To a lot of people, the API changes are not a big deal.

How are blind Redditors impacted by this decision?

So what does all this mean for BestofRedditorUpdates?

Hi, everyone.

But why is this happening?

Why is this an issue?

So what happens during that time?

Conclusion:

1. Logic system overhaul/improvements. Current system is tedious and a pain to do, even for relatively small builds. Even just having the ability to filter out logic points that are already connected would greatly improve the system across the board, ideally an advanced filter system would be added, such as creating groups, filtering parts, etc. The need to not only use but also create microcontrollers for instrument panels feels excessive and unnecessary. Simplifying panels, or giving the option of a simplified instrument panel that does not need to use a microcontroller, would go far in decreasing the games barrier to entry.
   
2. Built in GPS maps. The fact that this game does not have a built in GPS map, like those tom tom gps map things you see on older cars is absurd when career mode’s map doesn’t show where you are on the map. And before anyone says that it’s “realistic”, if fishing boats in the Bering Sea can have a GPS map during rough weather, I see no reason why a SAR vehicle wouldn’t have such basic equipment. The current career mode’s starter boat is kinda useless at the starting base for this reason, there aren’t many landmarks out in the ocean, and I shouldn’t have to use the workshop just to make the base boat functional.
   
3. Radio console. A simple premade radio console with knobs and such would also be nice and simplify a decent amount of logic.
   
4. Custom window, wedge, and pyramid dimensions and/or more of these blocks in general, and make them more customizable (ie changing the windows color to green or putting designs on wedges and pyramids)
   
5. Small boats keep water out, don’t need a closed volume to be buoyant
   
6. Sails
   
7. 18th century weaponry
   
8. Life rafts
   
9. Emergency inflatable slides (for planes)
   
10. Gliding
    
11. Oars
    
12. Premade vehicles for every basic need you have in game. There should be basic, cheap, premade cars/trucks, boats, etc that can fulfill most of everything you would need to do in game. Nothing particularly fancy, just simple builds that can easily supplanted by custom creations that can serve as references for your own builds or be stopgap measures until you build replacements.
    
13. Search and Recovery. Unfortunately, not every SAR operation is successful. Missions about recovering remains would be nice and can add a decent bit of variety. For example, maybe a hiker found a body in a hard to reach place in the mountains, and because of that an offroad vehicle or aircraft is needed to get there, diving on a wreck to recover remains, or recovering a car from a lake. Other missions could also be diving for investigation critical components, such as black boxes or voyage data recorders, or even specific components that investigators want to find.
    
14. More in depth rescue/injury mechanics. Stuff like sprained ankles, injuries, pregnancy status, health conditions, etc, requiring different things to heal/stabilize. This would also add a sense of urgency to each SAR mission, as now you can’t solve/delay everything by throwing a first aid kit at it. Maybe the local hospital doesn’t have the facilities to treat a time sensitive, so you have to transport the patient to a bigger hospital. Dealing with things like hyperthermia would also be nice.
    
15. Boat materials (wood/metal/polymer)
    
16. Amenities and furniture in general.
    
17. Logging industry
    
18. Fishing industry
    
19. Debris
    
20. Other SAR teams/companies to have a presence in the world and are able to be called upon if needed.
    
21. Nuclear reactor disaster
    
22. More variety and depth for SAR missions, such as an aircraft ditching in the harbor, an aircraft going missing and having to search for it, recovering lifeboats, a nuclear powered ship sinking and having to deal with the radiation, chemical tankers releasing toxic chemicals into the water, sinking an adrift vessel, stopping an illegal salvage operation etc. A cool idea would be to add in the possibility for major accidents to happen, such as a cruise ship capsizing, a nuclear powered ship sinking, or a military aircraft armed with a nuclear warhead being lost over the ocean. Another cool idea would be to add interviews with accident investigation teams after some accidents, such as when a ship sinks because of poor maintenance about what you saw. Obviously, the interviews should only occur for more major accidents and when the player could actually have relevant information. There could also be complications for missions, such as the ship still moving and unable to be stopped, the whole crew is incapacitated, etc.
    
23. In the same vein as no 22, an overhaul of Search And Destroy as it pertains to the overworld would also be nice. Instead of simply having an AI that fights the player, how about having 2 major factions that fight each other, the local military and an invading military, with the option of creating your own faction to take over the islands. This would differ from the previous system by making it so that you would complete orders issued to you, such as patrolling a specific area, engaging a fleet, mining or demining a waterway, etc. At first, you start out doing gruntwork, but as you move up in rank the more you can do, such as sending grunts to do the gruntwork for you. You could also give the option for the player to make their own faction Another thing that could be added are pirates and pirate gameplay. SAD could also add in new missions and disasters, such as disarming mines from the second world war, serial killers, hijacking attempts, a fire at a munitions dump, etc. You can have a lot of fun in regards to disasters and special missions too, such as cleaning up a munitions dumping ground (like what the Norwegian military did, dumping thousands of tons of munitions into a river) or a sunken supply ship detonating (like that one off the coast of England) and dealing with the after effects of that.
    
24. Hiring AI to do things for you, such as a doctor to administer medical assistance to survivors, a captain to drive a boat, SAR divers to recover people from the sea for you, etc.
    
25. Passenger playstyle. Ferrying passengers around feels like a logical next step in the game, with factors such as reliability, how fast you can get to destinations, feats (ie having the fastest passenger ferry in the world even if it does not operate at that speed regularly or having the biggest ferry, etc), price per ticket, amenities(free or paid movie theatre, comfy seats, concession stands, is the interior a comfortable temperature, is there a barbershop and if so is it any good, etc) and necessities (do you have enough seats, is there a bathroom, do you have enough life preservers, if it’s overnight, do you have any beds etc). Options to run excursions with famous or historic ships, simple cruises/excursions to places around the islands would be nice too.
    
26. Expansion of delivery and miner playstyles. Expansion of these playstyles, such as hiring AI to do parts of the job, either as employees or contracting out another company to, say, transport coal from your mine to the powerplant would go a long way to fleshing out these playstyles. You can even have the option to do smuggling runs of illegal or illicit goods. Smaller deliveries that can be handled with a van, or doing mail runs would be cool as well as oversized delivery missions. Increasing the variety of cargo to transport, such as transporting locomotives and/or cars for export would be cool.
    
27. Terminal loading cranes.
    
28. A R&D mode which would allow for quick and easy analysis of a creation where you get raw numbers on a ship’s current tilt, balance, engine performance, etc with the ability to easily change the weather and conditions of the environment and easily switch to build mode.
    
29. Shipwrights. The idea here would be to overhaul building mechanics as it relates to career mode. Instead of being able to instantly build everything, how you can modify your vessel is limited to what your facilities can do. To get a brand-new ship, you would have to commission it from a shipwright. Before commission, you would have access to R&D mode to fully test out the vessal. Where the fun part really begins is that you can have an entire playstyle built around receiving commissions for ships by the AI (or even other players) for a desired vessel within x specifications at a cost of x amount for x amount of vessels within x timeframe with a bedroom made out of 50% windows at a height of x feet, or even upgrade/modify preexisting vessels as part of a commission or to flip on the market, buying older vessels of varying states and giving them a new lease on life. How many ships you can produce at a given time would depend on your facilities, which can be upgraded. Of course, there would be aircraft and land vehicle equivalents. You can even see the ships you produced doing their job in the world.
    
30. Salvaging. Another playstyle that I feel would be a next step for Stormworks would be salvaging vessels either for scrap, refurbish them for resale, restoration into a museum piece, or simply to clear a waterway. You could even give the option to illegally salvage shipwrecks.
    
31. Survey missions
    
32. Survival suits
    
33. Crabbing
    
34. Flooding disaster
    
35. Hurricane and super storm disasters
    
36. Air conditioning
    
37. Other ships coming to assist vessels in distress.
    
38. Tropical islands
    
39. Blimps, zepplins, and hot air balloons.
    
40. Naming vehicles
    
41. Rogue waves
    
42. Supernatural phenomenon. My idea for this is that you would have two categories of phenomenon, explicable and inexplicable. Explicable phenomena would be phenomena that have scientific explanations for them, things such as ghost lights with scientific explanations behind them, maybe have some missions where you disprove the supernatural. Having everything be explicable, however, can be underwhelming so actual supernatural phenomena, such as fleshgaits (especially with SAR being the core theme of Stormworks), ghost ships, or alien encounters, especially if mechanics, such as SAR, are incorporated in it. Like, imagine a seemingly normal SAR mission turning out to be the rescue of aliens from a crashed spaceship and you have to transport them to a drop off point where the MiB is waiting, or a mission where you first set out to debunk the supernatural to then be assailed by the flying dutchman.
    
43. More doors, buttons, ladders, stairs and hatches (ie: a traditional house door, car doors, glass hatches, etc)
    
44. Panels that can be used as signs or “hatches” for otherwise external equipment (ie in order to access a fire extinguisher you have to open a hatch first, im sure there is a better word for it but I can’t think of it)
    
45. Moonpools
    
46. Pools
    
47. More buildable/modifiable properties, especially for terminals. Could be expanded with the ability to flip properties.
    
48. Races
    
49. Competing manufacturers of equipment and engines that have varying strengths and weaknesses that improve as time goes. This would also make the game more accessible by giving new players the ability to easily access better engines while also rewarding those who learn how modular engines work by allowing them to jump ahead of the AI. Perhaps a system where you can lease or even produce your own engine designs could be implemented to further reward and encourage using modular engines.
    
50. If the game becomes comprehensive enough, the ability to change which era you play in (1700s, 1800s, 1940s, etc) would be a really cool addition by adding in technological challenges of older eras. Additionally, there could be supernatural phenomena that isekai vehicles to and from different time periods, which could add in a whole variety of interesting missions and challenges.
    
51. Built-in couplers for trains
    
52. Wind having an effect on the player (exiting an aircraft and standing on its wing should result in you being yeeted off the aircraft)
    
53. Pressurization
    
54. Ingame tutorials like what From The Depths has
    
55. A better openworld, NPCs, and RP experiences. The world of Stormworks feels very much dead, which is a shame because that is it’s biggest selling point for me over other building games like simple planes. It gives a reason for all the vehicles being built beyond simply being cool, you can actually DO things with it. I would recommend solving this by:
    
56. Create actual population centers. Not huge cities, but small towns dotted across the islands with actual businesses and populations would go a long way to improving the game world, maybe have one or two cities on the island itself so we can do stuff with skyscrapers.
    
57. Global traffic of personal, commercial, and government boats, aircrafts and land vehicles would go a long way to making the world feel less empty. Having npcs use a dedicated radio channel for chatter, and which you can interact with them through would be great. This traffic responds to ingame events, for example increased outgoing road traffic when a disaster is about to hit
    
58. More realistic roads
    
59. Navigation signs, buoys, etc
    
60. NPCs operating gas stations, bridges, and industries in general.
    
61. Relating to one, make NPCs not only interactable beyond being glorified money bags, but also interact with their environment. Such as trying to move away from fires, calling for help when they see a vehicle, moving towards a stopped SAR vehicle and climbing aboard, getting inside a vehicle of their own volition or swimming to shore when they are literally meters away instead of staying in the water and/or burning boat. Having NPCs interact with the player as well would also be great, such as thanking you for saving their lives, buying the player a beer as thanks if they meet in a bar, etc would be nice. Ideally, there would be a number of persistent npcs who have names, personalities and backstories. Such as Joe, an old sea captain who’s vessel is painted pink in memory of his 6 year old daughter who disappeared, and, if he thinks his vessel is about to sink, will desire to go down with the ship and be resistant to his personal rescue.
    
62. Consequences for your actions visible in game. For example, if a casualty becomes a fatality, there is a funeral service held at the graveyard.
    
63. NPCs having varying fluencies in English
    
64. Missions with storylines attached to them, such as an archaeologist searching for Atlantis, or a group of sailors looking to raise the cargo ship they worked on after it sunk.
    
65. Radio music channels
    
66. TV channels, can also have a gameplay effect through amenities
    
67. Newspaper with an obituary, some fluff news stories, generic articles, state of the economy, ships launched, details regarding the SAR missions you did or didn’t do, in game events, etc.
    
68. Unmarked missions, for example lets say Captain Joe’s ship sinks, but Joe survives. Joe is depressed, but if you go out of your way to salvage and repair Joe’s ship and give it back to him he will be happy.
    
69. NPC backstories being more then just a text in a box, perhaps a mission leads to you finding Captain Joe’s daughter, alive or dead leading to either a heart warming reunion or somber closure.
    
70. News interviews
    
71. Points of interest, such as abandoned buildings, natural wonders, historical locations, museums, heritage railroads, businesses etc with lore surrounding them and special missions for that location. For example, lets say there is a hot air balloon tour operation. There would be a few special missions pertaining to hot air balloons in that location. Or for the heritage railroad, their engineer called in sick so they need someone to fill in for the day.
    
72. Flavor for missions, for example maybe a family of four reported in the burning boat and watch you put out the fires
    
73. NPCs react like real people in the sense of physiological reactions, such as grieving, becoming frozen in shock, mental breakdowns etc.
    
74. All disasters have effects (when applicable) in the overworld, such as destroyed homes, ships transported inland, etc. Having missions pertaining to the aftermath, such as removing large debris from roads and tracks to recovering missing persons.
    
75. Visual deterioration of abandoned/sunk/crashed vehicles
    
76. NPCs may try to take advantage of disasters, such as by robbing people on a sinking ship, looting buildings after a disaster, etc
    
77. NPCs may panic and act irrationally when in a disaster, such as taking life jackets away from women and children, releasing lifeboats/liferafts early, etc
    
78. Skills and attributes, such as consoling, leadership, physical fitness, bartering, etc
    

What drives valuations?

“A valuation during a funding round for these types of companies are driven by: Investors’ willingness to pay (the most important driver!). Competition among investors hungry to get into a deal. Demand for companies of similar quality, scope, scale, (and) market. A host of other items like team, technology, etc.”

Mahdi @ Exponent on what drives valuations

• Company: Team, traction, market opportunity and other company factors
• Market: Entry-valuation comps and other market factors
• Fund model: Entry-valuation ranges/guardrails/fund size/threshold to return the fund

“On valuations for pre-PMF companies, we triangulate it: Exit opportunity (more intrinsic valuation-ish): We think of it as ‘if everything goes really right (the pre-parade), what could the company reasonably exit at?’. This is meaningfully based off the market opportunity (we are clear to describe it for "known, existing markets" vs. "new, fast growth markets"), competition, etc. That implies a certain amount of revenue, gross margin, and an exit multiple on it. Backing out from there - what should the entry be to achieve a 100x or more outcome for the fund? Next-twelve months (NTM) Comps: Where do we see entry valuations trending next twelve months and is this in line with that? Fund level guardrails: We generally don't believe pre-PMF should be above $15M post (some sectors more, some less). We want the fund average/median to be at or below this; we are open to exceptions, but they have to be crystal clear as to why they are the exception.We increase valuation commensurate with "de-risking" of clear milestones with team, PMF/ velocity/traction, market and exit opportunity. There's also a clear difference for us between the attractiveness of a company vs. the attractiveness of an investment (company + valuation + risk) and the above is focused on the valuation side for pre-PMF teams. We value post-PMF teams more precisely. At the end of the day - the core long-term drivers for all valuations are: Growth of free cash flow (and the drivers for it) Risk of free cash flow. The above helps us to think clearly about both aspects. If this company is humming with $1-1.5M of revenue or another highly implicative traction milestone, where would the Series A be priced at? We typically want the seed vs. Series A delta to be 2.5-3x. Early-stage investors should be compensated for the risk they’re taking and being first advocates.” — Mahdi Raza (Exponent)

Are valuations efficient?

“One of the most stunning things I've found about early-stage venture capital is that the market is relatively efficient. Put another way, founders convert positive signals about themselves and their companies into higher valuations that capture most (but not all) of the boon from those signals. Venture "alpha", if it exists at all, will really only be in overlooked places: That's why we found that the best schools to invest in are UW, Waterloo, and Brown, not Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. I would say, then, that within like a 2-3x band all valuations are probably "the same" – they don't in fact matter since you're probably paying for an informative signal. Beyond that, valuations are only worth it if the exit could be that much higher, and similarly, companies playing in a smaller space can be equally deserving of investment at lower valuations.” — Abe Othman (AngelList)

Do valuations matter?

“Valuations for pre-traction companies between 2005-2010 were $1-5M pre-money for the first non-friends-and-family round. Funds that invested during this time period made 4x-100x returns. These valuations moved to $4-6M pre-money after 2010, with some demo days in the $8-10M range. This likely cut returns by 2/3 or more. You can’t build a portfolio of pre-traction investments at $8-10M pre-money and expect to make a venture return. On occasion, you can make an exception, but you can’t do all of your investments at this price. You will have to pass on great teams because the valuation is too high. You will have to pass on future iconic technology companies because the price is too high. But passing on a future iconic company at a $40M pre-money gives you the capital to take 10 shots on goal with unknown companies at $4M pre-money.”

Anamitra @ Afore on why valuations matter

“If you are an early-stage investor in a company that exits at a $1B or $10B, then you can argue that it doesn't matter whether your entry price was $10M or $50M because you'd do very well. It's obviously better if you could invest at $10M but you'd still 20X if you invested at $50M. This means that if you have high conviction in the outcome, you should not be deterred by small deltas in the entry price. However, most investors don't know how big the outcome could be at the time of initial investment. I'd argue that it might be impossible to know. So, the outcome is unpredictable. However, the investor does have some control over the entry ownership. That's predictable. And since realized returns is a function of outcome size multiplied by exit ownership, the goal should be to maximize entry ownership. You can get high ownership by targeting a low entry valuation, increasing the investment check size, or both. So entry valuation does matter greatly. But it's a balance, because at the end of the day, high ownership in $0 outcome is still $0.” — Anamitra Banerji (Afore)

Julian @ Julian Capital on why valuations matter

“A low valuation won’t get me to invest in a deal, but a high valuation absolutely can get me to walk from a deal.” — Julian Shapiro (Julian Capital)

Approaches to valuations

How Rick Yang @ NEA approaches valuations

“I am a believer that fund size and the associated business model driven by that is a big factor in how to think about valuations and deal structures for new prospective company investments. We care more about ownership than valuation for new investments in some sense, although those two things are coupled very closely together. Especially when you normalize historical averages for liquidity and public market valuations, ownership matters a lot when we are considering a new investment. The other part of the ownership equation other than valuation is dollars invested. That becomes a discussion around portfolio construction and the risk/reward with a specific company and space. And of course competition for the round sometimes dictates ultimate valuation, and it's also often why we end up sitting out rounds even if we do really like the team and company. Not the simplest answer, but we like to be thoughtful about structuring initial investments since each NEA Partner isn’t making many new investments per year.” — Rick Yang (NEA)

How Hunter Walk @ Homebrew approaches valuations

“In our historically concentrated approach to seed stage investing, hitting our ownership target mattered more than valuation but valuation was an incredibly important guardrail in evaluating an opportunity, for it has great impact on the company and our portfolio management overall. We set a ‘max check size’ for our initial investments which was meant to get us, on average, 10-15% ownership and if held to, would overall guide us to an investment period that provided both time and company diversification for the fund. It also drove our reserves strategy. So in any negotiation, whether we wrote our ‘max check’ to get the target ownership was a factor of round size, company stage, and so forth. But we would rarely walk away from an opportunity based on valuation if it fits within that target ownership and check-size box. In situations where targeting the 10-15% ownership would have required a commitment larger than our ‘max check size’ we had to decide whether (a) the opportunity here was worth 1.5 or 2 slots - ie are we going to make one fewer investment out of the fund in order to do this one or (b) would we stick with our check size but take lower ownership as a result or (c) walk away. Of these three, (c) was the most common decision for a variety of reasons that were about being consistent in our strategy and product offering.” — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

How Nikhil @ Footwork approaches valuations

“Valuations do matter to us, to a degree. We have to believe that the valuation makes sense relative to the stage of the business and that the valuation sets the company up for future fundraising success (i.e. the valuation isn't so high that it won't be cleared at the next round). The other calculus that informs our thinking on valuation is how our check size and ownership can lead to a return-the-fund investment for us. What do we have to believe for this single investment to return the fund? Our first fund is $175M, so if we're investing $5M to own 20% of a company, assume that we'll be diluted down to 12% over time, the company has to get to $1.5B or more of exit value for that investment to return the fund. We use this framework and work backwards to the valuation (in the example's case, $25M post-money), check size ($5M), and ownership (20%), that we believe could achieve that goal.” My general principle is that valuation is right when it's mutually disagreeable; that is, both company and venture firm feel a bit uncomfortable about where it lands.” — Nikhil Basu Trivedi (Footwork)

Jonathan Hsu @ Tribe Capital approaches valuations

“At a high level, I think about valuation in terms of what-needs-to-happen-next round. For example, say you are at X revenue/scale and raising $Y (because you're burning $Z). Then, presumably, if you raise it, once you spend it, you will be at some new scale and will need to raise some new larger amount because of your presumably higher burn. We want to make sure that the following round is as low risk as possible and the current valuation is a part of that equation. More specifically, if you raise at a low valuation now and you exceed your expectations, it will make it much easier to raise the next round. If you raise at a high valuation now and exceed expectations, you may be at a disadvantage in fundraising because the prior round set a precedent that will be hard to match. In some sense, fundraising for startups is like a frog jumping between lily pads until they get big enough that capital sources become more continuous. We want to have a good feel for the size and distance of the next lily pad and your odds of hitting it. Current valuation is a big piece of determining that.” — Jonathan Hsu (Tribe Capital)

How Eric Bahn @ Hustle Fund approaches valuations

“We have a simple approach to how we think about valuations: At the post-money valuation that we can invest in a founder's company, do we think that this team can 100x? As a simple example: say we invest in Vedika's company at a $1M post-money valuation, do we think that this founder, in her given market, can get to a $100M exit outcome (IPO, acquisition, etc)? If the answer is YES, then we are excited to invest! And that is somewhat rare. This simple approach to portfolio math works for small, pre-seed funds like ours (sub $50M AUM for the given fund) because it means that even small checks we write have the chance to return the entire fund. I don't think it works with larger AUM funds, where there requires a lot more financial engineering to get to fund returning opportunities, and the expected multiple tends to be a lot lower the more you subsequently invest into your winners.” — Eric Bahn (Hustle Fund)

Why Terrence Rohan @ Otherwise Fund doesn’t focus on valuations

“My short answer: I do not focus on valuation. I focus on finding the right companies, and then consider allocation or valuation; given this, I will never pass on valuation (early stage). My longer answer: If you look at early-stage venture capital over the past few decades, the power law of returns (i.e., a handful of companies drive the majority of the returns) may be the data's defining pattern. Given this, my primary heuristic is to get into the right company. If you are in the right companies, even with subpar ownership and high valuations, you will have top returns. Once you secure a place on the cap table, I then try to optimize for allocation – but this is a secondary consideration, and will never gate an investment. This logic holds for early-stage companies, and price becomes more important the later stage you go.” — Terrence Rohan (Otherwise Fund)

How Linda Xie @ Scalar thinks about valuations

“Valuation matters far, far less than the decision of whether to invest or not. The spread between bargain and outrageous startup valuations can't be more than 5x, in a world where the best investments can return 1,000x.”

“We are typically less sensitive to valuations at these early stages. If we have a strong belief in the team and what they’re building, I feel it’s a missed opportunity to pass as long as the valuation is in a reasonable range since we're ultimately aiming for major hits in the long run. There’s only been a handful of pre-seed and seed stage deals I've wanted to do but passed solely due to valuation. A major consideration if the round is priced too high at pre-seed and seed is making sure it’s not too difficult for the founder to raise future rounds so I will mention this to the founder as a consideration and many have taken that into account.” — Linda Xie (Scalar Capital)

How Ryan Hoover @ Weekend Fund approaches valuations

“Weekend Fund started in 2017. Our first fund's median entry price was ~$7M post-money. Since then, market valuations have climbed. The equivalent companies are raising at 2-3x higher prices. As an investor, we have to ‘play the ball on the court’ (a phrase I believe I first heard from Sarah Tavel at Benchmark) and recognize that credible founders are looking for a fair or favorable deal, and have options. But that doesn't mean we don't care about the valuation. They matter. We focus on meeting founders early and investing at sub-$10M post-money valuations. Every company we back should have the opportunity to return our fund (or more) if they achieve a $1B+ exit. That said, we aren't overly dogmatic and will flex up to participate in promising opportunities. It’s more important that our overall portfolio aligns with our strategy and model. Occasionally founders will award the fund with advisor shares to get us to our ownership target (and effectively lower our entry price). This only works because we have a relatively small fund size to return and if founders value our partnership.” — Ryan Hoover (Weekend Fund)

Advice for fund managers on valuations

Have a clear point of view on valuations (and defend it)

“Now matter the approach, it is important for new managers to have a clear point of view on valuations, and be able to defend it. The safest philosophy (i.e. the most accepted by LPs) is to be valuation sensitive and have a concentrated portfolio.” — Terrence Rohan (Otherwise Fund)

Compare your level of conviction to the price the market is setting

“The ‘valuation question’ is one that comes up frequently in our discussions with the emerging managers we back via Screendoor (where we will invest up to 10% of a fund’s target raise and bring them into a community of investors ongoing for these types of questions). While situations can differ, my general rule is that the market determines the price, so you have to kind of decide whether your conviction in a company is equal to, greater, or less than price the market is telling you they are ‘worth.’” — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

Be disciplined to ensure you can hit a minimum portfolio size

“It’s a power law business so an EM wants to be able to show the quality of their access, picking, and winning. Having hard and fast ceilings on what you’re willing to pay, or trying to over focus on the upper bound of your ownership target too early in your venture lifecycle might make it tougher to prove selection success. So don’t routinely overpay or outbid, especially when you don’t believe in the company as much as the market does, but potential LPs will be more interested in the number of successful investments you picked than your entry price in them. Just maintain enough discipline to ensure you can hit a minimum portfolio size." — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

Don’t over-engineer your fund model (at least at the early stage)

“We have institutions, family offices, and high net worths as investors across our three funds. Rarely do we field questions that are onerous about our fund's mathematical model. Given that we raise relatively small fund sizes, and that pre-seed is more about an LP's belief in the talent of the GP – I wouldn't worry too much about over-engineering your portfolio model. You should have a model that you follow, and you need to explain it—but pre-seed is too early a category to model for absolute accuracy, in my opinion. Late-Stage funds however have a much higher expectation of portfolio math by LPs, and I think that is warranted.” — Eric Bahn (Hustle Fund)

Valuation negotiations can reveal a lot

“Besides the math of it all, valuation negotiations can tell you a lot about what matters to the founders, the type of relationship they want to have with their investors, and the goals they need to achieve to complete successful next financing.” — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

• If you want to reach a large audience and let Google do the work for you, use broad match keywords. However, be prepared to monitor your campaign performance and adjust your keywords and bids as needed to optimize your results.
• If you want to be more specific and target people who are looking for exactly what you offer, use phrase match or exact match keywords. However, be aware that you might miss out on some potential customers who use different words or phrases to search for your product or service.
• If you want to avoid wasting money on irrelevant or low-quality traffic, use negative match keywords. However, be careful not to exclude too many words or phrases that might be relevant to your business.

• One-on-one personalized consulting with me as your trusted mentor.
• Access to a community of like-minded marketers.
• Advanced SEO and digital marketing guides that can help you run a more successful business overall.

1. Theories (doesn't mean each theory) can be disproved into being no longer theories. Falsified by evidence, you mean, not disproved. Like Copernicus and others displacing geocentric cosmology, yes. The history of science supplies plenty of other examples. If a theory is considered a theory despite that theory being "inaccurate or 100% accurate", Theories do not cease to be theories at the first sign of trouble. We hang on until we have a replacement that we cannot falsify. Some hang on longer, like Einstein with quantum uncertainty. it's because that theory hasn't yet been confirmed as being such. Correct? No. This turns out not to be the case. Theories cannot be confirmed. Newton did not prove his supposed inverse-square gravitational force was real. He only proved that the equation for such a force predicted Kepler’s conic section orbits. Centuries later the hypothesis of such a force was falsified by both observation and Einstein’s curved spacetime model. Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR) are our two best theories in physics. Within the current limits of observation, both have stood up to every attempt to falsify them. Much of the time they get along together fine, as in the GPS. But we know that they are not compatible in the cores of black holes and at the beginning of the Big Bang. In both of those cases, GR by itself predicts an unphysical singularity (aka a point mass), and QM says no, nothing can be confined in a region smaller than its wavelength .Thus we are searching for a viable theory of Quantum Gravity, one we can test thoroughly., falsifying all alternatives. We have some interesting but currently untestable conjectures.
   
2. Yes, that is correct. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Theories are not guesses or hunches; they are based on evidence. A theory can be disproved if new evidence is found that contradicts it. For example, the theory of geocentrism, which held that the Earth was the center of the universe, was disproved by the discovery of other planets and stars. If a theory is not disproved, it is considered to be true until new evidence comes along that suggests otherwise. This is why theories are often referred to as "working hypotheses." They are not 100% accurate, but they are the best explanation we have for the natural world based on the evidence we have. Here are some examples of theories that have been disproved:
   
3. The theory of geocentrism
   
4. The theory of spontaneous generation
   
5. The theory of phlogiston Here are some examples of theories that are still considered to be true, even though they are not 100% accurate:
   
6. The theory of evolution
   
7. The theory of gravity
   
8. The theory of relativity Theories are an important part of science. They allow us to explain the natural world and make predictions about how it will behave. Theories are not perfect, but they are the best way we have to understand the world around us.
   

1. Theories (doesn't mean each theory) can be disproved into being no longer theories. Falsified by evidence, you mean, not disproved. Like Copernicus and others displacing geocentric cosmology, yes. The history of science supplies plenty of other examples. If a theory is considered a theory despite that theory being "inaccurate or 100% accurate", Theories do not cease to be theories at the first sign of trouble. We hang on until we have a replacement that we cannot falsify. Some hang on longer, like Einstein with quantum uncertainty. it's because that theory hasn't yet been confirmed as being such. Correct? No. This turns out not to be the case. Theories cannot be confirmed. Newton did not prove his supposed inverse-square gravitational force was real. He only proved that the equation for such a force predicted Kepler’s conic section orbits. Centuries later the hypothesis of such a force was falsified by both observation and Einstein’s curved spacetime model. Quantum Mechanics (QM) and General Relativity (GR) are our two best theories in physics. Within the current limits of observation, both have stood up to every attempt to falsify them. Much of the time they get along together fine, as in the GPS. But we know that they are not compatible in the cores of black holes and at the beginning of the Big Bang. In both of those cases, GR by itself predicts an unphysical singularity (aka a point mass), and QM says no, nothing can be confined in a region smaller than its wavelength .Thus we are searching for a viable theory of Quantum Gravity, one we can test thoroughly., falsifying all alternatives. We have some interesting but currently untestable conjectures.
   
2. Yes, that is correct. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Theories are not guesses or hunches; they are based on evidence. A theory can be disproved if new evidence is found that contradicts it. For example, the theory of geocentrism, which held that the Earth was the center of the universe, was disproved by the discovery of other planets and stars. If a theory is not disproved, it is considered to be true until new evidence comes along that suggests otherwise. This is why theories are often referred to as "working hypotheses." They are not 100% accurate, but they are the best explanation we have for the natural world based on the evidence we have. Here are some examples of theories that have been disproved:
   
3. The theory of geocentrism
   
4. The theory of spontaneous generation
   
5. The theory of phlogiston Here are some examples of theories that are still considered to be true, even though they are not 100% accurate:
   
6. The theory of evolution
   
7. The theory of gravity
   
8. The theory of relativity Theories are an important part of science. They allow us to explain the natural world and make predictions about how it will behave. Theories are not perfect, but they are the best way we have to understand the world around us.
   

• Codecademy: Offers interactive, hands-on courses for beginners, covering a wide range of programming languages, including Python, JavaScript, and Java.
  
• FreeCodeCamp: Provides a comprehensive curriculum for web development, along with tutorials and challenges to sharpen your coding skills.
  
• Coursera and edX: Offer online courses from top universities and organizations, providing structured learning paths for programming beginners.
  
• GitHub: An invaluable resource for programmers, offering access to countless open-source projects and a platform to collaborate with other developers.
  

echo "This is a test email" mail -s "sailsheets test email" -a "From: [email protected]" [email protected] 

Jun 8 10:51:58 sailsheets-dev postfix/pickup[262287]: DD79C12402CA: uid=1000 [email protected] Jun 8 10:51:58 sailsheets-dev postfix/cleanup[263202]: DD79C12402CA: [email protected] Jun 8 10:51:59 sailsheets-dev postfix/qmgr[121879]: DD79C12402CA: [email protected], size=375, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jun 8 10:52:00 sailsheets-dev postfix/smtp[263209]: DD79C12402CA: [email protected], relay=in.mailjet.com[104.199.96.85]:25, delay=1.7, delays=0.34/0.13/1.1/0.15, dsn=5.7.1, status=bounced (host in.mailjet.com[104.199.96.85] said: 554 5.7.1 [email protected]: Relay access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)) Jun 8 10:52:00 sailsheets-dev postfix/cleanup[263202]: 7E4DB12402CB: [email protected] Jun 8 10:52:00 sailsheets-dev postfix/bounce[263210]: DD79C12402CA: sender non-delivery notification: 7E4DB12402CB Jun 8 10:52:00 sailsheets-dev postfix/qmgr[121879]: 7E4DB12402CB: from=<>, size=2449, nrcpt=1 (queue active) Jun 8 10:52:01 sailsheets-dev postfix/smtp[263209]: 7E4DB12402CB: [email protected], relay=in.mailjet.com[104.199.96.85]:25, delay=1.2, delays=0.04/0/1.1/0.15, dsn=5.7.1, status=bounced (host in.mailjet.com[104.199.96.85] said: 554 5.7.1 sail[email protected]: Relay access denied (in reply to RCPT TO command)) 

smtpd_banner = $myhostname ESMTP $mail_name (Ubuntu) biff = no append_dot_mydomain = no readme_directory = no compatibility_level = 2 smtp_use_tls = yes smtp_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtp_sasl_password_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/sasl_passwd smtp_sasl_security_options = noanonymous smtp_tls_CAfile = /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt smtpd_tls_cert_file=/etc/ssl/certs/ssl-cert-snakeoil.pem smtpd_tls_key_file=/etc/ssl/private/ssl-cert-snakeoil.key smtpd_tls_security_level=may header_size_limit = 4096000 smtp_tls_CApath=/etc/ssl/certs smtp_tls_security_level=may smtp_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtp_scache smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks permit_sasl_authenticated defer_unauth_destination myhostname = navypaxsail.com alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases mydestination = relayhost = in-v3.mailjet.com mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [::ffff:127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128 mailbox_size_limit = 0 recipient_delimiter = + inet_interfaces = all inet_protocols = all myorigin = /etc/mailname masquerade_domains = navypaxsail.com mydomain = navypaxsail.com 

Description: Linux Lite 5.6
Release: 20.04
Kernel 5.4.0-148-generic #165-Ubuntu SMP Tue Apr 18 08:53:12 UTC 2023 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

What is Progenifix and How Does It Work?

Unlocking the Secrets of Progenifix's Fat Loss Support

Features and Benefits of Progenifix Dietary Supplement

How to Use Progenifix Supplement

Pros of Progenifix

• The ingredients in Progenifix are non-habit forming, ensuring you can use the supplement without developing dependencies.
• Progenifix is manufactured in an FDA-approved and GMP-certified facility in the USA, guaranteeing quality and safety.
• The supplement is free from stimulants and chemicals, offering a natural and healthy weight loss solution.
• Progenifix is GMO-free and 100% vegetarian, making it suitable for individuals with dietary restrictions or preferences.
• It has been scientifically researched and has undergone clinical trials, providing evidence of its effectiveness.
• Your purchase of Progenifix is a one-time investment with no hidden charges or subscription obligations.
• The capsules are easy to swallow, making the supplement convenient for your daily routine.
• Progenifix is made using hand-picked, all-natural, plant-based ingredients, ensuring purity and potency.
• The formula is suitable for men and women of all ages, making it accessible to a wide range of individuals.
• Each bottle of Progenifix comes with a 60-day money-back guarantee, giving you peace of mind.

Cons of Progenifix

• Progenifix can only be purchased online through the official website, limiting availability to online shoppers.
• As with any supplement, individual results may vary depending on specific health conditions and lifestyle factors.