Seriously!
Quantity data is not a substitute for quality data.
Give an engineer a qualitative data point and they'll find a way to invalidate it.
But give them a million invalid data points...
474 karma · joined March 27, 2020
Quantity data is not a substitute for quality data.
Give an engineer a qualitative data point and they'll find a way to invalidate it.
But give them a million invalid data points...
Are they though?
I think of a free version as having the same interface and core functionality with locked features. Does iMovie have the same interface/menus/workflow as Final Cut now?
These seem more like the "let's not dilute the product by repackaging some of the codebase into a mass market interface" versions.
Admittedly I haven't used them in years but I do recall learning about non linear editing in premiere pro years ago and ditching iMovie for adobe in a flash.
More recently I've gone the resolve route as well, even though I have active adobe subscriptions through with along with years of experience.
I just don't like cloud dependent software.
Thanks for sharing!
First, there's pressure on a lot of marketers to sell more this month or this quarter.
Second, there's an expectation to prove that an idea is good using data and to prove the idea worked using data.
Third, there's very little interest in investing in the art side of the trade.
When taken together, you get what we've got.
What am I trying to say?
I guess just that in my experience it's always been the owners and top level managers pushing for short-term, unethical, bad ux decisions and focusing on manipulating instead of serving people.
And it sucks.
I think a lot of us got into marketing because we're creative and technical and wanting to make businesses and products better for people, both consumers and society at large.
Or maybe that's just me.
Edit: the worst part of it is the demoralizing realization that the owners are often right. Most people actually do want McDonalds, like shopping at Walmart/Amazon, and enjoy Facebook. So I guess the worst part about marketing, the part nobody talks much about, is that giving the majority of people what they want usually means low quality at the cheapest price.
I think we'll get there in the next 20 years.
The limiting factor is building codes in the USA. But there are some really cool things all around the world in the building space, very little of which is publicized.
The construction industry as a whole suffers from inefficient communication.
What you described is rational but unconventional and building codes are designed to require following convention. Also, the cost of connectors goes up quickly, but the right connectors could change the game dramatically.
On-site modular is common (though not very known) for large apartment buildings. Setup a factory in the future parking lot, crank out apartment modules, crane them into place and connect them. It's efficient, but not "cool".
Modular homes have to compete with site-built on cost and quality, but do so within the same set of rules the site-built homes follow. There are two major challenges: 1) customization and 2) transportation.
Many home builders already use pre-framed walls and most use pre-built roof/floor trusses and windows because those are already cost effective. They also use standardized materials across the spectrum.
So basically, the materials are standardized to the point of customization, with the exception of roof trusses and sometimes kitchen cabinets.
For modular to win, the designs need to be standardized at a larger scope or the building codes changed to allow plug and play.
Second is transportation. It can cost $5,000-$15,000+ to ship a truck sized building module, and then a large crane has to be rented to unload and place them. The max size of a module is around 10.5' by 40'. Any larger and you pay overweight fees and for pilot cars. If you think about it, that's only 400 square feet of space. So even a 1600 square foot house gets too expensive fast.
Does any of that add any insight?
It helps weed out the less honest people, aligns sales with support, and protects cash flow.
The term master mind has been a bit off-putting to me, but it seems like scheduled social time is a solid step in the right direction.
Thanks.
The worst outcome is a moderately good job. A bad job you can quit, a great job you can retire from, but a moderately good job is slow speed entropy with a gradually narrowing window of opportunity.
More specifically the question is "what were the specific, direct causes of failure?"
"My car broke down" vs. "the alternator went out so my battery died and my car wouldn't start".
That is who I'm looking for.
If the odds of success are less than 10%, then it would seem to follow that the thoughts on success by single or several failure individuals would suffer from a similar bias as the survivors.
Basically, who actually kept trying long enough to disprove the hypothesis that's it's all about experimenting until you find something that works really well, and then growing it as fast as you can?
One thing I disagree on is the failure rate. Surely the failure rate of all businesses is skewed by restaurants and the self employed.
It seems like building a $1B+ startup is as you say, but what about building a $1M-$10M startup?
It sounded a bit too familiar.
I've spent the past 3 months developing daily fitness habits but I've got nothing and no ideas on social habits.
As for work boundaries, I just started experimenting with a hard 2pm cutoff for "future work". I'm curious to see the impact.
Anecdotally, I've experienced the small business/enterprise dilemma from the inside. Working for some companies perpetually struggling to make payroll and others looking for useful ways to spend more of the money flowing in.
It seems like instead of ignoring small businesses, one could group view the owners as consumer, with similar scale and prove considerations.
I like the idea of 10x better mousetraps. It's not no, it's just a high bar.
How much time do you think you would be willing to invest in a POC before getting your first customer?
Yesterday I was thinking about the idea of automatically rejecting projects when the time spent surpasses revenue/users by x.
Basically, if I can't prove that people want something after x hours of working on it, reject the work and move to the next project.
It seems like automated rejection points may prevent spending too much time solving problems nobody has or is willing to pay to solve.
Do you have an x in mind?
I...uh...just remembered somewhere I'm supposed to be...
It seems like the biggest impact a person has on the world is the way they treat people, especially people they don't agree with.
There seem to be three primary options regarding climate change:
1) change your lifestyle
2) make someone else change theirs
3) make better technology
Option two seems to be the default based on average home sizes, commercial flights, food waste from dining out, and iPhone sales.
Technology optimists choose option three.
The outliers choose option one.
AI has perhaps, maybe passed human intelligence in 0.005% of applications.
It's 2020 and we still have steering wheels in cars.
If we replaced the word "AI" with "statistics" we'd be a lot closer to describing where we are.
I'm biased towards fascination with processes and markets, however, and value mapping and incentives are more strengths of mine than programming.
From my vantage point, there's a massive shortcoming in the mechanisms by which programmers, user programmers, and users are connecting.
Simply, I know several programmers looking for interesting physical world side projects and several craftspeople looking for automation. There's simply not a clear way to meaningfully connect them.
My ideas revolve around defined test, unit based recognition/compensation.
Person A has a specific use case, proposes it, persons B-G have similar use cases and agree on a test specification and deadline and place deposits. When the deadline is reached, the best performing commit is selected and merged, and the developer receives recognition and compensation.
I'll take you up on this.
How far have you gotten? What surprises have you uncovered?
Are you blogging or tweeting the project?
> a car that cost $6500 used
That's the smart financial decision. The math works better when buying used. By that same math, I had a '97 Suburban with a 5.7l V8 that cost me less to own and operate than a new Prius, but only because I bought it used.
If I buy a new car, though, it's going to be a BEV. The driving experience and cost savings are more than incremental.
However, I didn't see many outside the liberal left coast crowd virtue signaling with their hybrids.
But that's not the case with Tesla. Of the Tesla owners I know, the majority also own companies and environmentally agnostic.
The only Prius owner I know personally was fresh out of college working an entry level sales job.
Oh, and as for the driving experience of a Tesla, performance models are quite literally quicker than many roller coasters. You might try driving a performance Model S sometime to experience the surprise first hand.
I assume you haven't, because very few Tesla skeptics have.
I agree with that assessment. My limited and probably wrong interpretation of history indicates that in general, behavior will now tend towards revolutionary.
I think substituting data for wisdom is a big part of the problem.
If we get what we measure and we're measuring greed metrics, what's the surprise?
Clicks, users (ironically named), leads. Data is great for spotting and creating problems, but not so good at coming up with solutions.
More data won't eliminate greed, but it can help in exploiting greed for more greed, so more data it is.
Politicians and advertisers have been data driven for decades. Look where that got us.
Is anyone doing data analysis on the effects of greed on the economic well being of citizens? That would be ironic.
It seems like until the data says what we want it to say, there's a problem with the data. Maybe the problem is outsourcing being humans to data.
Sorry for the rant, thanks for reading.
To test this, go to Target and ask if you can put some items on the shelf for them to sell for you. If that's an option, it's a marketplace.
Everything sold by Target is sold by Target.
Amazon is the online version of a flea market in the parking lot of a big box store.
I don't know if that is the distinction lawmakers are making, but to me that is the difference.