wsetchell

Can someone explain what makes "corporate" applications so different.

Why does my corporate bug tracker need different security from Gmail? Does that different security do anything?

Some roles have regulations requiring a credit checks (IRCC).

I think this is most relevant for government jobs with security clearance. If a person has serious money issues, they might be more easily influenced or bribed.

What you describe sounds exactly like a "search" problem.

Employers need a way to search through the many applicants for people worth interviewing. Today they use heuristics (like referrals) to make filtering easier. There might be better ways to do filtering.

As an employee, it isn't easy for me to list all job openings within 15 minutes of my home today.

On my team (and most other teams) it is cool to work from home or a different office occasionally.

I think you're talking about two different things: "will Google drop support" and "will Google invent something better"

Map Reduce is still supported today. Most teams have chosen to move to newer infrastructure because it is better. Nobody forced those teams to move.

Here Google has not dropped support, but has invented something better.

[Disclaimer - work at Google, but not on anything related to Cloud]

thanks :)

I'm probably in your target market. I host/organize pickup games in several sports. I attend lots of other pickup sports. Finding other games, and getting people to come to my games is a constant struggle.

Kudos for shipping something, that's awesome!

Feedback:

Network effects are working against you. If lots of events are on here, it might be a useful place to search for sports. If lots of people search for sports on here, it might be a useful place to recruit people to my events.

Without either, this provides no value to me.

Product:

* As a person who wants play a sport, this app is not useful to me. There were no "events" nearby me to join.

* As a person who organizes pickup sports with friends, I'm not sure why I'd use this over my favorite messaging app to organize.

* As a person who wants to recruit new people to join pickup sports game, this app isn't useful for me. I help "advertise/promote" my pickup games on email lists, FB pages, and a meetup page. Creating an event here doesn't seem worth my time since I'm not convinced that it'll bring in people to play with.

Technical * Facebook login didn't work for me, it said some error about a bad location or something.

* Loading is painfully slow.

* It crashed after I tried to create a "I want to play sports" event.

Think about the job hunt as an funnel to be optimized. You want more stuff (jobs) out the end of the funnel. To do that, you can:

A) Get more things into the top of the funnel -- fill out more applications.

B) Fix the leaks parts of the funnel -- It sounds like you get stuck at the resume screen. I don't see any quick wins here.

C) Find a new way past the leaky part of the funnel -- Have you tried contacting hiring managers or engineers directly (cold emails, networking events, ...)?

https://people.csail.mit.edu/albert/bluez-intro/c54.html is a great intro.

Reading the code here is a good second step. https://github.com/sandeepmistry/noble

After you've gone through those, the bluetooth spec is useful for specific questions.

HR can create a policy like this to prevent managers from locally optimizing. Firing someone is a lot of work for a manager. It is easier for the manager to transfer that person, than to deal with the problem themselves (even if they really should be fired).

HR might also create a policy like this to improve the average quality of employees. An employee who underperforms on team #1, is more likely to underperform on team X than a randomly chosen new hire.

They are publicly working on medicine and energy problems. Games just happen to be a convenient place to do research.

https://deepmind.com/blog/putting-patients-heart-deepmind-he... https://deepmind.com/blog/applying-machine-learning-radiothe... https://deepmind.com/blog/deepmind-ai-reduces-google-data-ce...

This article was really hard to read. Here's my attempt at a summary:

* The author expects new cars to be networked and to have beefy CPUs.

* There are lots of cars, and each car will use lots of data. To network all these cars, you'll need investment from telecom companies like carriers.

* Today the car's systems don't talk to each other, or the internet that much. Once you network them, it'll be good for companies who make cars to see how their product is used in the wild.

* Now that you have smart cars, people can write apps for them. The author thinks this will be a large market with a few killer apps.

* Car's are really complex, and were not designed to be networked. You should expect a lot of security issues during this transition.

I can see this market playing out to be an oligopoly not a monopoly.

- Very high barrier to entry. You need $X of development costs, and $Y on traffic/mapping data. Anyone with money can get those. - Self driving cars have limited economies of scale.

  * Self driving taxis get better (less wait time) as their density goes up, to a point. Today Uber and Lyft are both dense enough in SF for me to not care which one I use.

  * Self driving cars get safer as you collect more driving data. Safer self driving cars are better up to a point. Safety matters a lot now, since cars are unsafe. On the other hand I don't care if Boeings are 2x as safe as Airbuses, both are safe enough for me. If you can make your self driving car safe enough, I'll buy it. To make your self driving car safe enough, you need to spend $X on developement and testing and $Y on really good maps.

I don't think liability is that key here.

cost of damages = # of accidents * cost per accident

- Self driving cars should reduce the number of accidents

- Cost per accident seems independent of the kind of car you drive. If a human driven taxi hits me, I can sue the taxi company. If a self driven taxi hits me, I can sue Google. I should be able to sue for the same amount in either case.

YC research brings (a little) money and hackers. You should focus on stuff not being worked on by hackers, or that is un-fundable by others.

Politics and incentives: The FDA was invented to keep people safe from bad food and drugs. How do you incentivize the FDA to be conservative, but not too conservative? Is there some way that we can allow people to opt-out of the FDA that would be better for everyone?

Mental health: Psychology research seems to be in the dark ages. It is expensive, ineffective, and often totally invalid (published results are often not reproducible). Can you figure out a new way to do psychology research?

In theory: Everyone works from head, so there is only one version of everything.

When you write a feature, you follow these steps.

1. Write code and submit to the main (and only) branch. Hide your feature behind a flag. 2. Releases happen from head (with no regard to your feature) 3. When you want to enable your feature, you flip a flag to turn it on.

In practice: Things are messier.

From the way you ask this question, it sounds like you already know the answer.

I don't think autonomous 'corporations' are anything new. If you replace Bitcoin with the gold market , most of the statements in the article still apply.

""" Gold can be thought of as the first real autonomous ‘corporation’ although you probably don’t see it that way. Think about it – it provides a payment protocol and employs traders to maintain that protocol.

The idea is the same – this corporation has revenues, expenditures and profits. However, once again, no one owns this entity, it owns itself. """

+1, live streaming with hangouts on air would be amazing!

http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/hangouts/onair.html

Idea : make newspapers more like collaborative blogs with some extra payment options.

http://wsetchell.blogspot.com/2012/07/local-newspapers.html

You are assuming that mainstream consumers are the target audience. I think the audience is actually A) Businesses B) tech savy users.

I suspect both of those users care a little bit more about the tech specs than an average user.

This sounds like we're tackling a symptom not the disease. Instead of figuring out how to stop bankers from being paid so much in bonuses, we should answer ask why a few times.

"Why can banks pay their employees so much?" - because they make so much money, and have so few employees.

"Why can banks make so much money?" - I'm not sure but it seems like banks can take risks, but pass off the real risk to others.

"Why can banks take risks, but not have to worry about the downside of those risks" - ...

I think if you follow that train of thinking you'll get to some structural problem in our current system. It doesn't seem like there is an easy fix here.