12 karma · joined March 3, 2014
Take a look at http://lawyersongithub.com. This is a list of lawyers with github accounts. Now, having a GH account doesn't make you "hacker" or professional programmer, but a couple of people on it have left law to focus on programming. I know several other lawyers not listed there who left firms to focus on software development.
You'll find a range of experience. There are lawyers who were programmers first, went to law school, and then went back to programming. Others had skills before law school or learned while practicing law and have incorporated into their practices, to varying degrees.
Who cares, you ask? This is someone who understands the importance of the rule of law -- having seen life without it as a soldier and as a lawyer -- and what it means to live in a country where promises can't be enforced. The rest of the team is just as impressive (and modest). That experience appears to inform the philosophy behind the project:
"Given that the aim of Project Ðouglas is to demonstrate the utility of ÐAOs in everyday applications and to advance the state of the art, it is our view that compliance functionality is not only an added feature - it is a prerequisite. Public, corporate, institutional and government buy-in will require it."
It'll be exciting to see what's next.
Congratulations Dennis, Casey & Preston.
If your grief is preventing you from functioning, I agree with people below who suggest therapy and medication. Why not give that a try? There's no shame -- it shows courage, and will help you grieve. Meditation and exercise are great eveners too. And being unemployed and depressed could make things even worse.
Good luck and warm wishes. It will get better. You will find peace and you will recover.
All feedback is welcome. I'm particularly interested in how non-lawyers view the platform. I've heard from plenty of my fellow lawyers. I'm curious to know what non-lawyers think. Is this something that you see being using person to person or b2b, without a lawyer? Or in its current version does IB feel like a lawyer's tool/platform? This is a very general, subjective inquiry, but the gut feedback is quite useful.
From a law firm economics standpoint, something like ImpasseBreaker may be perceived as a threat. If it works in the disputes context, a lawyer loses money. So although the dynamic is present in many, many negotiations -- negotiating over nickels and dimes, while everyone knows what the final number ought to be -- this is a problem that lawyers may not all want to see fixed. I'm curious if and how this will work for non-lawyers.
Many thanks,
Stephen
Definitely agree that you wouldn't want to share the seller's bottom line in the event of a match. This would lead to built-in buyer's remorse. I gather this may have been for initial proof of concept, not long-term functionality. But you also need to think about the impact of masking the algorithm (see below) so it can't be reverse engineered (on the flip-side) and consider what information can and should be given about the process.
Agree with one of the comments below that slowing down the result may make for better user experience. This was (surprising) feedback we received for impassebreaker.com -- people felt "let down" when the match was revealed too fast. There's a game component here, and a big splash may be important. Then again, it does seem a bit deceptive to show a progress bar when the result is already calculated.
Subjective observation, but based on a decent amount of feedback. Users need to trust that the process is fair. Trust is hard. If you place the bottom line in context -- e.g., show your user what the comparative price is on other sites -- would that context make the bargaining process smoother and build more trust? Might it also make the site stickier? If your provide the comparison shopping data, then people won't need to leave the site to do comparison shopping. That may or may not make you more appealing to sellers, so perhaps it's not on point. As it stands, the process seems arbitrary -- I totally understand that this is an early sketch, but if/as you build it, I'd keep this in mind. I can't remember the cites, but I believe there's some research out there that suggests that people are more inclined to trust computers in a negotiation than other people. So you have a potential advantage if you make the playing field seem a bit more level. At the end of the day, what you may be building is a trust machine. Maybe it's different, but that's how I've thought of our platform.
Negotiation style is culture and language dependent. The verbal dynamic that works in the Suk won't necessarily work in Omaha. One isn't better than the other, of course. But if the goal is closing sales, you need to keep context and language in mind, and at a very granular level. Words and how they are presented are key. Maybe that's part of what the system learns.
Best of luck. There's some potential here, long term, for something very cool. I'll be interested to see where you take this.
Many thanks! Screenshots and more explanation to follow.
Stephen