myoung8

What about the ones that have a history of consistently bait-and-switching consumers?

Also, we're hiring interns for the summer (for engineering, design, and marketing positions). Let me know if you're interested.

I was CTO of an early-stage non-profit for a year and can provide some insight into how they went about raising money, feel free to email me.

Yes, shoot me an email if you're interested.

If you want to intern at a rapidly-growing startup, whatever you're skill set, there may be a position for you at CarWoo! Email me if you're interested.

They don't necessarily have to be questions like "How does routing work in Rails?", they could be "interactive" questions that involve writing a relatively small amount of code (e.g. write a Generator to do X).

I wish I had the time to sit down with every candidate and program with them for a week :) Unfortunately, none of us do, so I'm looking to come up with a handful of questions that can effectively weed out the inexperienced from the experienced as early as possible in the hiring process.

There also appear to be MTurk "shops"--some of the people are clearly sitting at the same computer (some even used the exact same sign...)

Money != happiness. Working at Google is probably significantly more intellectually stimulating and satisfying than selling wall mounts...

Brutal honesty: the site's design is terrible. There is no call to action, the page is WAY to cluttered, and there is no sense of visual consistency.

UI aside, what is the goal of this site? Why would a college student use it? I couldn't find a good reason from the 10 seconds or so I spent poking around (and that's more than most people will spend)

Seems particularly appropriate in light of Trevor's debut on MTV for Surrogates the movie :)

Only took us a couple of minutes to get things set up too. Congrats on officially launching guys! Looking forward to seeing where this goes.

Unless, of course, people spend more than they earn net of taxes. But who would do that?

I agree that AA.com is a terrible experience, but consider the decision to redesign the site from a business perspective: will making it an order of magnitude more usable increase AA's bottom line by more than some other project they are considering (e.g. opening a new destination)?

I don't know the answer to that, but AA is run by business people so I would wager that the answer is "no," otherwise they would be doing it already.

I think there are some intangible benefits to having a more usable website, but those are intrinsically difficult/impossible to measure so they don't factor into the business decisions.

As a designer, I feel your pain, but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that AA is driven by their bottom line and a more usable website probably won't net them the greatest ROI right now.

He also built YSlow...

It's spelled "Stanford", no D.

Good call, thanks for that tip.

We do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_(vehicle)

It's a tough economy in which to find a job and Stanford doesn't have any pre-professional majors.

We should all consider ourselves lucky that we have a skill-set that is in high demand.

Also see: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice for a more in-depth article about why we need more regulation and why the government is unlikely to go through with it and discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=534679

They could easily only have the tags show up when a user hovers over the image or some other trigger. Just a few more lines of the javascript...

And it doesn't mean they're storing it in cleartext either. For some reason I don't think he'd understand how virtual attributes work, though...

Would not have expected that kind of tone from a Fortune 500 CEO addressing the public, but it certainly made me think "she's going to be good for Yahoo!"

What kind of money do you make off the "passive" sites? Is it just icing on the cake or enough to live comfortably?

Well put.

i don't think you can call this a "startup."

michael.lawrence.young[at]gmail[dot]com

it's also copyright 2001, not 1998.

If it's largely an execution play, then yes, they do. Otherwise, they don't.

didn't look like they were very scrappy from those pictures