Possession is more important in football, I agree. But I'm saying I suspect the risk of a lateral pass can be much lower than generally accepted because you can almost guarantee a pass completion by doing it right. In rugby, in open play, it's also very risky to loose the ball when attempting a lateral pass. The opponents can then gain possession and attack while your defensive line is not in place properly. So dropping the lateral pass is also very risky. But rugby solves that risk by making sure lateral passes are dropped very seldom (watch a top level game and see. Around 5 turnovers per team are because of a lateral pass that's dropped, if that much).
As a fan of rugby, I've often wondered why football coaches don't try some other radically different strategies. For example, why not use a lateral pass more? Usually football fans explain it by saying it's too risky. But in Rugby they do it all the time, it's a skill that can be practiced and be almost guaranteed of success if done correctly.
There are many reasons for a speaker to not communicate in an understandable way : heavy accent, speech impediment, lack of articulation, inability to articulate thoughts, etc. Why focus on the cultural accent to make your point, rather than stating the root cause : lack of sufficient verbal communication skills? The fact that you seemed to put a heavy foreign accent as the main cause of bad communication does seem a little xenophobic.
Great idea, fantastically executed. One suggestion or request: I would love to specify from what recipe group or combination of groups each meal should be made up of. For example:
Breakfast : Pick something from the cereals group, and a smoothie if it fits
Lunch : Sandwich group and salad group
Dinner : Mostly meat group, salad group, desert group.
My thoughts while reading the post exactly. Read Reece's Lean Startup, and he gives specific examples on how to cheaply test the waters. Reducing all that to a landing page harvesting emails is completely the opposite of what Lean Startup proposes.
Lean Startup is about measuring everything, and only doing what takes your idea forward. Anything else is wastage. If you need to measure potential uptake in a target market that won't find your landing page, then creating a landing page is wasting your time.
It's ridiculous that even with this type of thing happening openly, no opposition party can beat the ruling ANC. We can just hope Ramphele's Agang party will know how to use this type of thing against them.
I've been using Swiftkey Flow Beta, and it's fantastic! You're right, Swiftkey's killer feature is the way it handles multiple languages without hassle. It is the difference between people hating touch screen keyboards and loving them. If I were an Android handset provider in a multi-language country I would install it by default on all phones. Android would blow all other platforms out of the water in no time then.
You're right. We're an app dev company, and we're in the process of developing a medical app for a client. The FDA approval process makes it very time consuming.
We've (almost) never had the feeling of "running amok". Communication is key, and constant feedback from the client helps us to make small adjustments often. That usually keeps them from making large changes at late stages, because we are evolving the project with them. Changes are usually an evolution, not a revolution, if that makes sense.
The times where the changes were big and late, it was usually down to bad communication at an earlier stage.
I'll try to make the time to write up something. It's really a matter of explaining to them why our way of working ends up being faster and less expensive than the flat fee way. With our way of working, there's an assumption of trust, and we keep that trust through visibility of our progress. That way we share risk, and if we can share risk with the client, we can charge less, because we don't have to build in such a big margin in the price to cover our risks.
Yes we do. We charge per sprint, not a flat fee for the total project. Once we've convinced them that our way is faster and cheaper in the long run, they usually buy into it. As specially if they've been bitten by flat fee projects in the past, where it becomes an arms race for the developers to do as little as possible, and the client to demand as much as possible. Then tend to then understand that trusting us and working with us is a much better way.
We don't do flat fee no. We convince clients it's not a good idea for them to do flat fee, because it takes longer, and we build in a margin to cover our risk, so they usually pay more with flat fee. By making every step of the process visible to them, and charging them for what we do as we go along, we can save them money and time.
We run an Agile process where the client is involved as Product Owner in the team. The client can add stories at any stage, and set the priority in the backlog at any time. They just can't change the current sprint's stories and priorities. That way they can make as many changes as they want, and the impact of those changes are always visible.
Why limit the client to an arbitrary number of changes (like 2 in this example?) The whole idea of Agile development is that we cannot know everything in the beginning, so we spec as much as we can in the beginning, and leave room to change our minds at a later stage.
Of course, we explain this way of working up front as well, and we make the benefits clear to the client. They have to buy into this before we start with anything. It works very well when they do buy in though.
Over here in South Africa, you actually go to med school for a year, and then apply for veterinary medicine. So you have to be the best of the med school applicants to get a place. Hardest course to get admission to of any.
Sure. Most of our work is actually for corporate clients, so not commercial apps found on the market under our name, but a few examples of commercial apps are:
I posted a similar comment on Reddit. We're a decent sized mobile dev house (around 20 devs), and $29 / month makes me think hard if it's really worth that money. At $290 a year it would be close to the most expensive piece of software we would use. I think at $5 - $10 per user they'd get so many more users that they'd make more profit. Just my opinion of course.
We're a mobile dev house (iOS and Android), and we charge around $60-$80 / hour. www.polymorph.co.za . Sounds like we should get some US clients if $150 / hour is realistic.
Stop jumping to conclusions. Linus reacted to a troll comment that was later deleted. Something along the lines of "What, your shit don't stink?". It deserved the moron reply. Stop jumping to conclusions rather.
Why are all the answers with legal advice filled with phrases such as "this is not legal advice" and "I am not a lawyer"? Is it illegal for non lawyers to give legal advice in the US?
If they're are sure as you are that your idea is going to make it big, they have an incentive to stay rather than go work for Google or Facebook, because they have a lot to gain from something huge. If they don't, you already have a problem, never mind the head hunting, because then they don't really believe in the idea. Then you'll have to incentivize them in the short term with cash probably (ie pay them more than Google or Facebook will), or realize yourself that maybe the idea isn't that good.