crabasa

A professional network for developers. LinkedIn minus the bad parts.

Our goal for developers is to help them better manage their careers. Developers will be able to use this tool to build their professional brand, network more effectively, and when they're open to it, get compensated for engaging in phone screens about highly targeted job opportunities.

Our goal for tech companies is to completely replace recruiting agencies (who charge up to 25% of the salary of a landed hire) by providing hiring managers with the tools to connect directly with the right developers.

Here's an early prototype of our profile product: https://www.fizbuz.com/u/jesswest

We're pretty early, but already have 150+ developers signed-up on our wait list and are onboarding new folks every day. Feel free to check us out!

https://www.fizbuz.com

You're completely right, but what a waste.

Instead of solving the spam problem and giving marketing/sales/recruiting people better tools, they just incentivized people to sign-up for mailing lists that they probably didn't care about.

This is too bad. I remember learning about 21.co (later earn.com) and being excited about the idea of using a pricing mechanism to eliminate spam and increase the quality of my inbox. This core idea is a big part of what I'm working on right now [1].

One thing that 21.co never really figured out was a killer use case, or how to best connect buyers with highly-targeted sellers in this "attention" marketplace. It just seemed like a cool way for startup CEOs to get better quality emails and direct the money to the charity of their choice.

[1] https://www.fizbuz.com

>> Tesla's system demands more from drivers than manual driving.

If this was true, wouldn't Tesla vehicles have a higher rate of crashes, all things being equal? Is there any evidence that this is the case?

I did read the article, but I see how the LinkedIn comment is causing you to think of white collar executives.

The fact is that informal forms of networking are how people of all cultures and income levels have always advanced their mutual interests. One of the most effective ways to combat modern poverty is to provide people with mobile devices that enable them to better communicate and build relationships over time.

I'd ask you to consider what a more people-oriented piece of software might look like that would be accessible to as many people as possible and enable very specific use case, such as "I'm looking for a new job" or "I'm willing to be a mentor" that currently get lost in the noise of all-purpose social media.

I agree with you about the current iteration of LinkedIn. But that doesn't mean a different kind of product, focused on professional development, career management and networking couldn't be useful for folks.

I imagine that many people simply leverage Facebook, Twitter and other social networks for this today, in the absence of something for purpose-built.

One thing worth noting is that one of the clearest paths to earning higher wages and being more successful in a career lies in networking and learning how to leverage that network. In theory, the dominant tool for this should be LinkedIn.

But LinkedIn decided early on that serving professionals was less lucrative than serving companies. So the vast majority of products and capabilities that LinkedIn has shipped over the years has been to serve the needs and interests of companies. Sometimes at the expense of professionals (InMail spam).

There really isn't a tool out there that workers can use that addresses the power and knowledge asymmetries that exist today.

Made me sick, but on the flip side made for some very satisfying blocks.

I was fascinated by the "circles" approach Google took with G+. It felt like a great solution to newsfeed overload and directional sharing.

But then Google+ failed, and we never got to find out whether Circles worked or not

Hey all, OP here. I created this because I wanted to collaborate on the application with my co-founder. Hope you all find it useful, and best of luck with your submissions!

Instructions:

    1. Click on File →  Make a Copy
    2. Share copy with your co-founders

Thank you for the reminder! A privacy policy has been added to the website.

Most people realize that "Github isn't your resume" unless you are paid to work on open source. Forking repos, submitting the occasional pull request or a random side project don't provide much signal compared the code you've written and the people you've worked with at past companies.

I am currently working on building a tool [1] that helps developers build profiles that articulate very clearly both what they bring to a team and what they are looking for in a next job. We're approaching this as a data problem, but unlike many dark recruiting tools, we think it's important for the developer to be completely in control of the information that makes it into their profile.

[1]: https://www.fizbuz.com

I 100% agree about LinkedIn endorsements. But those seem pushed on users without their consent in order to drive engagement metrics. I often get garbage endorsements for vague skills like "mobile development".

But what if you could self-identity your skills (Erlang, Vue.js, etc) and there was a low friction way for your peers to +1 those skills?

Disclaimer: I am building a startup in this problem space.

Does anyone think that social proof could work here? If 15 peers endorse Sally for React Native and those 15 people are likewise found to be credible, could such a network effect be more valuable than a coding test?

Isn’t the obvious answer for Spotify to start generating their own content and become a label? Aka, the Netflix model. In fact, I’d be stunned if this wasn’t mentioned in their S-1.

Instructions on how to export your Disqus comments:

https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/1104797-imp...

This analysis collapses because the OP fails to realize that the big players (FB, Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc) don't benefit from net neutrality nearly as much as the long tail of sites and services. ISPs know that an internet service without FB is worthless, so they're motivated to work out deals and create bundles. It used to be ESPN and HBO, now it's Google and Netflix.

I spent a few minutes Googling "OStatus spec". This Medium post [1] on the first page of results sums the prospects of this working nicely:

> Federated social networks such as Mastodon and GNUSocial communicate using a protocol known as ‘OStatus’. This is partly documented in an unfinished specification (the OStatus 1.0 Draft 2.0 document), and is otherwise defined by some parties as a non-living anti-standard which is ‘whatever it has been historically’, or the exact opposite ‘whatever it needs to be’, usually further qualified as ‘well, whatever my software, the one true use case, thinks it needs to be’.

[1] https://medium.com/@Rushyo/on-supporting-content-types-other...

> We believe that everyone should have the power to create and share ideas and information instantly, without barriers.

I can't wait for this to mean what it used to mean: owning a domain and putting up a website.

To be clear, this isn't a product called "Presenter", this is a person who works for Microsoft who switched to Chrome during a presentation. Nothing to see here.

Twilio has an entire team of engineers focused on Developer Education. Two of the leads gave a talk [1] that explains this in more detail at Signal 2016.

[1] https://www.twilio.com/signal/2016/video/6Gjpnzch0sggKeey0yi...

I'm curious about the comment on API versioning. If it instead had the string "/v1/" embedded in the URL, would this be preferable to you? Which APIs do you feel are in need of updating?

Disclaimer: former Twilio PM.

Long term sustainable? You should look at the turnover in the S&P 500 the last couple of decades. Some of the most valuable companies in the world (Google, FB, Amazon) explicitly eschewed short term profitability in order to maximize growth and share. Your cheap Uber rides speak to this phenomenon today.

If you're waiting for ambitious tech companies to prioritize turning a profit in order to provide some liquidity to their workers, good luck.

I think it's less about animal spirits and more about granularity. If I only own index funds, I am forced to panic sell the whole market. If I instead own 10-20 stocks, I'm only affecting a fraction of the market.

In the dot com bubble, not everything popped. Many stocks went up as people fled tech and went into "safer" sectors. So it does seem that broad index hegemony has the potential to exacerbate a nasty crash.

If markets are rigged, why do they crash?

There's no single reason that can explain the march up, but it's worth noting the meteoric rise of index funds, which now account for over $4T under management [1]. There's just a massive amount of money looking for returns that exceed the almost 0% interest rates that exist today.

[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/index-fund-assets-under-manag...

The answers to your question is here:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/05/19/2016-spending/

tl;dr - He is still very frugal, unless you count his business expenses. He definitely works on his business and brings in income, but he gives much of it away.

The W3C is not the web. Look no further than the good work the WHATWG did to move the web forward while the W3C & Microsoft were holding the web back in the early 2000's.

>> At least it's still better than cnn.com.

That's literally the entire value prop of the website. The author isn't obligated to use your personal list of approved web tools.

Queue obtuse comment about how this is no big deal because git is distributed source control, ignoring the fact that Github != git and that issues/PRs/etc are pretty important.