[tptacek]

I wouldn't have read this had you not commented, so thank you.

I also think you're fundamentally right about the way HN looks at legal risks. In particular, I think the average HN reader drastically discounts the cost of legal risks that apply only once a particular enterprise has traction. I think those are some of the most pernicious risks, because they can lead to people investing years of their lives in businesses for counterfeit upsides.

But having said that: do you really need on-staff legal to learn that a contract with no explicit acceptance and with unilateral change provisions is legally suspect? Over the last couple years, I've been trying to keep a little tally of all the redlines we've gotten on our contract reviews (all of our MSAs get legal review), and I feel like much smaller details have come closer to derailing projects than these two details.