seeing

Europe may want to achieve some things in common but not at the expense of not achieving other things not in common.

Per the article: step outside the European worldview to see how cultural viewpoints elsewhere understand and express the value of multilingualism

This isn't true.

The GRE isn't irrelevant.

What consequences?

So any choices that a congressman could’ve made, choosing a phone, choosing a pin number, installing or not installing certain apps, have no influence over what we are showing because this is targeting the mobile network

Couldn't they have predicted this sooner?

You don't need to heapsort the entire dataset before you offset to a page, and there are engines capable of doing this.

Make it legible first. What you have isn't legible no matter what the page says. When my eyes land on the site they move away from the site within 1 second:

- I didn't see the website footer.

- I didn't see the "open source" part.

- All I saw was the pictures and the orange button.

Assume a visitor will give the site no more than a 2 second glance. Design for that.

I would change "save the world from your sofa" to "end world poverty" and increase the font size from 30px to 60px.

I wish there were instructions for me to compile the software from source. In Linux I can often run ./configure && make && make install; and know that I'm installing something clean from source. Can I do the same with this software?

Now, onto why you're working on this. Do you have a specific "enormous potential" problem -- AN ACTUAL PROBLEM -- that you, personally, needed to fix yesterday?

Do you personally need to end global poverty? Why? How will distributed computing end it anyway? How many years have you spent being in poverty to understand that the one and only solution for poverty, out of the possibly thousands, is distributed computing?

Are you doing this because you believe distributed computing will mine Bitcoins, change that into money, and donate the money? If that's the plan, it never crossed my mind after visiting the page.

I'd be great if global poverty ended. I'm not saying distributed computing can't end poverty but I'm not fully convinced either.

All this said, don't get discouraged. You may find that what you're working on could easily change into something else. But whatever you release try to do a great job at it.

For example, what if I'm willing to just donate something to end poverty and not hog my CPU? That would be a completely different website. If you can make me trust you that the money won't be mishandled, maybe I'm willing to just donate $5 a month to end poverty, and not have to compile anything from source. If I can afford $2k for computing equipment, maybe I can afford $60/yr to end poverty and not hog my CPU.

- I clicked to install it and, like you mention, I too thought it's untrustworthy. How do I know you won't steal the data on my computer? Is it open-source? Where can I download it? Can I compile it from source? How?

Why are you working on this? Are there other ways to solve the problem you're trying to solve?

Did you perhaps mean go to places where the manager is a good learner?

Some feedback:

- I love the toolbox on the right

- moving the F around doesn't work

(No response means yes.)

My translation: HTML is an evolutionary dead end, and because it's so large it won't die in our lifetime.

It's good advice to trust your gut; but as Nobel prize winning psychologists discovered, trust your gut as an additional parameter to your existing rubric of tests.

Don't trust your gut while excluding everything else.

Do you truly believe there are no signs for anything?

Ideally I'd also like to know a bit more, like the most common angles attempted (in general terms, not specific), although I can imagine how this might be disclosing people's ideas. Example: x% of attempts at idea A going after the high end failed, but y% of going after the low end survived and morphed or expanded to something else that has potential.

2) Which areas have the most statistically significant change in number of applications since the previous funding cycle. e.g. Developer Tools vs Developing Countries. Because it could point to upward and downward trends.

Ideally I'd also like to know about ideas in general too.

3) The top 3 questions on the YC application that startups answer most poorly.

4) The top 3 questions startups that are accepted and/or do well answer the best.

5) The biggest mistakes you see in applications and how they can be avoided (if they can.) Or the most common things missing.

6) The most convincing arguments you see in applications, and how they're made (e.g. by providing numbers and percentages, rather than saying "we're growing a lot".) Example: "if X is true, then Y" is more convincing than "I know Y will work", because you show that at least you're aware of X and are digging into it.

7) What most applications think will never work for a fairly well-defined idea, because it's such a good source of new ideas. But only if it's safe to assume the startup that applied won't pursue it, as to not run into confidentiality issues.

This can be information in the aggregate. e.g. show the top 2 things most applications think will never work, which could account for 80% of the applications, but don't show the outlier 20% which may be a good idea. In other words, provide corrective information, but don't provide what might be the answer.

8) If there's a positive or negative correlation between confidence in the idea and being selected or doing well. Ideally, I'd like to know if I'm writing my application in a way that suggests I have no idea what I'm talking about. But only if you believe providing this will help the startups and the application process.

9) Which parts of the application process that founders often think look like negatives turn out to actually be positives. So startups don't get discouraged.

10) To the extent each question on the application is scored and the score can be useful if it's communicated back to the startup, provide the score back to the startup.

Ideally, do this fast enough so the startup can rethink its answers. e.g. in cases where the startup had better info to supply but didn't, or if you believe it would help.

I'm looking for a job, and after sending out resumes (and often a URL to my resume) for over a month I realized practically no one was getting my emails. I was being flagged as a spammer.

The only way around this was to signup for a GMail account.

I won't feel very protected losing the roof over my head, GMail. Please fix this.

Why wait 12 months? Why can't published research be available immediately?

Does anyone know or have a citation for the rationale behind this?

Reading this always feels wrong to me. Face to face communication is higher bandwidth than text or video.