and social-economic integration. … It is necessary to strengthen basic research, enhance the original innovation ability, and strive to let China take the leading position in the emerging field of blockchain, occupy the commanding heights of innovation, and gain new industrial advantages.” We can get it too! And we’d better! Prosperity Through Technology! As I wrote at in 2020, Newsmax “Per [the Hon. Norman] Augustine, numerous studies including those that won Robert Solow and Paul Romer Nobel Prizes in Economics, demonstrate that as much as 85% of the long-term growth in America's economy is attributable to advancements in science and technology. The payoffs from the successes of federal R&D dwarf the cost of the failures. This inconvenient truth is supported by abundant evidence, however horrifying to libertarians.” And as Christopher Mims wrote in the : Wall Street Journal “Taxpayer-funded basic scientific research has again and again paid huge dividends to society, both in improving our quality of life and boosting our economy. Indeed, many of the industries the U.S. dominates these days, like software, were seeded in a Silicon Valley where the U.S. government was the area's first and most important venture capitalist. Since the mid 1960s, the proportion of U.S. gross domestic product spent on public R&D has gone from a peak of 2% to the present figure of 0.6%, and the U.S. went from first in the world in terms of such spending to 13th. China rocketed ahead, and has done other forward-thinking things like co-locating manufacturing with its publicly funded R&D centers, allowing a direct translation of that research into new industries and millions of new jobs.” Or while I was writing about Suarez at , Newsmax “Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Romer proved that much of our long-term economic growth comes from scientific and technological innovation. As capably : summarized by Charles I. Jones "Romer developed endogenous growth theory, emphasizing that technological change is the result of efforts by researchers and entrepreneurs who respond to economic incentives. Anything that affects their efforts, such as tax policy, basic research funding, and education, for example, can potentially influence the long-run prospects of the economy. Romer's fundamental contribution is his clear understanding of the economics of ideas and how the discovery of new ideas lies at the heart of economic growth. His 1990 paper is a watershed. Suarez not only talks the tech talk. He walks the tech walk, exemplifying and embodying entrepreneurial culture. As proto-supply-sider (an observation reportedly framed and hung in Ford’s board room for decades): Peter Drucker reportedly taught Ford’s then-CEO Mark Fields Culture eats strategy for breakfast. And Suarez generates innovation-friendly culture. This is a big deal. As an aside, where do I get off preaching about prosperity?  Well, I was an O.G. early days supply-sider. As noted by among others, I was the founder of the Prosperity Caucus (which still continues to meet mostly monthly, now virtually, nearly 40 years later). Roll Call Voodoo 1.0 I was an early member of Rep. Jack Kemp’s supply-sider “cabal,” fighting for economic growth policies against stagflationary Establishment conventional wisdom. We merrily endured (and endure) endless Establishment ridicule (“Voodoo Economics!” “Trickle Down!”). We fought for policies that propelled the Dow, from 813 in November 1979 when Reagan declared his candidacy, to, eventually, its dizzying 30,000+ heights today. More Voodoo please! Our original 70’s era supply-side policy mix was to stabilize the dollar (preferably, in theory, through gold, in practice emulating the mechanics of the gold standard by Fed Chairmen Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan). We thereby brought inflation down from double digits to around 2% for two generations. That held until , inevitably leading to… inflation. Now Powell, with the shrewd political support of Biden, is subduing inflation, setting the stage for more growth. Donald Trump pistol whipped Fed Chairman Powell into sinking the dollar And by cutting marginal tax rates. Tax cuts? We old guard supply-siders squeezed the juice from tax rate cuts (not tax cuts per se, as we lowered rates and closed loopholes). We set in motion the process that cut (carrying with it the vote of Sen. Joe Biden and many other Democrats) the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 28%. President Bill Clinton largely followed Reagan’s economic policy playbook in most respects and improved it by passing welfare reform. Clinton’s regrettable raising of the top rate to 39% was more than offset by his cutting the capital gains rate to 20% and by his continuing commitment to a stable dollar. Cambrian Explosion era supply-side policies helped foster a flood of venture capital. That, in turn, turned the orange groves of Silicon Valley into geysers of prosperity. Thus, I had a small but real practical role in enacting policies that generated many trillions of dollars in new wealth. As I : reflected here “Our [supply-side] policy mix was ridiculed by the Republican establishment, specifically George H.W. Bush, as ‘voodoo economics.’ And ridiculed by the Democratic establishment as ‘trickle-down’ (an insult originally coined by Will Rogers to ridicule Herbert Hoover, the supply-siders' poster child for bad economic policy). “The supply-side posse persisted despite ridicule. Washington reluctantly took the " ." Over the ensuing four decades, the (relatively) stable dollar and (relatively) low tax rates doubled . , U.S. nominal GDP soared , world nominal GDP from $11T to .” riverboat gamble real per capita GDP from $30,000 to nearly $60,000 Per the St. Louis Fed from $2.7T to $26T $96T And, note, per supply-side founding father and America’s leading futurist George Gilder states in his new Amazon bestseller, , GDP drastically understates the increase in prosperity the world has enjoyed over the past 40 years. Life After Capitalism, the Meaning of Wealth, the Future of the Economy, and the Time Theory of Money Still, we can do better. Alas, the supply-side’s success turned the GOP into a bunch of for Tax Cuts. W’s and Trump’s tax cuts, disinformationally promoted as “supply-side,” were, unlike Kemp’s, mostly . fin de siècle Cargo Cultists fat cat tax cuts They provided miniscule (if any) cuts in marginal income tax rates for workers. There were whopping cuts for the mercantilists and corporations. Hey!  That’s the GOP’s donor class.  But … it’s not your grandaddy’s’ supply-side! The whole point of supply-side economics was, and ought still be, to create across-the-board equitable prosperity, whose tax-cut architecture we stole fair and square, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” to echo JFK The 21st century mostly has been coasting on the work of Reagan and Clinton. As such, . the economic growth rate in this century has been half that of what we achieved in the ‘80s and ‘90s Voodoo 2.0 What to do? It’s a brave new world.  A world, in fact, of Exogenous Growth Theory, a wonky phrase coined by Romer to explain, and prescribe policies of, tech-driven economic growth. A vault from a $26T GDP (up from a nominal $2.7T when the original supply-siders went to work) to a real $50T, or more, GDP will not be propelled primarily by future tax rate cuts.  It will be propelled, if at all, by technological development. So, will the American voters choose the grievance-complainer-in-chief of the 30% red-hatted MAGA Republican faction, former president Donald Trump?  Will we choose the pugilistic anti-Woke governor, Ron DeSantis?  The pious former vice president, Mike Pence? Or…? I can only repeat the petition by the plucky damsel-in-distress to Gort imploring him not to destroy Earth: Klaatu barada nikto!!! Will Miami Mayor Francis X. Suarez – the champion of technology  – capture the fancy of a fickle electorate?  As , “It is very difficult to predict -- especially the future.” Make America Prosper Again Niels Bohr once stated Stay tuned…. Suarez brought the highest levels of prosperity to Miami. He offers to bring it to America.  Will America rise to the occasion? All opinions are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect that of any of the entities with which he is affiliated.

Electing a Tech Savvy President is Imperative — Meet Presidential Candidate Francis Suarez

একজন টেক স্যাভি প্রেসিডেন্ট নির্বাচন করা অপরিহার্য - রাষ্ট্রপতি প্রার্থী ফ্রান্সিস সুয়ারেজের সাথে দেখা করুন

Die Wahl eines technisch versierten Präsidenten ist unerlässlich – treffen Sie den Präsidentschaftskandidaten Francis Suarez

Elegir a un presidente experto en tecnología es imperativo: conozca al candidato presidencial Francis Suarez

Élire un président averti en technologie est impératif - Rencontrez le candidat présidentiel Francis Suarez

एक तकनीक प्रेमी राष्ट्रपति का चुनाव करना अनिवार्य है - राष्ट्रपति पद के उम्मीदवार फ्रांसिस सुआरेज़ से मिलें

テクノロジーに精通した大統領を選出することが不可欠 — 大統領候補フランシス・スアレスを紹介する

기술에 정통한 대통령을 선출하는 것이 필수적입니다 — 대통령 후보 프란시스 수아레스(Francis Suarez)를 만나보세요

Eleger um presidente experiente em tecnologia é imperativo - Conheça o candidato presidencial Francis Suarez

Teknoloji Bilgisine Sahip Bir Başkan Seçmek Zorunluluktur - Başkan Adayı Francis Suarez ile Tanışın

Bầu một Tổng thống am hiểu công nghệ là điều bắt buộc - Gặp ứng cử viên tổng thống Francis Suarez

选举一位精通技术的总统势在必行——来认识一下总统候选人弗朗西斯·苏亚雷斯

Francis Pouliot on the Network Effect of Money and Why Tokens Are Scams

A Roadmap for User Empowerment in the Dark Pattern Landscape

Microsoft v. United States (2016) Court Filing, retrieved on July 14, 2016, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 1 of 22. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Introduction Microsoft Corporation appeals from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (1) denying Microsoft’s motion to quash a warrant (“Warrant”) issued under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., to the extent that the orders required Microsoft to produce the contents of a customer’s e‐ mail account stored on a server located outside the United States, and (2) holding Microsoft in civil contempt of court for its failure to comply with the Warrant.  We conclude that § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act does not authorize courts to issue and enforce against U.S.‐based service providers warrants for the seizure of customer e‐mail content that is stored exclusively on foreign servers. REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED. Judge Lynch concurs in a separate opinion. E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Robert M. Loeb and Brian P. Goldman, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY; Guy Petrillo, Petrillo Klein & Boxer LLP, New York, NY; James M. Garland and Alexander A. Berengaut, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington, DC; Bradford L. Smith, David M. Howard, John Frank, Jonathan Palmer, and Nathaniel Jones, Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA; on the brief), for Microsoft Corporation. JUSTIN ANDERSON, Assistant United States Attorney (Serrin Turner, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the for Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Brett J. Williamson, David K. Lukmire, Nate Asher, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY; Faiza Patel, Michael Price, Brennan Center for Justice, New York, NY; Hanni Fakhoury, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, CA; Alex Abdo, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY; for Amici Curiae Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, American Civil Liberties Union, The Constitution Project, and Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support of Appellant. Kenneth M. Dreifach, Marc J. Zwillinger, Zwillgen PLLC, New York, NY and Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Apple, Inc., in support of Appellant. Andrew J. Pincus, Paul W. Hughes, James F. Tierney, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae BSA | The Software Alliance, Center for Democracy and Technology, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, The National Association of Manufacturers, and ACT | The App Association, in support of Appellant. Steven A. Engel, Dechert LLP, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Anthony J. Colangelo, in support of Appellant. Alan C. Raul, Kwaku A. Akowuah, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for Amici Curiae AT&T Corp., Rackspace US, Inc., Computer & Communications Industry Association, i2 Coalition, and Application Developers Alliance, in support of Appellant. Peter D. Stergios, Charles D. Ray, McCarter & English, LLP, New York, NY and Hartford, CT, for Amicus Curiae Ireland. Peter Karanjia, Eric J. Feder, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY, for Amici Curiae Amazon.com, Inc., and Accenture PLC, in support of Appellant. Michael Vatis, Jeffrey A. Novack, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York, NY;  Randal S. Milch, Verizon Communications Inc., New York, NY; Kristofor T. Henning, Hewlett‐Packard Co., Wayne, PA; Amy Weaver, Daniel Reed, Salesforce.com, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Orin Snyder, Thomas G. Hungar, Alexander H. Southwell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY; Mark Chandler, Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Aaron Johnson, eBay Inc., San Jose, CA, for Amici Curiae Verizon Communications, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Hewlett‐Packard Co., eBay Inc., Salesforce.com, Inc., and Infor, in support of Appellant. Laura R. Handman, Alison Schary, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC, Media for Amici Curiae Organizations, in support of Appellant. Philip Warrick, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, OR, for Computer and Data Science Experts, Amici Curiae in support of Appellant. Owen C. Pell, Ian S. Forrester, Q.C., Paige C. Spencer, White & Case, New York, NY, Jan Philipp for Amicus Curiae Albrecht, Member of the European Parliament, in support of Appellant. Owen C. Pell, Ian S. Forrester, Q.C., Paige C. Spencer, White & Case, New York, NY; Edward McGarr, Simon McGarr, Dervila McGarr, McGarr Solicitors, Dublin, Ireland, Jan Philipp Albrecht, for Amicus Curiae Member of the European Parliament, in support of Appellant. SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judge: Microsoft Corporation appeals from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying its motion to quash a warrant (“Warrant”) issued under § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act (“SCA” or the “Act”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., and holding Microsoft in contempt of court for refusing to execute the Warrant on the government’s behalf.  The Warrant directed Microsoft to seize and produce the contents of an e‐mail account that it maintains for a customer who uses the company’s electronic communications services.  A United States magistrate judge (Francis, M.J.) issued the Warrant on the government’s application, having found probable cause to believe that the account was being used in furtherance of narcotics trafficking.  The Warrant was then served on Microsoft at its headquarters in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft produced its customer’s non‐content information to the government, as directed.  That data was stored in the United States.  But Microsoft ascertained that, to comply fully with the Warrant, it would need to access customer content that it stores and maintains in Ireland and to import that data into the United States for delivery to federal authorities.  It declined to do so.  Instead, it moved to quash the Warrant.  The magistrate judge, affirmed by the District Court (Preska, C.J.), denied the motion to quash and, in due course, the District Court held Microsoft in civil contempt for its failure. Microsoft and the government dispute the nature and reach of the Warrant that the Act authorized and the extent of Microsoft’s obligations under the instrument.  For its part, Microsoft emphasizes Congress’s use in the Act of the term “warrant” to identify the authorized instrument.  Warrants traditionally carry territorial limitations:   United States law enforcement officers may be directed by a court‐issued warrant to seize items at locations in the United States and in United States‐controlled areas, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b), but their authority generally does not extend further. The government, on the other hand, characterizes the dispute as merely about “compelled disclosure,” regardless of the label appearing on the instrument.  It maintains that “similar to a subpoena, [an SCA warrant] requir[es] the recipient to deliver records, physical objects, and other materials to the government” no matter where those documents are located, so long as they are subject to the recipient’s custody or control.  Gov’t Br. at 6.  It relies on a collection of court rulings construing properly‐ served subpoenas as imposing that broad obligation to produce without regard to a document’s location.  E.g., Marc Rich & Co., A.G. v. United States, 707 F.2d 663 (2d Cir. 1983). For the reasons that follow, we think that Microsoft has the better of the argument.  When, in 1986, Congress passed the Stored Communications Act as part of the broader Electronic Communications Privacy Act, its aim was to protect user privacy in the context of new technology that required a user’s interaction with a service provider.  Neither explicitly nor implicitly does the statute envision the application of its warrant provisions overseas.  Three decades ago, international boundaries were not so routinely crossed as they are today, when service providers rely on worldwide networks of hardware to satisfy users’ 21st–century demands for access and speed and their related, evolving expectations of privacy. Rather, in keeping with the pressing needs of the day, Congress focused on providing basic safeguards for the privacy of domestic users.  Accordingly, we think it employed the term “warrant” in the Act to require pre‐disclosure scrutiny of the requested search and seizure by a neutral third party, and thereby to afford heightened privacy protection in the United States.  It did not abandon the instrument’s territorial limitations and other constitutional requirements.  The application of the Act that the government proposes ― interpreting “warrant” to require a service provider to retrieve material from beyond the borders of the United States ―would require us to disregard the presumption against extraterritoriality that the Supreme Court re‐stated and emphasized in Morrison v. National Australian Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) and, just recently, in RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 579 U.S. __, 2016 WL 3369423 (June 20, 2016).  We are not at liberty to do so. We therefore decide that the District Court lacked authority to enforce the Warrant against Microsoft.  Because Microsoft has complied with the Warrant’s domestic directives and resisted only its extraterritorial aspects, we REVERSE the District Court’s denial of Microsoft’s motion to quash, VACATE its finding of civil contempt, and REMAND the cause with instructions to the District Court to quash the Warrant insofar as it directs Microsoft to collect, import, and produce to the government customer content stored outside the United States. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case No. 15–777 retrieved on September 27, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. cases.justia.com

Microsoft Refuses to Turn Over Emails of Customer Suspected of Drug Trafficking

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 12 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IV. ARGUMENT C. Plaintiffs’ Claims Fail for Reasons Specific to Each Claim. 2. Plaintiffs’ Breach of Contract Claim Fails. To state a claim for breach of contract under California law, a plaintiff must “plead the contract, plaintiff’s performance (or excuse for nonperformance), defendant’s breach, and damage to plaintiff therefrom.” Low v. LinkedIn Corp., 900 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1028 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (cleaned up). When asserting written contract claims, a plaintiff must “allege the specific provisions in the contract creating the obligation the defendant is said to have breached.” Young v. Facebook, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1117 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Here, Plaintiffs have not adequately pled the existence of a contract between themselves and any of the OpenAI Entities or sufficient factual detail supporting that OpenAI Entities allegedly breached any such agreement. a. Plaintiffs Have Not Sufficiently Pled Existence of a Contract. Plaintiffs have not adequately pled facts demonstrating the existence of a contract between Plaintiffs and any OpenAI Entity. See CSI Elec. Contractors, Inc. v. Zimmer Am. Corp., No. CV 12-10876-CAS (AJWx), 2013 WL 1249021, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2013) (granting motion to dismiss breach of contract claim because complaint failed to adequately allege existence of a contract). Here, the complaint merely alleges that “Plaintiffs . . . offer code under various [unspecified] Licenses” and attaches a sampling of the most common licenses in an appendix. (Compl. ¶ 173, App. A.) The complaint then alleges that contracts have been formed with Defendants, collectively, based on their use of code subject to certain licenses. (Id. ¶ 175.) However, the complaint does not indicate which licenses are at issue or which provisions the OpenAI Entities allegedly breached. These vague and conclusory allegations are insufficient to establish the existence of a contract. See Ramirez v. GMAC Mortg., No. CV 09-8189 PSG (FFMx), 2010 WL 148167, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010) (holding plaintiff failed to plead existence of a contract where it did not “set forth [the] terms of the contract that Defendants’ conduct is alleged to have breached”). b. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Facts Demonstrating the Contractual Provisions OpenAI Entities Allegedly Breached. While Plaintiffs allege generally that OpenAI breached open source licenses by failing to (i) provide attribution, (ii) include copyright notices, and (iii) identify the license applicable to the work (Compl. ¶¶ 181-183), the complaint fails to identify the particular terms of the alleged agreements that the OpenAI Entities purportedly violated. See, e.g., Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1220 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (dismissing contract claim in part because plaintiffs failed to identify any provision in PayPal’s user agreement which prohibited PayPal’s conduct). “Facts alleging a breach, like all essential elements of a breach of contract cause of action, must be pleaded with specificity.” Rubio v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. C 13-05752 LB, 2014 WL 1318631, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014) (cleaned up); see also Sutherland v. Francis, No. 12-CV-05110-LHK, 2014 WL 879697, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2014) (dismissing contract claim that did not include “the essential terms of the agreement and more specific allegations as to breach”). Plaintiffs’ generic allegations fail to satisfy this requirement. Continue Reading . here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on September 8, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. DocumentCloud.org

OpenAI Did Not Breach Any Contract: The Company Alleges There Was No Contract to Begin With

The world’s most independent tech publication, —where hackers start their afternoons, just partnered with to present : The Tech Industry's Greenest Awards. Hacker Noon Stream.io the inaugural Noonies 2019 "The Noonies! It’s time to vote on what matters in tech. Year after year these will serve as the definitive, international and somewhat democratic acknowledgement of all the best and worst people and/or products in technology today," someone overheard CEO David Smooke saying in an All-Hands meeting on Zoom recently. Divided across Hacker Noon’s three editorial categories— , , and , the first annual #Noonies aims to be a public recognition of both the contributing writers, community members, and readers who make Hacker Noon the best place for tech professionals to publish; as well as a great forum for all of us to up and/or downvote the brands, products and apps we use to build things every day. General Technology Crypto and Blockchain Software Development Scroll down for the full list of 50 # awards and 300+ nominees > to upvote your favourites! Noonies click through You can until August 16th, so go ahead and set a reminder to exercise your daily right to declare the best and worst of the world's technology industry. VOTE EVERY DAY FROM TODAY For the first week of voting, public award nominations remain open. Please note, your custom nominations are subject to review before being added. All Noonies 2019 Award Winners will be announced on August 21st. — #NOONIES 2019 GENERAL TECH AWARD NOMINEES Best Tech News Source Twitter Hacker News Reddit Developer News (freeCodeCamp) WIRED TechCrunch MIT Technology Review Product Hunt TechLoaf recode TLDR The World's Most Productive Remote Team GitLab InVision Basecamp Doist Automattic Buffer Zapier Knack Harvest Niteo Best Use of Tech for Good UpEffect CYCLE.LAND Nexus Labs Ethical Angel CryptoCare GIVALYTICS Kindred The Bait & Switch Award Medium's Paywall Upwork Apple's Butterfly Switch Keyboards Facebook's Libra Most Exciting Startup She.VC Everipedia Superhuman Food Alliance Hacker of the Year Pedro Lima Arthur Tkachenko Nirav Thomas galyna Mister Fahrenheit Betty Product Manager of the Year Lenny Rachitsky Marija Cvjetkovic Suketu Patel Vindhya C Abhishek Sharma John Cutler Dan Fedirko Josh Ben-David Claudio Cossio Alex Mitchell Antonio van der Weel Pramod Chandrayan Nancy Wang Timoté Geimer Momčilo Dakić Contributing Writer of the Year Cassie Kozyrkov Andreas Sandre Arthur Tkachenko Aditi Bhatnagar sudhanshu kumar Noam Levenson Technology Writer of the Year Ashan Fernando Arthur Tkachenko James Dargan Riz Virk Amanda Woo Chris Herd Chris Castiglione AI Writer of the Year Daniel Jeffries Akash Deep Tony Aubé Adrien Book Matt Swayne Cassie Kozyrkov Shreya Amin Most Over-Hyped Technology AI Docker GraphQL Meteor Cybersecurity Writer of the Year Han Yoon Mark Nadal Daniel Jeffries Alice Henshaw Drew Rossow Aaron Gershwin Best AMA (ask-me-anything) award Carlos Domingo Muneeb Ali Taylor Monahan Jean-Loïck Michaux (JLO) Jeff Atwood Courtland Allen Alicia Ferratusco Mike Kalomeni Paul Foley Shamir Karkal Richard Garcia & Michael Ambrosino Erik Zhang Social Network of the Year Twitter Instagram (by Facebook) Reddit Youtube WhatsApp (by Facebook) QQ Qzone Facebook Pinterest Messenger (by Facebook) WeChat AllSocial Cake Strava Most Valuable Chatbot Framework Watson Assistant Rasa Chatbots by PubNub Vergic Bold360 (by LogMeIn) Microsoft Bot Framework Wit.AI Rulai LivePerson Dialogflow (by Google) PandoraBots Botpress BotKit ChatterBot Messenger API (by Facebook) Enterprise Chatbot by Inbenta Ada 20 Under 20 Awards [ ] open nominations! White Hat of the Year [ ] open nominations! 60 Over 60 Awards [ ] open nominations! — #NOONIES 2019 CRYPTO / BLOCKCHAIN AWARD NOMINEES Most Hardcore Bitcoin Maximalist Hodlonaut Pierre Rochard Trace Mayer Francis Pouliot Jimmy Song Adam Back Giacomo Zucco Beautyon Tuur Demeester Vortex Adam Meister Tone Vays Gabriel D Vine Most crypto-friendly Jurisdiction Award Malta I'm an Institutional Investor. Jurisdictions are an artificial construct, Man. The Zug, Switzerland Estonia Belarus Crypto-Name Drop of the Year Eminem's Kamikaze Album Silicon Valley's story arc Forbes' coverage of Bitcoin Second-Best Crypto Publication on Earth John McAfee's Twitter Feed cointelegraph Coindesk CCN Tokenpost Crypto-Buzzword of the Year Bitcoin Maximalist DeFi Buidl Crypto-Winter Defining Crypto-Moment of the Year Facebook Announces Libra Binance gets Hacked CCN blames Google and has a shutdown scare Crypto-Exchanges start conducting 10+ IEOs daily Crypto-Dud of the Year Civil Sparkster The All-About-PR Award VeID aELF Best Blockchain Award Bitcoin Ethereum EOS Stellar* NEO ZCash Monero Blockchain of the Year Award Bitcoin Ethereum Monero EOS ZCash NEO Stellar* Hyperledger Variants The best crypto magazine Cointelegraph Coindesk CryptoCoinNews CryptoSlate Best crypto analysts Muhrad Mahmudov Willy woo Plan B Tone Vays The Zero Factor Authentication Award for Achievement un Security MountGox Bitfinex Poloniex Binance Best Crypto Rap Song EDCON 2019 - Vitalik Rap Bitcoin Rap Gucci Gang - HODL Gang I am still on Coinbase - CoinDaddy Team Hodl - Lambo Land The best bitcoin Shiller Anthony Pompliano John McAffee (Good Old John) Jack Dorsey Mark Zuckenberg (with Libra) Bryan Kelly (CNBC) Donald Trump The Cutest Crypto Kitty Lilbubthemagicalspacecat SirMeowsalot Felono The Best White Paper Bitcoin Ethereum Stellar EOS Blockstack Most Mind-blowing Bitcoin Story "Bitcoin’s Biggest Hack In History: 184.4 Billion Bitcoin from Thin Air; Satoshi Hard Forks, Saves Bitcoin," by Charlie Shrem "Why the Price of Bitcoin Doesn't Matter," by Beautyon "What Will Bitcoin Look Like in Twenty Years?" by Dan Jeffries "Bitcoin Miners Beware: Invalid Blocks Need Not Apply," by StopAndDecrypt "The Great Bitcoin Scaling Debate — A Timeline," by Daniel Morgan "Why Bitcoin is not trustless" by Haseeb Qureshi #CryptoTwitter's MVP @hodlonaut @BullyEsq @aantonop PeterMcCormack CryptoCobain @PirateBeachbum @VitalikButerin @TimDraper @haydentiff @iam_preethi @muneeb @brian_armstrong The Shitcoin Award [ ] open nominations! —SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT AWARDS NOMINEES #NOONIES 2019 Developer Tool Buzz of Year GraphQL React Hooks GatsbyJS Zeit Nuxt.js Prisma Next.js Apollo CMS You Can't Live Without Wordpress Netlify CMS Ghost Squarespace Wix Medium Strikingly Weebly Joomla TYPO3 Personal Developer Blog of the Year Overreacted David Walsh Coding Horror Daring Fireball (John Gruber) Paul Jarvis Best Developer on Twitter @dan_abramov @iamdevloper @mxstbr (Max Stoiber) @addyosmani @mpjme (FunFunFunction) @jensimmons @jasonfried @codinghorror (Jeff Atwood) @no_fear_inc Best JAMstack React Serverless Framework Smashing Magazine freecodecamp.org Lodash SEOmonitor Impossible Foods NYC Pride 2019 The State of European Tech Airbnb Engineering & Data Science Stream Best Dev Podcast Syntax.fm Developer Tea The Laracasts Snippets The Changelog Shop Talk Show The Bike Shed The Undefined Podcast Top Dev Teacher Wes Bos Scott Tolinski Brian Holt Maximilian Schwarzmüller Kyle Simpson (YDKJS) Jeffrey Way Will Sentance Sarah Drasner Brad Traversy Kent Dodds Tyler McGinnis Dan Abramov Gregg Pollack Nick Pettit Bianca Gandolfo Shirley Wu Todd Motto Ben Awad Best Open Source Project VS Code React Vue.js Styled Components npm Tensorflow Font Awesome Kubernetes Atom Webpack faceswap Best Dev Community Github Dev.to Freecodecamp Stack Overflow Hacker News Product Hunt WIP Stack Share Best Open Startup Nomadlist Gumroad Ghost Insomnia Convertkit Baremetrics Hubstaff Upscribe Simple Analytics Notable No-Code App Tim Ferriss Dreamline Calculator Freelance Calculator Seedform Most Promising Fintech Braintree Acorns GoCardless n26 Robinhood Revolut Razorpay You can until August 16th, so go ahead and set a reminder to exercise your daily right to declare the best and worst of the world's technology industry. The winners will be announced on August 21st. VOTE EVERY DAY FROM TODAY The Noonies are made possible by Stream . Stream’s simple, powerful APIs for scalable feeds and chat are used by some of the largest and most popular apps.

Francis App Inc

francis.app

1-10 employees

Since 2021

COMPANY RANKING

FRANCIS APP INC

EVERGREEN INDEX #5275

Francis App Inc WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

Francis App Inc

francis.app

1-10 employees

Since 2021

COMPANY RANKING

FRANCIS APP INC

EVERGREEN INDEX #5275

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT FRANCIS APP INC

Francis App Inc WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!