Venture Geek

A friend of mine was relating the job description of a friend of his. I won’t name names to protect the job of the friend-of-a-friend, but it involved a certain large technology company hiring contractors to post offensive messages on the forums of a certain other large technology company. Ostensibly, the purpose is to time how long it takes the company to take down these offending messages, but it sparked a discussion over lunch about whether it’s ethical and/or legal to consciously post offensive material on a competitor’s forums. I was appalled that this could actually be happening, even if it’s for the stated purpose of gathering competitive intelligence about the response times of the other company. Would make for a perfect case study in a Business Ethics class — mostly exploring whether the worker asked to do these things should be outing her bosses bosses and where competitive “intelligence” crosses the line (not to mention my personal doubts that just gathering intelligence is what this is really about, since it clearly diminishes the value of the competitors forums to have offensive messages showing up).

Nearly two years ago I wrote about the age of the “big-boned” client (which today is apparently called a “fit client”). The basic premise of what I wrote then was to combine the ease of deploying web-based apps with the convenience of a stand-alone app on the desktop — something like what PandoraMan or Pyro let you do, but abstracted. What I wrote then was:

What I’d love to have is an application that lets me spawn these custom applications — a “meta application” if you will. It would basically let me configure a few things about what kinds of information needs to be stored for authentication, let’s me tweak the UI and choose various menu/toolbar options, and then creates a stand-alone application that would be specialized to a specific web-based application.

I then suggested someone with basic OS X skills could easily pull this off using WebKit. Well, today, I finally found just exactly that at Fluid. From their site:

Fluid itself is a very small application. When launched, Fluid displays a little tiny window where you specify the URL of a WebApp you’d like to run in a Site Specific Browser. Provide an application name, specify a Location and an Icon, click ‘Create’ and you’ll be prompted to launch the new native Mac app you’ve just created.

Use Fluid to run YouTube, GTalk, Flickr, Basecamp, Delicious, .Mac webmail, or any other WebApp as a separate Mac desktop application.

Seems I should have been paying attention in the last couple years because Fluid is based on Prism, a similar concept using Mozilla code instead of WebKit.

As I write this, I haven’t actually tried it, though ;)

And this is supposed to make me WANT to use your application?

This email was sent by Social Profile. You can disable emails here.
—
In total, you were reviewed for dating 7 times and no people expressed interest in you.
You are more desirable than less than 20% of 23,333,163 people.

Last week you were viewed 1 time and no people expressed interested in you

Check your Social Profile

(sent via email from the “Social Profile” app on Facebook)

A quick shout out to Chris B and Adam G, friends of Venture Geek and founders of the Afghan Music Project, for their recent coverage about where some of the money they raised is going. If you like things like human rights, Democracy, and/or interesting music, consider buying the album.

As an MBA interested in entrepreneurship who used to build web applications for a living I am often asked by non-technical folks how they can find good engineers to start a company with. It’s a tough problem, especially these days.

Sean Corfield links to a nice summary of how to recognize good programmers when you aren’t one. The article isn’t a magic bullet, but it does a nice job talking about the culture of software development that one should look for when hiring.

Starting a software-driven business as a non-engineer is an uphill climb in most cases — if you aren’t someone making substantial contribution to product development in the early days of a company chances are you are overhead, even as a founder. Great engineers tend to want to work with other great engineers, so seeding your technology team with greatness if you don’t have it yourself is doubly rough.

I have spent the last 5 months back in Product Management Land, and as I prepare to leave to go back to a more marketing-centric role (more on that later) I am reflecting on the nature of my job here. Broadly speaking, there are two primary metaphors I have seen used in describing what product managers do. The first is a translation layer between business and engineering — in this linear process model a product manager is a step along the way of business needs becoming reality through the filter of articulating business requirements into engineering-digestible units. The other is product manager as a hub — a coordinating destination at the center of various constituencies each with their own needs/agendas/perspectives. When I was looking for this job I also was reminded how differently different organizations think about product management vs. product marketing — especially in Silicon Valley, those two roles straddle a line (artificial or otherwise) between production of what one sells from the act of selling (and the organizational support that goes into that selling). The term “product” itself is something that can be thought of very broadly or narrowly depending on the company, industry, and culture — some times it is though to include the total experience of what customers buy (and/or what end-users use) and sometimes it is construed more specifically to be the actual artifact that is exchanged independent of the packaging, services, etc. that are more often than not wrapped around the total offering.

I was recently talking with a junior member of our team, someone new to the role of product management, and (more or less out of my ass) I told him the role comes down to 5 basic elements (it’s worth noting explicitly that all of my direct experience [and the bulk of my indirect exposure] is inside software-driven technology companies of one sort or another, and while I think the overarching themes will apply outside that context that’s what this is about):

• Gather: A huge part of what product management, in my experience, is all about is simply knowing what’s going on — what people do all day as it relates to the product, what kinds of things they wish would change, and how the various constituencies interact. While most product managers have plenty of good ideas on what should be done to improve the product, gathering ideas and identifying problems from the rest of the organization is as important, if not much more important in some cases.
• Synthesize: As various ideas and issues are identified a product manager must create connections where others do not see them. Two groups in an organization may be having two very different problems, but a product manager can often find a way to make a single, better abstracted, view of the underlying concern. Synthesizing also involves created named themes/initiatives/goals for a product — a task that should never be underestimated in its power to create common understanding and bring sanity to the chaos of all the various “line item” requests — this is also instrumental in creating buy-in from others by packaging granular, disparate tasks into meaningful categories.
• Prioritize: Choosing what is most important is an art unto itself in Product Management Land. A deep understanding of the business strategy, market realities, and resource capabilities and constraints is key here, as something is important not simply because someone up the chain says it is (though, of course, that can often trump everything else), but knowing what’s hard vs. what’s easy, what’s of broad vs. narrow value helps to create a rank-order list of the various tasks to be done. Of course, trade-offs are the key here. Given infinite time and infinite resources everything would be possible, but (sadly) that is not something we ever get to come even close to, so making the hard choices (or, perhaps more importantly, being the necessary input to help the rest of the organization make hard choices) becomes one of the central functions of a good product manager.
• Define: Ah, define — where the (tedious) rubber meets the (not as proverbial as one might like) road. It likely goes without saying that a product manager must ultimately own the detailed definition of what the product should do, so engineering knows what they will build. Of course, this involves plenty of documentation, though not as much as some might think in many cases. My general attitude is to document only as much as is needed, rather than creating detail for details sake. Especially in web-delivered software, the need to be quick and iterate frequently puts a premium on moving forward with imperfect information and adjusting a bit as you go. Anyone who has been an engineer or works closely with engineers knows the joys of changing the spec in mid-flight (and/or the dreaded feature-creep), but part of the reason we have seen the rise of Agile methods is that rather than constantly reacting to the often-broken nature of attempting to get to a “finished” spec of a project (only to see that spec change in the middle of the cycle) engineers started to simply build the dynamic nature of requirements into the system. The point being that “Define” does not always mean writing down as much as being the Source of Truth.
• Shepherd: When I originally wrote this word on a white board while making up this list on-the-fly, it was tongue in cheek, but the more I have thought about it, the more I think Shepherd really captures the role of the product manager in making sure everything is moving along smoothly. If I were more PowerPoint inclined, I could see making this list a “cycle”, where shepherding leads directly back into Gathering. A big part of my day as a product manager involves, quite literally, walking around the building. Keeping all of the balls in the air, so to speak, is a critical part of product management because in most organizations there is nobody else who sees all of the various pieces and how they must fit together. Many product efforts require synchronizing distributed efforts towards a single destination (and doing that over and over again), and in my world having the engineering “done” is only about 2/3 of the way through cycle — once the actual “product” is at a finished state there remains various packaging, documenting, training, distributing, etc. etc. etc.

When I first put these 5 elements on a white board I drew alongside the word “CONTEXT” — ultimately, all of these activities must happen with a full appreciation for the business — the goals, strategies, capabilities, culture, and (never to be underestimated) people.

A new colleague of mine recently told me a story that I had to capture here because it so perfectly illustrates the nature of business decisions relative to technology.

Several years back he was pitching a big consulting project to a major telco. The telco had put out an RFP to various development shops asking for help solving a major pain point — they had a number of different systems for billing, provisioning, customer service, etc. Their customer reps would have to physically go to different terminals to deal with different aspects of the support process, causing a lot of inconvenience and wasted time.

Of course, all of the proposals that came back talked about various ways to integrate the systems using the then state-of-the-art enterprise software techniques, and, of course, all of those proposals were quite hefty in terms of time and cost. My friend submitted his response to the RFP and waited to hear back for a couple weeks.

Finally, the call came - he did not land the project, but not because some other shop had beat him out. No, you see the telco told him that they had bought all of the customer reps chairs with wheels on them, making it much easier for them to move among the various terminals, so they no longer considered it a burning problem.

I have no idea if this is really a true story (though, the guy who told me about it swears it is), and I’m sure eventually this company took some major steps to integrate the systems more formally. But, for me this parable has quickly become a very useful short-hand for helping to put all technology decisions into perspective. When tackling hard problems, always look to see if you can find a “Chairs With Wheels” solution before (or, in may cases, while) investing in technology solutions.

“Creativity is what happens when you take a zero off the budget.”

– James Hong quoting someone he can’t remember.

A few months ago I wrote a post pondering whether Adobe Apollo’s use of WebKit would cause greater support for Safari in various web properties. Today Apple tried to create some noise by announcing Safari for Windows, and most people seemed to receive this news with a big yawn. I think this announcement actually is big news, so at the risk of writing about a topic that has been covered ad nauseam at many other venues, here’s a few thoughts…

Of course, Apple is in a position to achieve remarkably good market share very quickly given the installed base of iTunes — everyone with an even modestly current version of iTunes also has the Apple Software Update tool that will automatically end up installing Safari on their machine whether they ask for it or not (even if Apple provides an opt-out, most won’t bother with that). In a year’s time, Apple could easily have more installed base of Safari on Windows than Firefox does (which is different than people using Safari on Windows, but I’ll get to that).

There’s also the obvious fact that has been pointed out by many others — Safari was also announced as the primary “application” platform for 3rd parties to deliver their wares for the iPhone, so Apple is clearly trying to create an opportunity for developers to “write once” and deploy across a wide range of platforms. Steve Jobs is openly telling developers that (at least on the iPhone) Safari is much more than just a web browser.

Thus, here’s the potentially big deal — if Safari is bundled with iTunes, it would be a short leap to simply build WebKit capability into iTunes, making iTunes not just a media player and the client for the Apple store but a full-blown cross-platform application delivery environment. That puts Apple into the game along with Adobe and Microsoft (not to mention Google and plenty of startups) to be the environment of choice for developers to invest their energies.

Such thinking would seem at odds with the closed model of iPod/iTunes and the generally tepid attitude Apple has about 3rd party development. Case in point — many feel that saying Safari allows for 3rd party development on the iPhone is basically a big F-You from Apple (or at least a lackluster attempt at openness).

At D5, Steve Jobs said (while on stage with Bill Gates), “And so the big secret about Apple, of course�not-so-big secret maybe�is that Apple views itself as a software company…and there�s not a lot of us left and Microsoft�s one of them.” This move clearly fits into that worldview, and moving a browser next to (in to?) iTunes is a necessary step to having a realistic chance to being a software platform that can be taken seriously beyond the point-application of media delivery. Releasing Safari on Windows is not being done casually — this is the next step in Apple’s rebirth, and in retrospect may be seen as a major turning point in the Apple positioning as a software giant rather than a closed-system device manufacturer.

Tonight I had a spooky experience — a 419 scam was attempted via AOL Instant Messenger. Someone using the screen name “taylornelly2″ claiming to have found me through MyBlogLog started out with small talk but quickly moved into the whole story about being from Africa and having lots of money that they need a foreigner to help them retrieve. I have seen hundreds (thousands?) of these emails in my life (thanks to Thunderbird and Gmail I finally have my spam under control), but to have it happening in real time with another person on the other end was a bit chilling.

I ended the conversation by simply pasting in this link:

http://www.fbi.gov/majcases/fraud/fraudschemes.htm#nigerian

A few minutes later they typed, “but i’m not nigerian i’m liberian and i don’t know what that means. i really need your help please find a place in your heart to help me please”

That was the point where I blocked the account from sending me messages and moved on with my life.

I was trying to explain this comic from xkcd to my wife, but I couldn’t explain what it means or why I thought it was amusing.

I think if you both understand this comic and find it at least mildly amusing you are clearly a geek (whether the inverse is true is an exercise I’ll leave to the reader)…

Remember Sniglets? Well, I do. My friends Tom and Bob have published a fun little book called Blastphemy, and I can’t help give it a shameless plug. Although they would not describe it this way, I think of it as Sniglets for golfers (words that should exist, but don’t). This book makes a great gift for the golfer in your life.

Over the last several years I have interacted with lots of startups in one way or another. Since I started doing Pitch Labs I have worked with a couple dozen companies specifically on how they present their young business to investors. There are several common themes that I plan to write about here, but one that came up yet again at a Pitch Lab yesterday is about framing.

Entrepreneurs in very early-stage companies are, more often than not, very product-focused. And that makes sense because they tend to spend most of their days building their product. But, when it comes to getting investment (or running a company for that matter) it’s important to be market-focused. Another way to say that is people won’t invest in a product, they will invest in a business. The product is a means to an end, and that end is generating profit (or at least getting to sustainability and positive cash flows). It’s so easy for entrepreneurs, especially first-time entrepreneurs (and especially first-time entrepreneurs who come more from engineering or other product-centric backgrounds) to lose sight of things like cost of customer acquisition and revenue per customer and instead focus on features, features, features.

Don’t get me wrong — as someone who used to build web applications for a living I can very much appreciate that features matter, and that the product is still a key ingredient to most businesses. But I find myself having to give the advice that the product is a means to an end often enough that it seemed a natural blog topic.

Yesterday the entrepreneurs who did the Pitch Lab came in wanting to know how they could cut down the amount of time of their pitch — turns out they were spending nearly 30 minutes going through painstaking detail of the various features they had put their blood, sweat, and tears into building. I suggested that they should go through the exercise of putting together a presentation that never mentioned the features of their product, focusing solely on the business drivers — to over-compensate for their product-centrism by eliminating it from from the pitch, then going back after and adding it back in. That would probably be a good exercise for any new company — step away from your product and think about your company from a pure business perspective to force yourself into that mindset. A few questions to help think about this:

• How do I acquire customers/users AND how much does that cost?
• What conversion rate will I have from initial interaction to a full-blown customer/user (or what kind of click-through rate/transaction rate, depending on your business)?
• What average revenue per customer can I expect to see over some reasonable time period?
• What churn rates will I see of customers leaving?

For each of those questions you will make assumptions — and everyone knows they are that, but the thought exercise of coming up with assumptions and being able to back them up is very valuable. It’s also very useful for each of these (and similar) questions to be able to answer: “Why am I better at this than the next company?”

The >play conference at UC Berkeley is November 18th. >play is a conferenced dedicated to digital media. Last year’s inaugural conference was a huge success due to the heroic efforts of several members of the UC Berkeley Digital Media & Entertainment Club, and from what I am hearing this year’s conference will be even better.

Last year at >play I had the honor of conducting the keynote interview of Shantanu Narayen in front for a packed auditorium, and this year I’ll be moderating the “Where is Web 2.0 in the Enterprise?” panel

with Stephen Farrell, John Furrier, Jack Jia, and Ross Mayfield. Should be interesting talking about enterprise technologies in the middle of a conference that is mostly about much more entertaining subjects.

If anyone has suggestions for topics they would want to see covered in a panel about new web technologies in the enterprise, drop me a line, or leave a comment on this post.

The STIRR Pitch Lab is now open for business — this is a program I am creating with the good folks at STIRR based on a similar program I set up at UC Berkeley last year as part of the New Venture Fellows program. The STIRR Pitch Lab is an opportunity for entrepreneurs who are about to start fundraising (or who are in the midst of fundraising) to get practice and frank, no-risk feedback about their investor pitch. The service costs nothing — STIRR is providing it as a service to the community. You can apply for the Pitch Lab online (you’ll first need to sign up as a STIRR member).

Fred Wilson posted a back-of-the-[digital]-envelope estimate of YouTube’s potential to monetize their traffic yesterday. I think his estimates of the percent of content that is “high quality” and thus monetizable is pretty high, but that’s not the point of this post.

I was struck by this line:

I realize that there are many people (including possibly YouTube management) who think introducing a 10 second pre-roll will negatively impact the viewing activity. It could certainly cause the audience to move elswhere in search of ad free video content. It could also reduce the amount of views.

As everyone wonders just how and when the various video sharing sites will start to be real businesses this line really brings into focus one of the major issues of any online endeavor — switching costs that approach zero very quickly. If it’s true that even a 10-second ad could send users searching elsewhere for their video content (and I suspect it would have a more dramatic impact than Fred does) then it seems all of these sites are playing a game of chicken — each seeing how far they are willing to go before pulling the trigger on advertising, in the hopes the other guy loses his nerve first. OK, so that’s a stretch as a metaphor, but it makes for an amusing title to this post. The point is that if it’s true that people (”that’s we — as in you and me) will seek out ad-free content over ad-full content (assuming relatively even quality and selection) then it’s going to be tough in this ramp-up phase of video sharing for anyone to go whole-hog into the advertising game. Of course, the even quality/even selection is a big assumption — there are definite advantages to going where everyone else is in terms of critical mass of content/viewers, but how long before meta-networks of video sharing make that a non-issue?

I think about broadcast media, where the percent of advertising content that can be tolerated is a well-known science (or, at least, I bet it felt well known prior to the YouTubes of the world changing the entire media landscape). In the peer publishing world those percentages are not yet known — we are still in very early days of figuring out how all of this content is going to make people a lot of money. Perhaps more interestingly, how it will make a whole lot of people just enough to make it worth their while rather than just a few big companies getting most of the revenue. In Fred’s post he digs into numbers on revenue sharing with someone like Lisa Nova and YouTube — in his scenario, she doesn’t exactly get rich, but she’s making a lot more than YouTube is from her own content. And that’s how it should be, but it really demonstrates how power is shifting in medialand. Can Lisa Nova graduate from YouTube and not even rely on them for the revenue share? If people end up with decent tools to aggregate the content they are interested in (uber-TiVo for the web), the power of the “channel” (formerly NBC/CBS/etc., now YouTube, etc.) diminishes even further. Although today measurement makes such a scenario difficult, how long before someone like Lisa Nova can just sell her own ads through the various ad networks (the AdSense model for video that many are working on) and has enough brand recognition such that YouTube can’t wait for her to upload more? In that scenario YouTube becomes just a proving ground for talent to rise to the top, and those that do can build their own little empires (and they only need economics attractive enough to be better than a day job), as Lisa Nova is on her way to doing. Which is not to say that YouTube won’t still have millions of videos being watched, which should still make it possible for them to be a “very big business”.

As someone who used to build web applications for a living, I’m still curious to know what technologies people are using under the covers. I also end up being asked for my opinion on the topic of which technology is best to use in launching a new Internet site. There was a time when I would get into the details of the various features and performance characteristics of a given platform, but over the years I’ve realized it’s really not a technology question, it’s a people question.

The issue is who is going to build it, and who are you going to want to hire to continue to build it. Anyone who has been around software engineers (or any engineers, I suspect, but software is what I know) knows that a truly great engineer is worth many mediocre engineers, so it’s critical that if you are starting a technology-intensive business you will be able to attract high caliber people. If it’s not a technology-intensive business then you might focus more on the cost side. For instance, I know that Adobe ColdFusion (formerly Macromedia ColdFusion, formerly Allaire ColdFusion) is an extremely productive platform for building web applications — in terms of getting something done quickly it’s hard to beat. But, good luck finding great engineers who want to work with ColdFusion — deserved or not, ColdFusion has a reputation in the industry for not being a “real” programming environment (as an aside, there’s a whole other discussion to be had here about the perverse nature of the inverse relationship the ease-of-use and productivity of a programming environment and the credibility it receives in broad engineering communities — a comment that could draw out some flames), and the vast majority of great software developers wouldn’t want to be forced to work with it for fear of their skills atrophying. Again: this is not a statement about how “good” ColdFusion is as a technology (I happen to think it’s great), but rather it is a statement about the realities of putting together a team.

That is a nuance lost on a lot of entrepreneurs and managers who haven’t done hands-on coding before — the tools you choose define the nature of the team you will build moving forward, and in most cases it’s extremely difficult to switch gears. To be fair, this nuance is also usually lost on engineers, who can easily burn a lot of cycles debating the merits of Ruby on Rails vs. PHP vs. Java vs. ASP.NET vs. ColdFusion vs….. In the end, all of the tools listed here (and others) are mature enough now that they can basically all accomplish most tasks in creating a web-based application. Some might take longer, some might not scale as readily, some might not integrate with other technologies as easily, but from the standpoint of “can it be built in a reasonable amount of time and be production-ready at a reasonable rate of scalability” the answer is “yes” in all cases.

I just spent 20 minutes playing with the Google Image Labeler — it’s set up as a “game” where you and an anonymous partner attempt to find matched ways of describing a series of images over a 90 second period. You score points when you find a match (at which point you move on to the next iamge). I was recently trying convince someone that people won’t do “work” as a “game” no matter what you call it, but I suppose at some level I proved myself wrong by sitting in front of this thing for 20 minutes. I don’t see going back to it, though, but I suppose if they can get enough people to spend 20 minutes it doesn’t really matter if any of us ever come back.

I do have to question the results, though — I found that the match was almost always on the most generic of words I typed in. Even when I happened to know something specific about an image the match ended up being something like “women” for some random picture that happened to be of two women or “clock” for a picture of some people that happened to have a clock in the background. It’s better than nothing, I suspect, and given enough data over time Google will still have tagged millions of images where they used to have no realy information about them.

But, back to the issue of gaming as work — in the last 18 months I have run across an increasing number of references to using the techniques of gaming in work settings. Everything from using the World of Warcraft model to send people on quests for working (at least one person, if he read this, would think I was giving away his secret sauce, but I had heard this concept elsewhere first — which is always a sure sign you’re seeing an emerging “thing” in the hype cycle). Certainly it makes a lot of sense to learn from the things that cause people to spend many hours in front of a game in order to make productivity software more useful/productive/fun, and like all things that hit the hype cycle it will over-promise and under-deliver, then start to show some real value over the medium-term after the wave of attention and investment has calmed down.

I moved to the Bay Area 9 years ago and never looked back. I knew this was the place I belong. And that despite the incredible cost of housing (having come from the Midwest, it was truly staggering — now I’m numb to it). Today I was reading a thread on the BACFUG email list (a group I ran from 1998-2002) prompted by someone from outside the area asking about relocating here. It prompted a flurry of folks sharing stories about how the increased cost of living is well worth it. My friend Nancy Tubbs summarized it so nicely I couldn’t help but post what she had to say:

While deep down people are people, at least on the outside people _are_
nicer here (even I’m nicer here). It helps not to be jammed into each other
on the subway/bus every day. Many are fulfilling a dream by being here so
are in a good mood overall. It’s easy to get a breather by getting into the
nearby open space preserves or the beach. People are healthier, fruits and
vegetables are fresher. Work can be stressful, with long hours and
unpredictable plans, but in general it’s more challenging and interesting as
we are building new products, vs maintaining mature ones. There are daily
opportunities to hear about new technologies and ideas, and the area is full
of creative, brilliant people who are curious and open to new things. Some
of the world’s best minds are here, and they have no interest in office
politics or posturing (although they might be a little nuts in other
interesting ways).

I have you have ever been through the software development process, particularly around using consultants in large companies, this will amuse you (click for the larger view)…

(Hat tip to Rodrigo Munera who pointed to this on the BACFUG email list)

I have formed a strong dislike for vacation email messages over the years — mostly because of the kinds of email I do outside the “normal” inbox fare like listserv admin and the huge volume of email generated by Nicenet. And, given the number of people who read this blog with any regularity (and to be clear, I’m not even totally sure that class of people exists) I don’t know that anyone will care that I’m going to be gone for a week and thus not blogging much. Off to Wisconsin to see family. Can’t help but give props to my Dad for his quote in the local paper about love vs. money as motivators.

I always say the best blogging is about first-hand experience, but I’m not sure a week in Wisconsin will yield much of interest for this forum….

In 1995 I first signed up for United’s miles program. At the time in their “Title” field on the registration form they listed literally dozens of different titles, which for reasons that now escape me I found rather amusing (I just checked, and they no longer have the long list). So, being a bit of a smart-ass I chose the title “Swami”. To this day, when I get things from United in the mail they are addressed to Swami Nathan Dintenfass. I chuckle every time.

I’ll add yet another voice to the blog world linking to Don’t Cross the Debt Bitch.

For all the various banter about the Attention Economy, this was one of the first pieces I’ve seen that really digs into some fundamental insights about the human brain and connects those with the ethos of openness as “good” for more than just political reasons:

http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/goldhaber/.