rickpmg

Check out the android app "Regularly", it does exactly what you want.

It is the simplest, most well designed app I have encountered... and it is free.

And make sure the back button works?

Read the Four Tendencies by Gretchen Rubin.

It speaks specifically to this, and basically says if you are motivated by external forces, that's how you're wired and you should capitalize on it... it is a waste of time to try get 'internally' motivated. A lot of people are this way, and there is nothing wrong with it.

I liken it to a car that runs on gas... retrofitting it to run on diesel (or electric) is counter-productive... just tune it up so it efficient at burning gas.

Click on the 'ebook' tab

The parent didn't say how they found the new place... by name, or by searching for pizza [cityname]. You are right if it is the former.

Food for thought (no pun intended)

The value that GH added here was that they were higher up than any of the restaurant's competitors, too.

So, absent of GH, that pizza sale, instead of going to GH, might have gone to a competitive pizza place.

So the restaurant has to evaluate-- it is better that I get the order through GH, or that I don't possibly get the order at all, and it goes to a competitor?

>I tried a new place recently, only to find out I had been duped by Grub-hub

So you found a new restaurant, the restaurant found a new customer, and grub-hub is cut out of the (future) picture. Didn't grubhub earn that commission in this case?

I have no love (or hate) for grub-hub... but it seems like a business hired a salesperson on commission, knowing full well the parameters of the deal, and then gets upset when they actually bring in sales.

In most other industries the restaurant would be considered the 'bad guy' for trying to take the business direct and cheating the rep out of a commission.

Silly.

Why stop there? I want to know how much of my chicken dinner was labor, the chicken itself, and the spices.

The delivery companies aren't cheating anybody. It's not like they change the price after the fact on either the restaurant or the consumer.

Lori is doing this to what... get people to bully the delivery companies?

Suddenly delivery companies are getting accused of being greedy because... they're suddenly in demand?

I agree.. it's the message that there is another 'point of failure' that no one has paid much attention to.

If you want Amazon/AWS to change it's ways, then you need to get the attention of CIO's.

And I think regular walkouts of 100 engineers who monitor the network is going to do a better job of getting it than a single architect leaving, no matter how much of a star he was.

I think it would have been more effective if he just 'called in sick' (if that was possible for him) or staged an extended walkout of engineers. I have all my infrastructure on AWS and the prospect that it could all come to a halt immediately and unexpectedly makes me think of other providers or at least spreading my workoad to azure, google, etc.. and that should get Amazon's attention.

I really don't think a single top level engineer voting with his feet will have any measurable impact technically or financially on amazon.

Yes, he called bullshit on it.. on his incorrect interpretation of the saying.

The saying is more along the lines of "An idea without action is worthless"

His rephrasing of it was either a 1) bad interpretation or 2) a purposeful one so he could disagree with it and appear 'edgy'.

> That’s why entrepreneurs, myself included, waste years of their lives on shitty ideas that will never work, following the popular trend of “ideas don’t matter, only execution matters”.

The saying has to do with just having an idea is worthless in itself, you have to do something with that idea.

He interprets it as a shitty idea will be successful if executed well.

Wow.

I think the author's assumption is that the subscriber would use the service for twelve months whether they were on monthly or annual.

So, if that's the case, you're better off taking the extra x% percent that a monthly plan gives you.

I think the author was also making the point that while you might have all your money upfront, you won't manage it well so it lasts all year. Could you? Yes. Will you? No.

And from personal experience, depending on who your customer is, a yearly plan can make revenue far less predictable.. for a corporate customer there is a big difference between a $12k annual charge, and $1k monthly charge. The first they will scrutinize every year and question its value, while the second they might not even notice.

My concern with #4 would be with this:

"You don’t have to fight back against chargebacks, they do that for you;"

No way would I delegate this customer satisfaction issue to another company to handle; much less one who doesn't want chargebacks (at any cost.)

LinkedIn never said the data was 'public' in the sense that you are using it. You are assuming that just because it can be accessed for free, by anyone with an internet connection, that it is therefore in the public realm. That is incorrect.

I have no love for linkedin, but not sure of your position.

They collected the data, host it, etc, and incur costs for doing so. Just because they allow the public to access it, doesn't mean the public should have a right to re-use it.

People argue that the data is public. I say that's not the issue. While the data itself might be available elsewhere, it is raiding the _collection_ of it that is being argued, not that 'public' data is 'private'.

The _value_ that LinkedIn adds is that they've built the structure to collect and maintain the data. They are _not_ asking the court to prohibit anyone from collecting the same data on their own, at their own expense. If someone wants to start a rival LinkedIn, they are free to do so.

Is it really anti-scientific?

Plus, as they say, "if it works, it ain't stupid"

1d here

I heard that aws actually scrambled availability zones... so your 1a might be my 1c, etc.. Haven't confirmed it, but the comments seem to bear that out.

yes

I think opponents of being kind tend to think:

1- you can't be kind without appearing weak and

2- being blunt and being kind are two different things

He's clearly on a mission to be 'known'... he spends an awful lot of time and effort worrying about how his posts rank and perform... to me, that's disingenuous.

>Could you fix this algorithm problem please? I’m sure I’m not the only son or daughter to suffer from it.

He's asking facebook to fix his mom? The algorithm isn't broken.

>.. shame on Facebook for torturing them for the exposure when I was originally targeting maybe 10 other colleagues to begin with.

Seems like the facebook algorithm is actually working for the users by in effect blocking insipid idiots from posting their crap trying to game the system.

You don't 'target' colleagues.. colleagues are people you work with and respect.. not try to spam.

> Distributed systems are more reliable when you can get a service from one node OR another.

I'm confused.. why did it take the author years to come up with this? Why is this a revelation?

I'm not so sure that's true... the example he gave about the non-dominant hand users being able to suppress their anger was questionable.

Plus, a whole slew of writers say that willpower is an expendable resource.. resist the cookie in the morning, and you will be less likely to resist a candy bar in the afternoon..

What an elitist comment. People do marathons for different reasons. Time is just one factor. Some people actually (gasp) do marathons to prove something to _themselves_.

It's one thing to be proud of your own time, it's entirely unsportsmanlike to criticize someone not as good as you.

Holy crap, his post was full of self-indulgent, non-actionable advice that is totally unrelated to programming.

Anyone who says 'they get it' is likely just afraid they will be viewed as stupid if they say they're confused.

Anyone remember the story of the "emperor's new clothes?"

I heard in London that cabbies also have to know all sorts of landmarks/touristy types of attractions by heart.

I agree.. it's not at efficient way of going about finding a job. But it is effective, if the goal is to get a job. And at the end of the day, he has a job.

As Drucker used to say.. "focus first on being effective, then on being efficient"

> .. which is over a 90% rejection rate

This is the fallacy of percentages rather than absolutes.

He got 6 offers.

How is that bad?

You're kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

This actually causes me to _not_ try out your service, even though I think I have a few customers who would benefit greatly.

With the cost unpredictable, we can't say if it will be worth it. Plus with no price, it makes it seems like this is just a hobby and you may decide you're bored with in a couple of weeks.

To attract paying, commercial customers: state a price, and then give a free 3 month trial, no cc required.