maxbrown

It's an interesting article, but I'm not sure I buy it. Boiled down, it sounds like the author is arguing for philanthropists to have only one cause. But maybe I care equally about helping this generation with hunger and future generations with saving the rainforest. I get that I could help hunger more by redirecting my rainforest money, but why is it logically the case that I should?

Also, I find it interesting that the article discusses multiple causes, but not multiple organizations within one cause. There are hundreds if not thousands of organizations focused on cancer - to which do I give my donation? Only one?

But aren't you making an assumption here that I have full, transparent knowledge of both the short-term and long-term efficiency of charity X and Y?

The diversification buys me reduced risk of concentrated failure, I would assume just the same in philanthropy. If I give 100% of my donation to one organization, and it turns out they "perform" worse than I expected, it may have been better to split my donation among multiple organizations all of whom I expect to be highly efficient but cannot necessarily predict. Particularly in cases of multi-millions or billions when, even split, the money will meet a minimum threshold to make a difference.

It's a cute idea, and nicely implemented, but I'm not quite sure you're solving a problem that people have. Who do you see using this? Why do you think they would pay you for the service?

Isn't that in effect what happens at charging stations? Not a unique plug id, but public access "billed to the owner of the car".

I get the sentiment, but is this pertinent to the article? Do you plan on posting this on every Uber-related HN submission?

Sure, a big player could implement this model, but they may not take the risk or make the investment if their current model is successful.

Also, it certainly doesn't mean they'll put Kash out of business if they do (and if the Kash team succeeds). For example, I don't expect Amazon Local Register to put Square out of business.

Off the top of my head:

Reaction Housing http://www.reactionhousing.com/

Watsi https://watsi.org/

Soylent http://www.soylent.me/

Very interesting, but I can't imagine anything other than an affiliate commission that would incentive the use cases like OpenTable, HotelTonight, etc. Anyone have non-affiliate revenue reasons you would integrate to an Uber API?

Nice job! Especially love the value you're creating in the analytics back-end... that a company can gather and analyze their users' location searches for planning and growth is great. I'm not sure I would have seen the possibility for that little gem.

One piece of feedback for you, in my opinion the sign-up form could really use some work. It has this "survey" sort of feel that does not excite me or give me confidence. I wonder how much this affects conversion - how many people follow a CTA from the homepage but fall off here. Some design & UX focus here could go a long way, happy to give more detailed ideas if you'd like.

It sounds like you either haven't identified a need or haven't identified the right solution for that need (I'm guessing the latter).

I'm willing to bet you could gather some more customer feedback, but let's consider the item you mentioned:

"I don't offer "unlimited" everything"

My guess of what the customer is telling you is that because they don't understand the technical side of things, they are worried they will end up paying more in fees / overages. Same reason cell phone companies are offering unlimited plans - they provide comfort that you won't go over.

How do hostgator and many others offer Unlimited Disk Storage & Bandwith for such a low price? Because they know that even if they posted real limits, most customers won't even go close to those, and I bet they deal directly with those that do to optimize. Saying "Unlimited" is worth the (likely small) risk to close the deal. Listen to the customer, they're telling you what they want!

Something to consider, not sure how they would respond - what if you charged by the size of the organization (churches : church members)? That would loosely approximate bandwidth, and probably make sense to your customer.

One other thing I would point out, a little customization goes a long way. Can you offer to customize the site for their organization, or their specific needs, for low cost or free? You want a recurring customer, right? Put in a little work up front (show them their possible site?) and you may have a better chance of closing the deal. IMO, for non-technical clients, it's much easier to sell them on something they can see.

I wouldn't give up on this just yet, I think it's a nice niche, but you really need to understand the customer needs and why they would or wouldn't make a purchase decision.

To me this just sounds like poor company/project management and passing the buck. I guess I'm envisioning a more healthy/well-managed environment, but maybe those are in the minority.

I see your point, it can put added pressure on developers, but don't you think (in a healthy company) that "shifts responsibility for fuck-ups" is a bit overstated?

Certainly transparency in sales is preferable, but is promising a (unexpectedly important to that customer) feature to close a major deal a "fuck-up"? There are some potential issues to steer clear of - team burn-out, feature bloat, etc. - but I would just consider it a sales expense/opportunity. If executed/communicated appropriately it could potentially create more trust rather than less.

I don't work there, but I would venture a guess that employees at Basecamp (37signals) are proud of https://signalvnoise.com/

As a past investor in all of the companies, I assume they would be informed about the future rounds and updated cap tables.

On the contrary, there are plenty of applications for these, and other IBM enterprise software, with Apple/iOS.

http://www.ibm.com/mobilefirst/us/en/

(Disclaimer, IBM employee)

Sure there are many companies using Lotus Notes, but there is way more enterprise IBM tech & software out there (in use at large companies) than you realize ... WebSphere Portal, IBM Cloud, Rational, Tivoli, DB2, Cognos, Tealeaf, Watson, etc etc

This is interesting, I think you're saying that this advice could be for utilitarian good, ignoring the individual.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, maybe the startup compensation curve is best for philanthropy.

Hypothesis: 1,000 people making $100,000 will give significantly less in aggregate than 1 person with $100,000,000. Therefore, if more people go into a corporate ladder job for the $100k, there will be less total giving.

I think it was a strange way of saying that $1-10 may not be cost-prohibitive to financially-comfortable residents of 1st world countries, but could certainly be cost-prohibitive to users with less financial resources or from 3rd world countries. Such a fee could be a serious deterrent on a free and open internet with diverse participants.

Thought I heard of a start-up doing this... did Facebook take the idea or have they been working on it in parallel? Just curious...

I don't think it looks crappy, though there is a lot on there. I of course haven't seen the previous longer version but I prefer the one page.

Quick feedback - say "Projects" instead of "Side Projects"... don't de-value them off the bat. Shorten Research Experience section (less text) unless applying for a research position. Do you need relevant coursework section? Mostly assumed in a CS degree, isn't it?

I agree with you on the Chipotle experience, surprisingly well done.

Ambitious is right - I feel like the 8% is too steep a barrier to entry. If they launched it at 5% I could see it getting much higher adoption. Do you think it's as simple as "they can always drop it" or might a competitor outdo them on price and become the standard?

IMO if it adequately solves a problem you have yourself, that's a good start. Then, try to assess how big the problem is for others in your target market.

Really nothing other than testing (could be an MVP, surveys, pre-orders, etc.) and time can tell for sure. Don't trust anyone that simply says "That's a bad idea" - instead, get their feedback on the major difficulties of the idea, and decide if you think they are surmountable.

My understanding was that it was always common stock.

I believe this is the agreement: http://ycombinator.com/documents/YC_CSPA.docx

Kind of a generalization, no? Do you mean specifically for startup success and/or raising VC money?

Interesting way to capitalize on the Gox issues. Wonder how much volume this can do...

Naturally a 20% salary reduction!

Although occasionally this may be the case (pay cuts), it seems clear that the employer absorbs the risk of entering into contract with the employee at a certain time, with a certain market price. Interesting that the employee gets to partake in the upside but the employer gets the downside, with the exception of course of the employee getting fired.

I wonder - if there were really a way to gauge the current market for X talent (sort of a glassdoor salary index) - could employers purchase "insurance" or hedge their hiring price with "employee securities"?

Right? This is the best part of the story...that their actions were what made me aware of their competitor.

Great project and fun games! How many are you planning to do? Do you have an end-goal in mind?

Just in my opinion, the manual process is a concierge service, which people may be willing to pay $30/m for if they're getting $300 of value (a real person to work with).

When they switch over to the self-service version, they have to put more of their own time in to using your system and lose the expertise of the concierge person, and the value proposition may not be > $30/m anymore.

Reach out if you're still looking, I'd be happy to help out.