askinakhan

How about we use the touch display with the raspberry Pi and a windup mechanism to charge an added battery pack then start a charity to distribute these to developing countries.

I strongly believe that hiring should be based on data. Based on the following 5 factors:

1.Intellect 2.Values 3.Motivations 4.Behaviours 5.Experience

With these factors you can determine a persons Cultural Fit and predicted future performance. In fact, you could automate this through technology.

For example, for predicting future performance we could test the high performers in our company then we have a template for what motivations and behaviours high performers are likely to exhibit. Based on this we can then assess new comers and map them against high performers. The more highly correlated they are, the more likely you should be to hire them.

For culture, if you currently like the culture of your company you could simply assess the values of all your employees, average them and assess new applicants against this and depending on correlation, hire them or not. This could be done through a CFT (Cultural Fit Tool)

But this is just one suggestion. Software that enables this could work quite well IMO.

Hi Matt,

Great job you're doing. Would be really interested in seeing the Wordpress product when it's out. Haven't found anything for perfect conversions as of yet.

You're currently using Paddle that takes 5%, in my opinion this is far too much, you could save 2.5% a year by going to Stripe or even more by going to GoCardless. Besides the clump sum you get at the end of each month, what is your motivation behind using Paddle compared to other, cheaper services?

Thanks

Using big words doesn't make your point more valid. Just sayin'

Unless i'm understanding you wrong... Trip Advisor has democratised hotels and yeh people had freedom of speech but not widely accessible freedom of speech. Without Trip Advisor it would be much harder to find someone's opinion on a specific hotel.

Maybe consumers should be democratised too? Shall we assess the quality of a consumer? Do they piss up the hotel walls or do they tidy up before they leave?

Don't you think that the reason your click doesn't denote agreement is because of how we have evolved and adjusted over time? The process of agreeing to terms and conditions has become subconscious. Although I agree that the contract between Apple and the buyer is essentially worthless, it has only become worthless because of how consumer habits have evolved therefore essentially making our clicks non-consensual.

I can only state the problem as it's not my place or area or expertise to state the solution but here's my opinion; buyer/seller contracts aren't standardised and therefore when people sign a contract they are not reading through it either because of:

1. Laziness 2. Evolution/Habit

Therefore we need to somehow make it so there isn't asymmetric information between the buyer/seller. This has to accomodate for the habits that have evolved through our evolution and somehow be more explicit to our newly formed habits. A shit suggestion would be: Standardise contracts for certain procedures e.g. getting a hotel room should have a standardised contract but then should have very short appendices that indicate any customisations that the hotel has made. As I said, it's a bad suggestion but i'm sure someone else can and should solve the problem.

Although one question we should ask ourselves... should we re-invent the wheel for outlying situations like this one? Doubt it.

Sorry for typing so much, got bored.

Yeh I would, would you?

Really? I would love some case studies

Is there space for (another) notes product that is purely focused on the GTD framework? Would people use this if I created it?

Yeh absolutely. It's another extension of the sharing economy. These kind of business models change societal habits and as generations shed, the sharing model will become more prominent (It's even been predicted by Gartner; not that this should be taken as gospel). Think about the amount of income you could make from renting your flat (AirBnB), Being a driver on Uber, Selling your skills on Udemy and now selling your fanbase personalised t-shirts on TeeSpring. Indeed it's similar to sites like Zazzle but adds a twist by combining the concept with Kickstarter.

We are making entrepreneurs out of ordinary people, it's fking awesome.

I'm pretty sure they'll be able to sell it because of credibility anyway so it's worth a shot for them aye.

May sound opportunistic but there are some great opportunities here to create domestic companies that mimic those companies that have been blocked.

Hahaha! The Focus Tools one is great! looool

> I would agree with this if I wasn't seeing entrepreneurs who are breaking the stereotypical British attitude of "sell for £10m, kids to private school, consultancy gig until I'm 50 and retire". We have US-style founders over here who are trying to build amazing things. The venture community hasn't caught up, but I think after one or two larger exits for truly spectacular businesses (forget Zoopla, which is about as innovative as Amazon would be if it helped you check the stock of book stores which you still had to visit), the limited partners in funds will pile on.

My suggestion wasn't that we aren't creating successful startups. My suggestions is that RELATIVELY, when compared to Silicon Valley, we are not fostering innovation. Of corse we are breaking through the barrier but we will always be risk averse and when compared to Silicon Valley, we will never reach the same levels of innovation unfortunately.

From just plucking figures from Google we can see that Silicon Roundabout has about 1000-2000 startups whereas Silicon Valley has more than 20,000 which is a ridiculous ratio.

> That's changing amongst the top tier of venture investors. Rentify (my business) couldn't process credit cards when we raised from Balderton, and the first board mtg of the year was focused on going for growth uber alles.

Agreed, I think it is changing but I really don't think it will catch up with SF VC. London is great for go-getters but when you go to SF you can raise money for an app that sends a "Yo". Don't get me wrong, it's not a good thing that you can get investment for the most ridiculous of ideas but i'm just trying to portray how risk averse we are as a population. Or maybe a better way to put it is that we take calculated risks.

> I agree with this although I dispute the reasons, and the notion that it will never change.

My suggestion that it would never change was a mistake. We will, as a population, become risk-prone but we will never compare to Silicon Valley. I think we will always be less likely to invest in 0-1's.

The UK will never be able to foster the same atmosphere as Silicon Valley. We're a conservative bunch and always will be; it's almost embedded in our culture. This isn't a problem because it means we're more prudent when it comes to investing hence why we rarely get VC/Angel investment for startups unless they have an already successful business model.

The best way to put it is: In the UK we mostly invest in 1 - n whereas in Silicon Valley they also invest in 0 - 1. After all, it's the birthplace of true capitalism.