As a test model, I asked LlamaCoder to "Build me an app for generating characters for the Dungeons and Dragons TTRPG, using the the third edition ruleset." Here's what happened.
324 karma · joined February 2, 2011
I'm not a confounder, but the CEO-founder is a friend and hired me on as soon as he cleared his A-round funding. (We've been confounders before on a project that flopped and he knew I wasn't in the risk position to be a dayjob-quitting early employee this time.) He's a serious workaholic -- claims to enjoy being so -- and the company is doing very well. That said, he's CLEARLY burning out.
He's talked for the last year about taking some time off, but between the birth of a new child, fundraising, strategic partnerships and the continued burden of success, his "week in Florida" kept being pushed off, shrunk to "three days in Florida" to "a day off" to "I'll take some time after this next funding round. Maybe."
Setting aside the fact that he's my CEO (and a ragged chief exec is bad for everybody), he's also a friend. I don't want to see him burn out. This will almost certainly NOT be the last company we work on together, and I'd like to see him survive -- mind, body, marriage and social circle intact -- past our current endeavor.
So, again, how do I convince my workaholic CEO to take some time off?
Curated by Theresa Neilsen Hayden, who at one time modded comments at BoingBoing. As a former forum mod myself, I can attest that there are LOTs of great crowd-hacking insights here.
That said, the Internet breaks down a lot of established jurisdictional law because a website can operate effectively anywhere the Internet exists, and as such can theoretically be subject to the laws of any web-connected jurisdiction. These seizures are just another example of how the law has not caught up to the basic operating procedures of the web.
There is a certain legal philosophy that says the Internet is operating under its own version of Maritime Law, which is to say its a non-national zone where the law is defined by consensus practice and then ratified by bordering or participating jurisdictions. International salvage rights emerged from common maritime practice, and are now generally recognized as legally binding.
That's in theory a good model for the web, but I'm very certain the US Government doesn't see it that way.
2) Happiness and income are relational in that we've seen over and over again people are most happy not by being objectively "rich" but simply objectively richer than their peer group. "Poor" countries with a growing middle class see themselves as having -- or at least with the potential to have -- more than the median material wealth of their peer group. "rich" countries with shrinking middle classes have the opposite expectation.
Bottom line, this is merely a very clumsy study
And if you think the neterprise is bad, just try selling into the government channel. Jeebus frak, those guys are hideously cheap and supremely demanding. If it weren't for scandalously longterm lock-in due to high switching costs -- when everything is reviewed forever, almost nothing ever changes, including product selections -- no one would sell to the public sector EVER.
As a content producer who works closely with engineers, I can vouch that good content requires no less training and effort than good apps. A novel-length ebook probably takes more time and effort to produce (for any level of quality) than an app. I'd imagine an album of music requires even more. Yet we we never hear stories about perfect price elasticity in content.
I'm genuinely curious if price elasticity holds true in content and, if so, why we haven't heard as much about it.
That said, we left the new and old systems running in parallel (all new users were directed to the new platform) for over a year before we even informed users we were shutting it off, then gave them another six months to migrate. And we never purged the old data; it's in cold storage in case someone ever comes looking for it.
Rewriting the codebase isn't something you should take lightly, but "never" is pretty damn strong word.
PROCESS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR LEADERSHIP.
No set of rules can compensate for bad management and employees. Rules usually empower bad managers and disguise bad employees. No methodology -- agile or otherwise -- can stand up to bad execs, bad project leads and/or bad coders.
It starts with hiring. That's how Google gets away with loose rules -- they prioritize hiring "Google-level" coders and managers. All else is details.
Model is thus: Subscribe to our journal, we'll ply you for survey responses/advertising. Fail to pay? You won't get reviewed or if so, it won't be flattering. Advertise? You'll be reviewed, and positively so. Oh, and we'll charge you for the report born of the analysis of the survey data you gave us. Repeat for all major players in a niche field. Welcome to industry publishing.
I used to be a mod/product lead for a major IT community forum. We had a group of 300 or so hardcore posters (which the ad team referred to as "inventory builders") who we took behind the curtain and showed our prototypes before we released them. They often had some interesting feedback, but we quickly fell into a strange trap:
The changes the hardcore users wanted didn't drive usage -- posting or reading -- when we implemented them.
These guys were already spending every damn spare moment posting in our forum, so they had no more to give and all the esoteric bells and whistles (segmented follow lists, advanced karma scoring, multi-tiered private messaging) they wanted were completely irrelevant to the casual user.
When we shifted to testing changes that drove casual usage, we saw much better results. The hardcore group wasn't against it, generally, except for those petty few who saw the forum as their private playground and didn't like the riff raff wandering in to post. They were just dumbfounded as to why we were wasting time on these "beginner" features.
You don't want to alienate the devoted userbase, but data -- not anecdotal feedback -- is what should guide your decisions.
This gets even worse when we, the creatives, get feedback about functional changes.
"When I click the checkout button, it goes to the shopping cart."
"Uh...yeah."
"Could you have an upsell page pop up between the two."
"I can write the copy and spec the creative and functional design, but I can't change the button functionality. You'll have to get that prioritized in the next sprint."
"We don't want to bother engineering. We need to get this done quickly."
"It's a functional change. We have to involve engineering."
"So you can't write the page."
"I can write the page. I can spec the page. I can't build or deploy the page."
"That's disappointing."
"You have no idea."
If you've raised an A round, the easiest place to get your B round is the original set of investors (not least because it can keep the number of board seats/turnover low). If the A round guys want an acquisition exit and you refuse, not only are you spiting your best option for B round funding, you now have to raise money in an environment when all the other VCs know you ignored the last round of VCs' desires. Good luck getting your B round in that scenario.
Entrepreneurs may not want to be part of a talent acquisition, but often VCs do. If you're determined to never work for a big corporation you don't own, you better bootstrap forever and never take VC cash.
These auto-resume sites apply pretty dumb filters right off the bat, and you probably got kicked out of the responder queue the second you ask for a six-figure pay rate and/or the option to telecommute.
The corollary to this is that you can't wait on the zone to do your job. Muses have no respect for deadlines.
My consulting colleagues often disagreed with this philosophy, trying to walk some careful balance of not asking to be paid too much so the client will use you again. use being the operative word here. If the client is the type that doesn't value your time, you don't want them to hire you. It never ends up being worth it.
Our Pro 500 plan is $19.99 per month and includes 10 Google Apps users and unlimited storage. That actually breaks down to less than $2 per user per month. Beyond that first ten, additional users are $3 per user per month. I usually just quote the $3 figure for simplicity's sake, especially since most admins using a paid Google Apps domain (Google Apps Premium) have more than 10 users anyway.
Automatic daily Google Apps backups -- all of it, even Google Sites -- for just $3 per user per month. Unlimited storage. One-click restore for Google Docs and Gmail messages. And we're soon rolling out full-domain search, so you can query all your Gmail, Docs and Calendar accounts simultaneously.
We also backup your Twitter Feed, your Facebook Pages and your Flickr or Picasa photo albums, should the need arise.
Also, for the record, we have a 1-800 number that we actually answer, so in the event you have trouble with our service, we'll pick up the phone and talk you through the fix. We can't repair your Apps account, but we can darn well make sure you get to the data that's in it. We wouldn't charge you, otherwise.