As a lawyer, I would have to say that you should do it by the book and dissolve the entity. I have, however, had a variety of clients over the years who left a Delaware corporation to die without dissolving it and they have not had trailing personal liabilities as a result of the accrued corporate franchise taxes (of course, it is a different matter if the corporation earned a net profit and has an obligation to file income taxes - in that case, failure to file can cause serious problems for the corporation and for its management).

The $89K tax bill is typical of any Delaware corporation that has large numbers of authorized shares, even with a low par value. This often proves a shock to unsuspecting founders who file a do-it-yourself entity without understanding the issues. However, in almost all cases involving an early stage startup, you can deal with this easily by using the alternative valuation method tied to value of assets in the company. Use of the alternative method usually reduces the franchise tax to a very low level. It is easy to find out how to use the alternative method (forms and instructions are available online through the Delaware Secretary of State).

It seems that you needed to set up the entity in order to try to manage the issues with your co-founder and so the choice to set up a corporation was not really a mistake. The choice to set it up in Delaware for a simple situation can be a mistake, in my judgment, but I am probably in the minority among startup lawyers on this issue in believing that a home-state incorporation in the interests of keeping things simple can be and often is the best choice for founders (see http://grellas.com/faq_business_startup_002.html). It is no disgrace for a Silicon Valley startup to incorporate in California, even for a public company (no less than Apple itself is a California corporation). Had you done a home-state incorporation, you would have avoided the hassles with the $89K tax bill, as most states besides Delaware states have a fixed, low amount that you pay every year as a minimum franchise tax (in California, $800).

Incorporation is definitely not for everyone. When and if to incorporate can be tricky questions. I also have outlined a few of the factors to guide that decision as well (http://grellas.com/faq_business_startup_007.html).

There are a good number of early-stage startups that really can't easily afford professional fees and so the answer is not to use a lawyer in all cases to incorporate. But, even if you can't afford a lawyer, it is always worth consulting with one for strategic advice on incorporating before you do so. Such a first consultation is dirt cheap in most cases, and sometimes free. The modest amount paid is well worth it just to be alerted to the main issues and pitfalls involved in setting up an entity. Thus, while it was probably not a mistake in itself to set up your corporation, it likely was a big mistake to do so without some guidance of this type (I had made this comment in connection with your original piece as well - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1924719).

Sorry to hear about the business failure. I know the HN community often stresses what a valuable learning experience this can be but there is no denying that it is a very painful affair by any measure.

Especially as a new grad, it's not really your place to lecture someone about how Unix embodies the essence of good software engineering when they have probably been doing this a lot longer than you and have their own ideas about what good software design is.

You could have given the same feedback in a way that is much less likely to come off badly by simply saying "I've really a UNIX kind of guy and a Windows shop probably isn't the best fit for me."

First, Compete totally gets Techcrunch traffic wrong. Not only the numbers, but the trends would totally not match up with our own internal Google Analytics, and even the data such as top referrers etc. were way off. Compete should not be used as supporting evidence that Techcrunch is fading.

The number of re-tweets, comments, referral traffic, twitter subscribers, Techememe headlines, HN headlines, story leads etc. is as high as ever. Monthly uniques are nowhere near the 1M compete would want us to believe they are.

There are a few different types of blogger. Those who don't get access to stories and rely on press releases, generally boring. Then there are those who get access to information, but refuse to post about it for fear of pissing somebody off, just as boring and probably worse than the first type. Then there is the type of blogger who gets access to information, and has no problem stepping on toes to get the information out.

Mike is of this variety. You could say that he is the prime example of the new breed of process journalist - he would rather a (now rather low) error rate on 1-2% of stories in order to get the other 98% out there for the audience. I have intimate knowledge of how he works and how he puts stories together - to the extent that even now, with him on the other side of the world, I can read a story on headline and put together what went on behind the scenes to get this story out (such as the Facebook stock story). He is constantly on the phone and emailing people. He literally has hundreds of people on speed dial, on skype and in his email contact list - he would send dozens of single-line emails each day building information up around the story, and over the years has gotten very good at both extracting responses from people first, and then figuring out what is really happening by triangulating.

Sometimes the stories are posted a little early, and you see that process play out through a post being edited or through multiple posts that make up a larger story (like Scamville, and almost certainly this Facebook stock story). Arrington and his stories reflect the scene - if he is pumping a startup, it is because through talking to dozens of investors he keeps hearing about it. He rarely is the first to step out, but is a lot better at capturing mood and opinion and then amplifying it. He can also put his finger on what is wrong and what is right - and Angelgate was an example of that.

That also applies to this Facebook stock story. Do you really think he would just pick on him for no reason? Or is it more likely that he got a tip about it, confirmed it with one more person, phoned Facebook to talk about it (who asked to be off the record), contacted the guy in question, and then posted the story? A blogger who just makes things up and is wrong would never have an audience.

You only ever have to talk to anybody who has worked with Mike, any startup who has gone through the process with him, or any other blogger who respects that process, to understand that there is something special going on there. Mike has a lot of people he can count on in his circle and within the industry because of that. I watched him approach almost every word in a post with a lawyer's caution - he would constantly review even after a post is published and the possibility of not getting something right totally eats at him (to the point where he can't sleep). You have completely mischaracterized him as being careless, from a guy who used to wake me up at 5am just to check the smallest details of a story. Just shows that you totally do not understand what and who you are trying to diss at.

If you don't like this style of story - then don't read it. There are plenty of blogs that just churn out press release after press release and appease those who don't want to see the boat rocked. But don't attempt to string together poor traffic stats and two or three misses from a collection of thousands of hits into some narrative about Techcrunch failing.

If Techcrunch earned a dollar for ever blog post that has been written about it failing or jumping the shark then it could easily double revenue. Fact is that right now it still dominates startup news, is one of the main outlets to reach a startup audience if your are launching a product, and even with Mike writing less it is not fading anywhere - since his style is contagious and has been picked up by other writers.

I have seen this trend cycle of things being cool when new, and then suddenly uncool when popular, play out too many times not to be wise to it. There is nothing wrong with reading Techcrunch and other blogs, this isn't winner takes all. I enjoy reading HN, Reddit, The Startup Foundry, etc. This isn't grade school where you need to pick a team to be on and do your best to fight the other tribe (especially including personal attacks, which completely makes you cheap) - if you think you can do better in any way, try it, keep writing with Venturebeat and don't bitch about it - the readers and audience will decide based on quality not on preaching.

Why Paying Bribes Should Be Legal To Pay, But Illegal To Accept

This changes the meaning considerably.

I genuinely believed at the time that Emacs and Linux and Common Lisp somehow made me special, when in reality I just wanted to convince myself that I was a better developer than my peers. I wasn't. I was a good coder, but I was immature, wasted a ton of people's time, and refused to listen to people who wrote code that solved real problems while I was on my "let's switch to Linux and Lisp" crusade.

I can point out a ton of examples where Windows is significantly better than Linux and vice versa. Same goes for most programming languages, development environments, and software methodologies. Saying "I like UNIX more and prefer to develop in it" is one thing. Saying that a choice of the OS tells me something about an organization and that their particular system of choice is somehow based on worse philosophical principles than my alternative is naive and condescending beyond belief.

The rule of thumb is to understand before you decide you've understood. If we used this principle more often, the industry overall would be a much more nourishing environment to work in.

Was anyone else a bit annoyed by this statement? It's a good, wholesome, and healthy thing to say "You guys use Windows and I like using Unix", but it's wrong to say "You guys use Windows, and that says something about your organization."

Why do techies have such a tendency to phrase "I don't like x" as "It is wrong to use x".

You don't know that, and I seriously doubt you can prove it. Please don't offer conjecture as fact.

(Spoken as someone who does prefer Macs and Linux)

Here is the sequence I follow when I realize I've been up for 4 hours and still haven't gotten anything done yet:

- Eat something quick to prepare, if I haven't eaten yet. Watch Mixergy or something while I'm cooking/eating. This is the wind-down from "procrastination mode", and watching Mixergy reminds me that there are people out there busting their asses right now and taking all of my future customers or client dollars.

- Put on some good coding music. This puts my brain into "serious business" mode. I prefer energetic hip-hop or dubstep, something I can bop my head to and feel like a boss.

- Go through all my tabs, Pinboard and tag the ones I want to keep for later, and close all of the tabs that don't apply to what I should be working on.

- Take a post-it note and write down the 3 tasks I am going to accomplish today, come hell or high water.

- Get a coffee or energy drink, have a smoke (not recommended), and use the bathroom. Get my mental game plan together.

- Open Terminal and MacVim. This sets the stage.

- Pick a task that isn't on the post-it note (but needs to be done) that takes 10 minutes or less to bust out. Could be anything from a quick design fix to a wireframe or writing up a quick estimate. This is the warm-up.

- By this point, my brain is in full-on work mode. Jump in and tackle the work.

- Feel good. Eat dinner.

- Play Starcraft.

This makes it clear that he prefers UNIX and that was a factor in declining the position. It stops short of passing sweeping judgements on people who do not prefer UNIX, which is very likely to annoy somebody who prefers Windows.