"An analysis of the likely number of deaths over 10,000 years due to inadvertent intrusion should be conducted. This cost should be weighted against that of the marker system."

A practical consideration. If you spend human life time on efforts to prevent loss of human life, you risk a net loss if you don't trade the cost against the benefit.

Or just leave it unmarked and hope the pile of remains outside the entryway gives the next adventurer a hint.

And then just accept human nature and let the pile slowly grow.

You forgot Yelp. :-)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned security yet. This seems like a great strategy for building software systems with plentiful security issues.

Security is definitely a topic we're super concerned about. There's an interesting tradeoff with using re-usable components - that is, if there's a security vulnerability in one component, then all apps using it are affected (for example the notable npm incident https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/07/12/npm_eslint/)! The flip side is that one can easily detect and patch all applications affected by that vulnerability. I'd love to have a chat with anyone who has some thoughts on how to deal with this problem more effectively (email is in my description).

- Disclaimer, I'm a VP E at Engineer.ai

I've never heard of that. Typically, the acquired firm hires an investment bank to handle the sale. The VC is already highly incentived to do what they can to help due to their equity holding, for example using their network to make intros to possible acquirers.

I guess it depends, as the incentive structure differs. The VC is likely trying to squeeze some extra fees out for a different role he's fulfilling.

If I own 20% of a business worth $50m as a VC, and I run a $10m fund, then I will make 20% carry on the $10m exit. That's $2m in my personal pocket, pre-tax.

If I can facilitate a deal through a highly personal contact (i.e. close friend) where the company is sold to BigCo for $50m, and I can also charge 2% of the acquisition value to all investors (i.e. in line with what an investment bank or broker charges) then I pocket another $1m. So now I made $3m.

There is nothing inherently unethical about wearing two caps if you actually put a deal together -- whether that is raising capital (equity or debt) or facilitating something. Though in this case there MIGHT be a conflict of interest. But taking small percentage commissions is very common in business on certain transactions.

I disagree.

If an investor is already invested in my company, then the expectation is that they are already trying to help me fundraise from future investors and helping me to realize exit with potential acquirers. So I shouldn't have to pay extra.

Obviously there is likely more to this story, but on the average this feels perverted.

If this is the rising star in your investment portfolio, you're totally right.

But if it's a sinking ship then the personal relationship might be worth more to the fund manager than trying to save it by making a small acquisition.

Honestly, like you said it all depends on the context and we're not hearing the full story.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see this more in Europe, where most of the VC funds invest government money (money from the EIB, local government funds, etc)

Details of the transaction were not given. But investors benefit in proportion to their equity holdings, but their efforts may not be in proportion to their equity holding. Is this a small equity holder who is putting in an outsized effort to bring this exit while other investors are free riding?

Try TOML. It's like a better YAML, and seems to be getting some good adoption.