Why do I love this so much
780 karma · joined December 8, 2017
No offense, but it looks like a 1990s yahoo.com version of youtube, and that introductory how-to video is already way more than enough to lose the attention of the majority viewers. A search engine landing page with more words/distractions from the search bar than google.com has (even a fraction of a second longer than what people expect) is already a red flag. Similarly, a streaming site must have extremely uniform, visually stimulating, well defined and relatable content for any hope of keeping visitors interested at a fraction of the rate youtube does. Consider how even the cheapest of porn websites (an industry with tens of millions of competing and ever-improving video streaming websites) know to float uniform rows of well tested, clickable video thumbnails as the first thing one sees, along with any and all instructions/options compressed onto a single dropdown button in the top corner— sometimes they don't even show the title unless you hover over it.
My point is you have to figure out a way to make it even more accessible to new visitors than google is to their non-new visitors; and the amount of front-end text, options, and non-uniform content on livevideo.com is several leagues behind where it would need to start to consider a plan of attack... even against YT or the googs 10 years ago, circa 2009
Are "real code-related things" really much more important if it only takes hours and hours to learn something that might get you an offer at one of these companies?
Perhaps those hours and hours are actually far more valuable 'financially' speaking than a lifetime of studying code that is valuable 'technically' speaking. I don't doubt that some of the big name companies use rarely-used algorithms with battle-tested solutions on purpose JUST to see if you prepared for battle. They look for non-technical smarts because they have no shortage of technically prodigious applicants.
At Google, with over 400 applicants for every position, they have no shortage of technically-competent engineers. They look for people who think way outside the box and try new things, sometimes resulting in industry defining inventiveness. It's ~10 times harder to get hired at Google than get into Harvard.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stanphelps/2014/08/05/cracking-...
I'm impressed with this person's ability to write a blog that BOTH:
— feeds people's curiosity via the current interview experience at several of the worlds biggest companies all in one read
— Incorporates (advertises) his own personal work ethic and credibility throughout, to where I would bet he's getting all sorts of significantly higher paying offers around the area.
The latter was likely the motivation to write it, which is great. I'm surprised more people with similar stories don't use their ultra-blog-worthy experience as an opportunity to humble brag and display their value. Might as well, right? Small risk/big reward
1: Are the same forwards and backwards
2: Make coherent sense
Still pretty cool nonetheless, I suppose
"In fact, my disability has been a help in a way, it has freed me from teaching or sitting on boring committees and given me more time to think and do research. Theoretical physics is one of the few fields in which being disabled is no handicap — it is all in the mind." -Stephen Hawking
Going to start it tonight, but I am still unsure of what order I should complete them in (past-, present-, future-authoring). I've read a few different recommended ways to go about it.
I recognize that name Chibi and I think I've seen him getting picked on in some other videos. He clearly just wants attention, and part of me feels bad for him. Hopefully he's realized by now that cheating is no way to make friends.
He was caught cheating back then too, if I remember correctly, by sending a video that messed with the score. I am surprised they accept sent-in submissions from anybody in an age where videos are so easily edited, let alone from a notorious cheater.
People like Mitchell will go as far as they can to win regardless of whether or not they deserve it, and I'm interested in hearing what the thoughts are in the industry around dealing with cheaters. I've seen some gamers beat records while on Twitch, which I don't really know anything about first hand but it seems somewhat more legit than a sent-in video, as there are people watching both the player and the game he's playing in real time.
Are there any Twitch features that can tell if a game is really being played live?
Otherwise, are there any obvious moves that should/could be taken to ensure legitimacy in gaming world records?
The New York Times are now hiring people who don't know the difference between "to" and "too"? Well, that explains the sophomoric understanding of AI showcased throughout the rest of the article!
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/top-10-evidence-based-h...
I'm happy for him. If I were a billionaire, I'd do the same.
It seems to me — based on YC's resources I've read — the passion, personality, and relationships of the company founders come first— including how willing they are to be flexible with their idea.
Jessica Livingston on what they look for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPd5vgXJ-R4
They also often say how ideas are a dime a dozen, mentioning time and again that most businesses who join YC end up changing their idea completely. They even went as far as to accept founders without an idea at all one year:
http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html
"In a sense, it's not a problem if you don't have a good idea, because most startups change their idea anyway. In the average Y Combinator startup, I'd guess 70% of the idea is new at the end of the first three months. Sometimes it's 100%. In fact, we're so sure the founders are more important than the initial idea that we're going to try something new this funding cycle. We're going to let people apply with no idea at all. If you want, you can answer the question on the application form that asks what you're going to do with "We have no idea." If you seem really good we'll accept you anyway. We're confident we can sit down with you and cook up some promising project."
more related articles from the Paul Graham:
http://paulgraham.com/start.html
http://paulgraham.com/bronze.html
http://paulgraham.com/ideas.html
On the other hand, Sam Altman discusses, in the Stanford YC Startup School videos, how the overall idea certainly does matter and that thinking "the idea doesn't matter" has become a myth in silicon valley. He says the most successful companies have been an idea first, and a startup second.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoqgAy3h4OM#t=22m52s
I think the answer is somewhere in the middle, leaning in one direction depending on the founders' mindsets and knowledge. I wish they would be a bit more clear about this since both opposing arguments are being advised through their resources.
Either way, I look forward to start applying to batches when I feel ready. Perhaps I'll apply without being ready to help gain some clarity as you suggested.
"Can we do it without moving to where you are?
Sorry, no. We tried this once, and by Demo Day that startup was way behind the rest. What we do, we have to do in person. We would not be doing a startup a favor by not making them come to YC events in person.
However, you don't have to be in silicon valley 24x7. If you have a business that requires that you be somewhere else, we will work something out so you can participate in YC events while also being attentive to your business. Usually the founders will rotate between locations, or fly back and forth.
Of course, after the 3 month program, you can go wherever you want."