roasm

You're suggesting that you can make something as usable on a mobile browser as you can with a native app. That's just not true; if it were, there wouldn't be any native apps.

For many use cases (games, highly interactive experiences, camera or microphone using app, etc.), a native app may just be better, and guiding users there might be a better experience and a better conversion funnel.

Yes, you can make a website mobile friendly, but that doesn't mean it will be as good as the native app.

Somewhat related: Are there any puzzle subscription services out there? I think it'd be a really interesting business to receive an innovative, creative puzzle weekly or monthly that show some real effort and artistry. Maybe it would be a mix of physical and digital puzzles. Does that exist?

If not, I might have to do that :)

I'm the benefits administrator for our startup (ahhh, the joys of being a cofounder) and we started before Zenefits was available. I might migrate there for the ease of management...

But I have to say, it really is hard to replace a good, responsive broker. They don't cost anything (they take the same commission Zenefits takes) and it's easy to get someone on the phone if the inevitable insurance mishap occurs. Then dealing with the insurance company is their problem, not yours.

If we started today, we would absolutely be on Zenefits. Now? I don't know if it's worth the migration.

Foursquare may have a lot of data, but isn't that data getting stale? I mean, a lot of the location/check-in data is from the particular demographic of user who played the mayor game, and many of those users don't play anymore (or nearly not as much).

On the other hand, Google and Apple don't need you to install anything additionally on your phone and they know where you are and when you're there.

It's not so much a choice between Smart TV vs. not Smart TV anymore. If you buy a TV today, it is very likely to be "smart". You can just decide to use the features or not (or when to stop using the features).

Large movie production houses won't die in the near future, because predicting a financial winner isn't as hard as you make it sound. We currently have a movie economy that is driving the big producers to make big budget comic book sequels that do well internationally (generally based on the universal appeal of liking suspense and action). They've boxed themselves into a very profitable corner of funding high budget movies that independent producers can't fund and then profiting internationally. They make a movie for $200M then make $300M+ in sales.

I do agree that more independent (but still highly funded) producers are rolling dice, then manufacturing winners with their marketing power.

I switch between a Macbook Pro and a Windows ultrabook (long story) and the keys are spaced slightly different on both. After couple days of finger-confusion, my hands just adjust to them easily. The mind/body is amazing that way.

It's the ubiquity of the interpreter (every browser), right? You'd be hard-pressed to write anything for the web without JS, and once you're writing in that language, there's a strong pull to use similar libraries/processes/etc. for non-in-browser work.

Point taken, but I highly doubt most investors would roll their eyes at AMZN's numbers. It's not that they can't turn a profit; they're opting not to at this point.

Having worked in management in a large company, I have a little perspective from the other side:

Yes, there are laws that prevent you from employing a temp for an extended period of time. It's somewhere around a year; I forget exactly, but it's a law that attempts to protect temps from indefinite temp status. It's supposed to compel the company to hire that temp if they really want them.

There are also laws that prevent you from hiring a temp back within some period of time, so the company doesn't just skirt the issue by firing-then-hiring the temp with a one week break in the middle.

The reason a good temp isn't hired has nothing to do with benefits. Benefits aren't really that expensive relative to a knowledge worker salary.

The reason is because FT headcount is one kind of expense and contractors are another. The budget for FT head is very difficult to drop (it's called layoffs) and actually grows every year because of raises. Contractors are part of slosh money (e.g., "program spend").

So departments are told: "You can have a head budget of $XX and a program budget of $YY." The implicit understanding is that $XX will hold or grow across budget planning (i.e., "We won't make you drop your head budget unless we're actually doing layoffs or moving teams out of your department") and that the $YY can fluctuate.

Departments can generally spend the $YY any way they see fit, and often times, they need workers, so... temps. And if the company is financially stable (which I assume Amazon is), $YY doesn't drop that much so you end up with a long time with enough $YY to keep temps on for a long time, but there isn't enough faith in needing the department at that larger size to increase $XX enough.

I've also seen a lot of temps hang around for a year then get let go because there were just mediocre. Good enough to be productive, not bad enough to go recruiting again, and definitely not good enough to go use a bullet on fighting for increasing $XX. I'm not saying the OP is that case, but I'm sure we've all seen the mediocre temp (or FT) worker hang on.

EDIT: I should add that I'm not at a large company any more. Co-founded a second startup. Woohoo!

There isn't just a shortage of ultra-elite local talent, there's even a shortage of halfway competent local talent.

I've done a lot of hiring, mostly from colleges, and I can tell you that there are some schools that should just shut down their CS departments. You know there's a problem when you've given someone a 4 year degree, and they can't even get through a for loop. There's a reason fizz buzz is an interview question.

I refuse to outright ignore any school because I believe great people can go to any school (or no school at all), but some schools I have experience with are definitely a strike against you on your resume.

Homestead is still up and running, though we did start culling sites that had no visits and no logins a while ago.

(I was a co-founder of Homestead.)

While I'm not an IIT alum, this call to arms is relevant for all of us, the readers of HN. We are (grossly generalizing here) a fortunate group with the choice that we can make our communities better with our work.

I've had the Lenovo Yoga for a few weeks now and as the OP noted, the combination of very good laptop and pretty good tablet works very well. I'm surprised how often I naturally reach up to touch the screen even in laptop mode. I now even instinctively reach up when I'm using my macbook, only to be mildly disappointed when nothing happens.

Sheer size has to play a major factor here. Comparing the US to city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore or relatively tiny countries like Finland is really suspect because there is so much difficulty in the managing and improving an education system as large and diverse as the US has.

Unfortunately, there isn't a great country to compare to: the countries with the closest populations are Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc. and comparisons there have other problems. I'm guessing the best possibly comparisons are probably Brazil or China.

If you have a company that has good margins, decent numbers, and is not particularly viral, it sounds like your company is a candidate for a business loan, not an equity investment.

At the risk of over generalizing, early stage VC are interested in portfolio investing in high risk / high return companies.

Well-run, non-viral, near-profitable businesses that could use an influx of cash might be better off with a loan that won't dilute the owners' equity in the company.