The Best Job in Stamford Connecticut

K&S Ranch Publishing has an exciting opening for a Book Traffic Coordinator living near Stamford, Connecticut. We need someone who can help get our library of entrepreneurship books into the hands of the startup founders and students who rely on them.

The job involves figuring out where to best sell our books (The Startup Owner’s Manual, The Four Steps to the Epiphany, and Holding a Cat by the Tail), and the logistics of managing inventory, sales and shipments of them.

Maybe it’s a position for you or someone you know?

It’s a great opportunity for someone detailed-oriented, and interested in startups and entrepreneurship.

We want you if you are:

  • Interested in making the numbers go up and not just writing them down
  • Adept with Excel, QuickBooks and Word (finance, accounting and bookkeeping experience a plus)
    • And can suggest how to use that data to make a difference in our business
  • Professional and terrific on the phone with clients and vendors
  • Web savvy
  • Able to do your job without standing around waiting for direction
  • Independently able understand and solve problems

The  work environment is casual and fun, hours could be flexible, and you’ll earn your pay every day.

If this sounds like a job for you — or a friend or relative living in or near Stamford, Connecticut — send your resume to Terri S. Vanech at terri@kandsranch.com

When Krave Jerky Showed up in Class with a $435,000 Check

I remind my students that I’m teaching them a methodology they can use the rest of their careers, not running an incubator.krave logo

Every once in awhile a team ignores my advice and builds a company worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hershey just bought Krave Jerky, a team in our 2011 Berkeley Lean LaunchPad class, for >$200 million.

—–

Jon Sebastiani and his team came into the 2011 Berkeley Lean LaunchPad class with several key observations:

  • Snack foods were a large ~$35 billion but the moribund food category was starving for innovation and modernization
  • Meat snacks were a $2.5 billion subcategory of snacks. So there was plenty of data that proved that Americans loved to snack and loved meat snacks.
  • There was an opportunity for a new company “Jerky 2.0.” in the snack food market
  • Jon believed his competition was the conventional “Meat Guys” (the existing beef jerky companies.)

Jon’s big vision was to build a company that disrupted the meat snacks business. He believed that he could use the “go-to-market” strategies of other food/beverage disrupters– companies like Pete’s Brewing Company, Boston Beer and Kettle Chips. These new entrants disrupted their food categories by offering high quality proprietary recipes, outsourcing their manufacturing, and using their cash and resources on sales and marketing to build distribution and a differentiated brand. And Krave Jerky was going to be packaged, priced and positioned to be an everyday high quality snack experience – a “Mass Premium” positioning.

Jerky 2.0

Get Out of the Building
Jon and the team came in with all the assurance of a startup that thought they knew what they were doing. Unlike most of the other teams in the class, Krave was already up and running. In fact, by the start of class they had ~$750K in revenue for 2011 – not quite Facebook but a nice small business. But Jon had much bigger ambitions.

(For the teaching team this was our first opportunity to see if the Lean Startup process and this Lean LaunchPad class would work not just for new startups, but also for existing businesses, a test we would face years later teaching established Life Science companies rather than startups for the National Institutes of Health. The question was: Could we get these companies to pivot and learn when they already thought they had an existing business model?)

Their sales had given them some real data on three potential distribution channels: direct to consumer, brick and mortar retail, retailers. But they had minimal understanding of their target customer segment(s), and in the relentlessly direct nature of the class, we let them know it.

Rising to the occasion Jon and the team got out of the building and went to the Sonoma County Fair and Wine and other food festivals, and spoke to 50 customers. They ran 10 in-store demos, which got them talking to 100s of more customers.

Each week the team presented their findings to the class and teaching team. Take a look through the slides below and see how their business model evolved with feedback from customers, channels and partners.

If you can’t see the slides click here

They refined their branding, got a better handle on who their customers were, and in a real-time example for the rest of the class – had a full blown crisis. Krave’s original outsourced manufacturing partner decided to raise their price – to a point that Krave’s business model was no longer viable. The team demonstrated awesome agility and resilience as they scrambled to get a new manufacturing partner while continuing to do customer discovery and validation – and run their company.

What Do You Mean You Only Spoke to 1 Customer?
One of the rules of the Lean LaunchPad class is: 10 customer interviews each week (in-person or video Skype) or you get told, “Sit down, you don’t get to present – presentations are only for the teams that did the work.”

In week 9 of the class, the Krave team stood up, looked the teaching team right in the eyes and said, “We only talked to 1 customer this week and we only have 1 slide to present. Let us just put up this one slide and then we’ll sit down.” It was a pretty gutsy request – so sure, put up your slide.

I was completely blown away with what was on the screen.Kraves Check

It was a check for $435,635 from a customer. And not just any customer; it was from one of the largest supermarket chains in the U.S. It was Krave’s first national stocking order.

Krave generated ~$35 million in net sales over the last 12 months.

Hershey plans to operate Krave as a standalone business within its Hershey North America division. Jon Sebastiani will continue to lead the business as President of Krave.

Congratulations to Jon Sebastiani for ignoring the rules!

Lessons Learned

  • The Lean LaunchPad class works for existing businesses as well as new startups
  • The only criteria is a willingness to accept that you may have to pivot – from the founders and investors

It’s About Women Running Startups

Just before the holidays I had coffee with Anne, an ex MBA student running a fairly large product group at a search engine company, now out trying to raise money for her own startup. She had an interesting insight: existing content/media companies were having the same problem as hardware companies that rarely made the leap to new platforms. And she had a model for a new media company for mobile and wearables.women innovation I thought we were going to talk about her product progress, so I was a bit taken aback by her most pressing question, “Why is it so hard for a woman to still get taken seriously by a venture capitalist?”

I had lots of answers, but none of them good enough for either of us.

I had a better one when I came back from New York.

——
Entrepreneurship at Columbia
I was in New York last week teaching my annual 5-day version of the Lean LaunchPad class at the Columbia Business School. We had 130 students in 30 teams who got out of the classroom and did 2154 customer interviews in 5 days – a remarkable effort for 120 hours. Their amazing Lessons Learned presentations can be seen here.

In the last year entrepreneurship at Columbia has taken a pretty remarkable leap across the entire university. The Columbia Startup Lab is a visible symbol of how the university is making entrepreneurship an integral part of all colleges at the university.

New York Startups
The Columbia Startup Lab is in a building completely taken over by WeWork – a company that provides co-working spaces in 12 cities worldwide. I wandered through four full floors of SohoWest WeWork sticking my head into the random startups’ offices.

Looking at office after office of startups a few things stood out.

  • This was just one of the 14 WeWork co-working spaces in New York City– there are over 100 co-working spaces in New York
  • Michael Bloomberg has yet to get his due for engineering the New York entrepreneurial ecosystem
  • I was struck by something that had been slowly percolating through my head during my entire week – there are a higher percentage of women on the founding teams of New York City startups than in Silicon Valley

Women in New York Startups
This last point is definitely not a data-driven survey. However after spending a week teaching 130 entrepreneurship students, ~35% of them women, and then walking through ~100+ WeWork and TechSpace offices in New York, I get the impression that the number of women leading startups in New York is much higher than in the San Francisco Bay area.

When I mentioned this to my friends running the NYU and Columbia entrepreneurship programs, they looked at me like I just discovered that it gets dark at night. Their answer seemed to make sense: a higher percentage of startups in New York are focused on media, fashion, communications, real estate, financial tools – all the products of industries centered in NYC – and all are attempting to disrupt them with products that run on and are delivered by 21st century platforms. (Think of what Refinery29 is doing to Conde Nast.)

These are industries where women have had a history of leadership positions and more importantly, where young women entrepreneurs can find role models and mentors as their male counterparts do in Silicon Valley’s tech-centered, pay-it-forward culture.

This raises an interesting question: is the credibility of female entrepreneurs in the eyes of New York VC’s something about the venture firms, or is it about the industries they are funding?

One can make the case that New York venture capital industry is rooted in the 21st century not the 20th. While some venture firms have been around for awhile, perhaps the newer partners have a different model of what a successful founder looks like than their west coast peers.

Or perhaps it’s as simple as New York VC’s are funding startups that play on the disruption of New York’s key strengths in Media, Fashion, Finance and Real Estate, and the women founding New York startups have an existing track record in those industries, and pass a gender neutral “VC credibility” bar.

Correlation does not imply causation
Those bemoaning the dearth of women founders in Silicon Valley might want to see if there is a real disparity between the coasts or if it is just my selection bias?

If it’s real why?

  • Women founders already had leadership roles in the industries they’re about to disrupt?
  • Women can find existing role models?
  • Women have built a network of women mentors?

What role does the type of startup play?

  • Companies that get started and built in New York City tend to be applied technology
  • Companies that get started and built in Silicon Valley have historically focused on core technology

What role does venture capital play?

  • Is there any difference in funding women for old-line firms versus 21st century firms?
  • What role does industry segment play? (i.e. lots more women founders in media companies than you find in enterprise software companies.)
  • On the West Coast the history of successful startups is technology first, and perhaps VC’s weigh that more in what they want to see in founders.
  • Is it as simple as having credibility in the industry you want to startup in?

—–

I sent Anne, my student, an email when I returned, “You may want to take a trip to NY and pitch some of their VCs.”

Lessons Learned

  • Lots of entrepreneurial activity in NY
  • Different industry focus than in Silicon Valley – more media, finance, real estate
  • Women seem to be more represented as founders
  • If a NY bias toward women as founders is true, why? And what are the lessons for Silicon Valley?

The Art of the Minimal Viable Product. 2 Minutes to Find Out Why

The Art of the Minimal Viable Product.

2 Minutes to Find Out Why

If you can’t see the video click here

There Are 4 Types of Startups

There are 4 types of startups.

Which one are you?

If you can’t see the video click here

 

 

Getting out of the building…by staying in the building!

The landscape for how to turn life science and health care technologies into viable companies has changed more in the last 3 years than in the last 30. New approaches to translational medicine have emerged. Our Lean Launchpad® for Life Sciences is one of them. But a new class of life science/healthcare co-working and collaboration space is another.

———–

The National Institutes of Health recognizes that Life Science/Health Care commercialization has two components: the science/technology, and the business model. The Lean Launchpad® for Life Sciences (the I-Corps @ NIH) uses the Lean Startup Model to discover and validate the business model.

two parts to commericializationThe class provides Life Science/Health Care entrepreneurs with real world, hands-on learning on how to rapidly:

  • define clinical utility before spending millions of dollars
  • understand who their core and tertiary customers are, and the sales and marketing process required for initial clinical sales and downstream commercialization
  • assess intellectual property and regulatory risk before they design and build
  • know what data will be required by future partnerships/collaboration/purchases before doing the science
  • identify financing vehicles before you need them

This user/customer-centered approach is a huge step in the right direction in the life science/health care commercialization. However, one of the bottlenecks in actually doing Customer Discovery for medical devices/health care is testing how minimal viable products work in-context. Testing hypotheses with doctors, patients, payers, providers, purchasing departments, strategic partners is hard. It can involve traveling hundreds of miles and can consume months of time and loads of money. Scheduling time to look over a surgeon’s shoulder in an operating room is tough. Getting time to brainstorm with payers or experts in clinical trials is hard.

It would be great if there were a way to first test these hypotheses and minimal viable products in a realistic setting locally. Then after a first pass of validation, take them on the road and see if others agree.

A new life science/healthcare co-working and collaboration space
It looks like someone is actually pulling this together in a life science/healthcare co-working and collaboration space in Chicago called MATTER.

Co-working spaces seem to be evolving into the startup garages of the future. It’s a shared work environment (typically a floor of a building) where individuals (or small teams) rent space and work around other people but independently. Yet they share values and hopefully some synergy around topics of mutual interest (same customers, or technologies). Incubators are designed for teams with an idea. They add mentors and additional services and some offer free space in exchange for equity. Accelerators take teams with fairly focused ideas and offer a formal 3-4 month program of tutoring/mentoring with seed funding in exchange for equity.

The MATTER co-working space will have five unique things specifically for life science/healthcare companies:

  1. It’s focused exclusively on life science/health care (therapeutics, medical devices, diagnostics, digital health, health care IT, etc.)
  2. Key stakeholders in the broader healthcare ecosystem will be co-located under one roof: entrepreneurs, universities, established companies and strategic partners, providers, payers, hospitals, service providers, associations, advocacy groups, government and more.
  3. It will have a simulated procedure space that can be configured as an Operating Room, Emergency Room, Intensive Care Unit and other clinical/procedural settings. The space will include authentic lighting, equipment and other features that very closely resemble the look, sound and feel of these environments in the “real world”.
  4. It will have a clinician and patient studio configurable as a doctor’s office or a home care setting to simulate clinician and patient interactions. It will serve as a test bed for software, services and other technologies to improve the clinician/patient dynamic as well as improving workflows in the clinic.
  5. It will have a fabrication space where device startups can build minimum viable products and iterate on their designs while in the facility.

By building a co-working space that includes all of these stakeholders, MATTER allows startups (and companies) to get in front of customers and other members of the value chain first, before they leave the building.

The team at MATTER also realizes that facilities alone will not do the trick. In order to get the healthcare community to collaborate with each other to bring new ideas to market they will need some help to catalyze  the “co” part of co-working.

“The life sciences community is still warming-up to the value of customer development in the early stages of building new ventures”, says David Schonthal, MATTER Co-founder and Clinical Assistant Professor of entrepreneurship & innovation at the Kellogg School of Management. “Many of them aren’t yet clear on who their customer actually is – and as a result – what value they should be focused on creating. Essentially, through programming and content, we will need to teach many of our members the importance of understanding the needs of stakeholders and customers – we just aim to make it easier by bringing these people into the building.”

The procedure space and clinician and patient studio allow startups to test and demo medical devices, diagnostics, software and other technologies, with real clinicians, to validate hypotheses, their technologies, and discover the “unknown unknowns” that they wouldn’t learn until the product was used in a real clinical setting (meaning: after years of development and regulatory clearances).

But the real benefit for a Lean Startup is that unlike a traditional OR/ER, technologies/devices used in these spaces can be minimum viable products. They can be crude, non-sterile prototypes tested at any phase of their development (from sketch to machined parts), to answer any number of important questions that innovators might have about how, when, why and by whom a technology is used.

(Think of a startup building a diagnostic display designed for an operating room that discovered it was virtually unreadable and inaudible in the bright lights and loud sounds of a real operating room. Finding this out late in the development process can burn cash and time in a med tech company.)

MATTER is funded and supported by a broad range of private sector partners including established companies, providers, payers, service providers and others; as well as public sector support from the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago.

It Takes a Village
“This has been nearly a 4-year journey,” said Schonthal who prior to moving back to Chicago in 2011 had been working in healthcare venture capital in San Diego.

“One of the noticeable things about the San Diego health tech community is that it feels like a community. It has density,” he said. “People bump into each other, seek each other’s advice, make connections and collaborate on projects. In Chicago, despite having a lot of talent, companies and great research, we are a big, spread-out city. As a result we needed to design some of that density inside of MATTER so that serendipity can occur”.

Schonthal found that others in Chicago saw the vision. He enlisted the help of serial medical device entrepreneur Andrew Cittadine, biotech startup veteran Jeffery Aronin and Patrick Flavin and Steve Collens who was a major force behind the development of 1871 – Chicago’s digital co-working space. Together they recruited the support of the city, state and private industry who all agreed that frequent and early community collaboration to support young companies would be key to Chicago’s future in healthcare entrepreneurship.

Others Are Doing this As Well
MATTER is one of many organizations supporting life science/healthcare entrepreneurship across the country. In New York there’s Blueprint Health and Startup Health, in Denver there’s Stride and Princeton has Tiger Labs. Other incubators and accelerators in the health tech space include Health WildCatters in Dallas, RockHealth in Silicon Valley, Iron Yard in North Carolina, HealthBox Accelerator, Athena Health MDP in Boston and others. And probably the most important will be the Lean LaunchPad @ Life Science Angels class for early stage life science companies. Each of these has their own approach to supporting the creation of new ventures – but all are working to help young startups solve big problems.

Lessons Learned

  • Our knowledge of how to efficiently turn life science/health care technology into companies is rapidly increasing
  • Lean Methods are one such tool
  • Healthcare co-working and collaboration space is another

I-Corps at the NIH: Evidence-based Translational Medicine

If you’ve received this post in an email the embedded videos and powerpoint are best viewed on www.steveblank.com

We have learned a remarkable process that allow us to be highly focused, and we have learned a tool of trade we can now repeat. This has been of tremendous value to us.

Andrew Norris, Principal Investigator BCN Biosciences

Over the last three years the National Science Foundation I-Corps has taught over 700 teams of scientists how to commercialize their technology and how to fail less, increasing their odds for commercial success.

To see if this same curriculum would work for therapeutics, diagnostics, medical devices and digital health, we taught 26 teams at UCSF a life science version of the NSF curriculum. 110 researchers and clinicians, and Principal Investigators got out of the lab and hospital, and talked to 2,355 customers. (Details here)

For the last 10 weeks 19 teams in therapeutics, diagnostics and medical devices from the National Institutes of Health (from four of the largest institutes; NCINHBLI, NINDS, and NCATS) have gone through the I-Corps at NIH.

87 researchers and clinicians spoke to 2,120 customers, tested 695 hypotheses and pivoted 215 times. Every team spoke to over 100 customers.

Three Big Questions
The NIH teams weren’t just teams with ideas, they were fully formed companies with CEO’s and Principal Investigators who already had received a $150,000 grant from the NIH. With that SBIR-Phase 1 funding the teams were trying to establish the technical merit, feasibility, and commercial potential of their technology. Many will apply for a Phase II grant of up to $1 million to continue their R&D efforts.

Going into the class we had three questions:

  1. Could companies who were already pursuing a business model be convinced to revisit their key commercialization hypotheses – and iterate and pivot if needed?
  2. Was getting the Principal Investigators and CEO out of the building more effective than the traditional NIH model of bringing in outside consultants to do commercialization planning?
  3. Would our style of being relentlessly direct with senior scientists, who hadn’t had their work questioned in this fashion since their PhD orals, work with the NIH teams?

Evidence-based Translational Medicine
We’ve learned that information from 100 customers is just at the edge of having sufficient data to validate/invalidate a company’s business model hypotheses. As for whether you can/should push scientists past their comfort zone, the evidence is clear – there is no other program that gets teams anywhere close to talking to 100 customers. The reason? For entrepreneurs to get out of the building at this speed and scale is an unnatural act. It’s hard, there are lots of other demands on their time, etc. But we push and cajole hard, (our phrase is we’re relentlessly direct,) knowing that while they might find it uncomfortable the first three days of the class, they come out thanking us.

The experience is demanding but time and again we have seen I-Corps teams transform their business assumptions. This direct interaction with potential users and customers is essential to commercialize science (whether to license the technology or launch a startup.) This process can’t be outsourced. These teams saved years and millions of dollars for themselves, the NIH and the U.S. taxpayer. Evidence is now in-hand that with I-Corps@NIH the NIH has the most effective program for commercializing science.

Lessons Learned Day
Every week of this 10 week class, teams present a summary of what they learned from their customers interviews. For the final presentation each team created a two minute video about their 10-week journey and a 8-minute PowerPoint presentation to tell us where they started, what they learned, how they learned it, and where they’re going. This “Lessons Learned” presentation is much different than a traditional demo day. It gives us a sense of the learning, velocity and trajectory of the teams, rather than a demo day showing us how smart they are at a single point in time.

BCN Biosciences
This video from team BCN Biosciences describes what the intensity, urgency, velocity and trajectory of an I-Corps team felt like. Like a startup it’s relentless.

BCN is developing a drug that increases anti-cancer effect of radiation in lung cancer (and/or reduces normal tissue damage by at least 40%). They were certain their customers were Radiation Oncologists, that MOA data was needed, that they needed to have Phase 1 trial data to license their product, and needed >$5 million and 6 years. After 10 weeks and 100 interviews, they learned that these hypotheses were wrong.

If you can’t see the BCN Biosciences video click here

The I-Corps experience helped the BCN Bioscience team develop an entirely new set set of business model hypotheses – this time validated by customers and partners. The “money slides” for BCN Biosciences are slides 22 and 23.

If you can’t see the BCN Biosciences presentation click here

You Can’t Outsource Customer Discovery
What we hear time and again from the Principal Investigators is “I never would have known this” or “I wouldn’t have understood it if I hadn’t heard it myself.” Up until now the NIH model of commercialization treated a Principal Investigator as someone who can’t be bothered to get out of the building (let alone insist that it’s part of their job in commercialization.) In the 21st century using proxies to get out of the building is like using barbers as surgeons.

Clinacuity
While the Clinacuity video sounds like an ad for customer discovery, listen to what they said then look at their slides. This team really learned outside the building.


If you can’t see the Clinacuity video click here

Clinacuity’s technology automatically extracts data in real-time from clinical notes, (the narrative text documents in a Electronic Health Record,) and provides a summary in real time. Their diagrams of the healthcare customer segment in slides 15-18 were outstanding.

If you can’t see the Clinacuity presentation click here

GigaGen
The GigaGen team – making recombinant gamma globulin – holds the record for customer discovery – 163 customer interviews on multiple continents.

If you can’t see the GigaGen video click here

GigaGen’s learning on customer value proposition and who were the real stakeholders was a revelation. Their next-to-last slide on Activities, Resouces and Partners put the pieces together.

If you can’t see the GigaGen presentation click here

Affinity Therapeutics
Affinity came into class with a drug coated Arterial Venous Graft – graft narrowing is a big problem.

One of things we tell all the teams is that we’re not going to critique their clinical or biological hypotheses. Yet we know that by getting out of the building their interaction with customers might do just that. That’s what happened to Affinity.

If you can’t see the Affinity video click here

Affinity was a great example of a team that pivoted their MVP. They realized they might have a completely new product – Vascular wraps that can reduce graft infection.  See slides 17-23.

If you can’t see the Affinity presentation click here

Haro
Haro is making a drug for the treatment of high risk neuroblastoma, the most common extracranial cancer in infancy and childhood. On day 1 of the class I told the team, “Your presentation is different from the others – and not in a good way.”  That’s not how I described them in the final presentation.

If you can’t see the Haro video click here

After 120 interviews the Haro found that there are oncology organizations (NCI-funded clinical development partners) that will take Haro’s compound and develop it at their own expense and take it all the way into the clinic. This will save Haro tens of millions of dollars in development cost.  See slides 12 and 13.

If you can’t see the Haro presentation click here

Cardiax
Caridax is developing a neural stimulator to treat atrial fibrillation. Their video points out some of the common pitfalls in customer discovery. Great summary from Mark Bates, the Principal Investigator: “You don’t know what you don’t know. Scientific discovery is different than innovation. You as a prospective entrepreneur need this type of systematic vetting and analysis to know the difference.”

If you can’t see the Cardiax video click here

After 80 interviews they realized they were jumping to conclusions and imparting their bias into the process. Take a look at slides 8-11 and see their course correction.

If you can’t see the Cardiax presentation click here

The other 15 presentations were equally impressive. Each and every team stood up and delivered. And in ways that surprised themselves.

The Lean Startup approach (hypotheses testing outside the building,) was the first time clinicians and researchers understood that talking to customers didn’t require sales, marketing or an MBA – that they themselves could do a pretty good first pass. I-Corps at NIH just gave us more evidence that’s true.

The team videos and slides are on SlideShare here.

A Team Effort
This blog post may make it sound like there was no one else in the room but me and the teams. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The I-Corps@NIH teaching team was led by Edmund Pendleton. Allan May/Jonathan Fay taught medical devices, John Blaho/Bob Storey taught diagnostics and Karl Handelsman/Keith McGreggor taught therapeutics. Andre Marquis, Frank Rimalovski and Dean Chang provided additional expertise. Brandy Nagel was our tireless teaching assistant. Jerry Engel is the NSF I-Corps faculty director.

Special thanks to Paul Yock of Stanford Biodesign and Alexander Osterwalder for flying across the country/world to be part of the teaching team.

I created the I-Corps/Lean LaunchPad® syllabus/curriculum, and with guidance from Allan May, Karl Handelsman Abhas Gupta and Todd Morrill adapted it for Life Sciences/Health Care/Digital Health. The team from VentureWell provided the logistical support. The I-Corps program is run by the National Science Foundation (Babu Dasgupta, Don Millard and Anita LaSalle.) And of course none of this would be possible without the tremendous and enthusiastic support and encouragement of Michael Weingarten the director of the NIH/NCI SBIR program and his team.

Lessons Learned

  • The I-Corps/Lean LaunchPad curriculum works for therapeutics, diagnostics and device teams
  • Talking to 100 customers not only affected teams’ commercial hypotheses but also their biological and clinical assumptions
  • These teams saved years and millions of dollars for themselves, the NIH and the U.S. taxpayer
  • Evidence is now in-hand that the NIH has the most effective program for commercializing science
  • In the 21st century using proxies to get out of the building is like using barbers as surgeons
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 174,985 other followers