But I wasn't a CEO. I was just a teenager programmer unable to resolve disputes and prone to let ego guide my actions. I got better by maturing, studying and I even took a mediation course.
That said. Danielle, this is NOT how a CEO solve problems. Betapunch, what happened? I'm a client and never had a problem, I actually have been recommending your service to a lot of people.
Danielle and the betapunch employee who replied to her are unable to run serious businesses right now. God, I remember being called SOB by customers over the phone and replying 'Please, I'm sorry' even when the fault was not even close to ours.
You guys really could use a mediation course.
I kid you not, the quote below is taken directly from their site as instructions for site testers:
"Be as critical as possible when reviewing a website. It's ok to be positive but don't just talk about how great you think their site is. These websites sign up for BetaPunch because they know they have things that can be improved upon. They want you to be as honest as possible with them as to your feelings about their website. Figure out what makes sense to you and what doesn't. And be sure to VOICE your opinions as you navigate the site."
If you can't get someone onboard as a customer, work on figuring out why and building a relationship so maybe you can get them onboard later.
Edit: Also wanted to add that if someone uses your beta product you should be thanking them for taking the time to try out your new product (and hopefully giving you feedback) rather than expecting them to thank you.
On the other hand, there is no such thing as bad publicity, maybe it's their weird way to get recognition, by treating their customers like they owe them something.
After all I'm sure most of the readers will go to their website, just to see what it is, and even try their service.
So in the end, the bad customer service led to a blog post by the customer that was being badly treated, which might give them more traffic than if they were just nice, ironic.
I would love to see cinematographers experiment with natural lighting for shots. Kubrick (in)famously did this in Barry Lyndon 37 years ago. To do this he used f/0.7 Carl Zeiss lenses that were designed for NASA.
Nowadays we are far less limited due to the incredible light-sensitivity of modern image sensors. And if that doesn't work we can go for larger sensors, which would still be far cheaper than doing the same with film.
I have a feeling Kubrick would be having a field day with current tech and would have been one of the first supporters of 48Hz.
When CDs first came out, people argued that they sounded "cold," even though they're near-perfect recreations of the music that was recorded. People like the hiss and compression of records and tapes.
This is also the same reason why people like Instagram filters. Normal iPhone pics are too good. Let's fuzz em up a bit.
Also, look at v1 of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other popular sites - they were far from pretty.
There's a lesson here. Somewhere.
They did agree that the first 10 minutes were painful, but I think that's a combination of the fact that it's not what you were expecting and the fact that the first 10 minutes of the movie were awkwardly shot and acted ("DRAAAAAGOOOON!"), which the burring effect of the lower framerate helps to disguise.
Sure, I believe that some people probably didn't like it as much. Different strokes for different folks and all that. But I can't help but feel like there is something of an "old guard" effect at work here, where people fetishize the incidental details of something they're heavily involved in, and those people are responsible for a lot of the noise.
No, it's not. The actual threshold is unknown, but it's generally assumed to be around 100fps. Like the threshold for color, it's a complex question.
You don't see stuttering in a movie (usually) because each frame has an exposure time that is almost the full duration of how long the frame will appear on screen. The result is that anything moving will blur on the film (instead of getting a crisp shot), and so motion sequences are much more natural.
I'm not entirely sure why 48fps was chosen, but I know that too much more and many of the projectors that are currently showing the HFR film would be unable to. It's also worth noting that in 3D, each eye only gets a new frame at half of the rate (because each eye only sees half of the frames), so each eye is getting refreshed at the rate of a regular movie.
I know that there were lots of other technical obstacles when filming in 48fps, such as color muting by the camera. This could have also played a role in the choice of keeping it at just 48fps instead of something higher.
I'm not entirely sure why 48fps was chosen,
1. The imax hfr 3d was on the whole awesome and I got a glimpse of where cinetech is heading. I was surprised by how good it was 'cos I expected it to be visually a lot more "soap opera"ish, iykwim. Peter Jackson has done some really good compromises so the film would look good in either format. It could've been a lot worse!
2. I was left with a craving to watch the 48fps again after I saw the 24fps. The craving was not for the outdoor scenes, but the indoor scenes which felt a lot more intimate in imax hfr 3d.
3. The outdoor scenes felt a bit bland compared to the 24fps! However, i think it was not the lighting that made it feel bland, but a feeling like i was moving through vacuum along with the camera. There is air out there in the scene and i was not breathing it or feeling the wind as the camera moves. These scenes worked in 24fps. Perhaps adding some sound indicating the air and wind might help during the sweeping outdoor shots.
4. Some cinematic techniques felt "old". The "zoom in on character and fly around" effect (on oakenshield) didnt work for me at all in hfr, but was spectacular in 24fps.
5. Slow motion needs to be reinvented. The slomo battle scenes between orcs and dwarves (iirc) had feeling to them in 24fps, but I thought "why are they moving so slowly? .... oh its slow motion!" during the hfr. It really needs something more to indicate that it is for emotional effect.
6. High resolution hfr 3d graphics totally rocks! The trolls were real and alive for me, as were the orcs and goblins. I think the digital team might've broken some new ground here rgd compositing scenes that's in some way different from what you see in games at 60fps. (Or maybe not!) At least, i cant wait to see Cars or WallE in imax hfr 3d!
7. Some 3d oddities (parallax) were disorienting in both. Ex as the camera pans to the young Bilbo letting off smoke rings, it looked like someone was pushing the bush behind him into place. But overall, 3d rocked in hfr for me compared to 24fps.
8. Traditional background score didnt work as well for me i hfr compared to 24fps. The scenes being more intimate and lively, i continuously had a feeling that the orchestra felt out of place. I'd much rather just have the sounds necessary for just the scene. Also the 3d placement of the sounds need to be more faithful to the geometry in the expansive shots. Some sounds just felt too loud for the distance.
Edit: minor bugfixes and clarifications plus new point on sound.
This sounds entirely wrong to me, regardless of his appeal to experts.
There was no "film" versus "high definition". So far as I know, the Hobbit was not filmed in both 48 and 24, nor both in film and in digital: I think it was filmed on RED in 48fps HD digital and converted to 24 HD digital in post, by adding motion blur. Thus there was only one sensor type, aperture, shutter speed (likely 1/96), and ISO setting for both film versions. The blogger's description above seems to make assumptions which are simply not true.
If this guy saw some difference in lighting, this difference must be solely due to the 24fps motion blur conversion.
I learned to do things in this particular way, and I cannot unlearn it.
One reason however that some CDs really did sound cold and clinical in the early days was because the transfers to CD were using EQ curves that toned down bass and heightened treble frequencies for pressing vinyls. It made the vinyl records more even, but it made the CDs sound weak and harsh. My brother has been spending time in his home studio remastering some of his 80's CDs with normalization and EQ changes mainly, and they sound tons better.
Like the article says, HFR may require similar "mastering" to suit the newer format better, changing filmmaking techniques that no longer apply like they did in the 24fps era.
Shouldn't he have just toned down the extra lighting indoors, knowing 48FPS was going to pick up more detail?
And then I went to a cinema,and could not get used to this effect. Everything the characters did, seemed accelerated. I did not think that the video looked amateurish or home-made - no, absolutely not. But each scene in Biblo's House or generally all inside scenes looked like they were playing at 2x the normal speed - the characters moved too fast, it was unnatural. But I know that it couldn't have been really moving at 2x the speed - the sound was in sync,so there was nothing wrong with the cinema. I have no idea,how this could happen - I have seen plenty of videos shot in 60fps and never noticed anything so disturbing. Sorry,but Hobbit in 48fps was unwatchable for me.
Of course, its easy to say "you ain't used to it so it's odd" but that seems dismissive. Film is manufactured fantasy, so imperfect reproduction is totally acceptable and perhaps preferred.
Not a fan of 3d, though; everything good about 3d seems to be handled just as well through depth of field, and once a lot of viewers will be on 2d, there is never non redundant 3d; it is either pointless in a scene, or backed up with depth of field, composition, color, or other ways of indicating depth and importance.
The HFR really sucked, IMO, in the early Shire scenes, which were boring indoor things. I've seen HFR before so I don't think it was adjustment. It worked well in battle or action scenes. A movie like Black Hawk Down or maybe sci-fi would do really well with HFR I think; not drama or fantasy.
What did seem to work in 3d were some of the 30 minutes of text and graphics beforehand. I am excited about 4k or 8k realtime rendered graphics for user interfaces.
The best way I could describe it to people was "remember the first time you saw porn shot in HD?"
This is false. A human eye can detect changes at 60Hz, for sure.
As for the Hobbit, I think HFR could certainly have used a better "ambassador" film. Maybe James Cameron (who has also talked about 48fps from time to time) will do a better job of it in his next movie.
To me the 3D effect seemed to cause a lot of jitter and poor fps so I was a bit ticked the whole time. But now having read this article I'm even more ticked off that I didn't even realize I was watching 48fps.
...and that makes me wonder why I couldn't tell the difference.
After hearing about all the stuff about how PHP was an "old", kludgey language, I tried to learn python, and go the webpy. It was doable, but I kept running into issues all the time.
I gave up and switched to PHP, and I have to say that it was a much easier experience. For the most part, everything just worked. Regardless of how kludgey its history is, how inconsistent the syntax is, etc, it really does work well. I'm now doing PHP development at my current job and it's been fine.
One thing I learned from a previous job was the saying "Your customers don't care about your technology. They care about you solving their problems." If you are solving their problems, they will pay you, regardless of whether or not your back-end is CGI, perl, PHP, or whatever.
> The vision has been the same for years. A general purpose scripting > language with a focus on web development. You are simply saying you want > the vision to be more specific than that because everyone has a > different view of what web development means. But even if we narrow the > vision, it will still be open to a lot interpretation. We try to strike > a balance between the different and changing views of web development > the same way we strike a balance between appealing to weekend warriors > and top-100 trafficed sites. No vision statement is going to answer the > question of whether annotations should be in docblocks or in the core > language. That's simply not what vision statements do. > > -Rasmus
There is a tremendous amount of backwards compatibility in current versions of PHP that allows one to follow the same approach to Web development that those did back 10-15 years ago with PHP 4. No, it is not "Enterprise", and yes there are security considerations to account for. But the process of adoption is key, and PHP continues to be adopted by a lot of startups/projects. Those that choose to adopt the PHP language as their advanced vernacular moving forward still continue to have a number of more advanced programming language concepts to utilize in PHP with each new release, with barely any breakage with other approaches to using PHP.
I write in php for the better part of 4 years now and hate it every day. And I have written in c++ before that. Ask 20000 developers what are their main pain grievances sort them by "popularity" and just remove them one by one.
For me it is the hard debugging, the include mess and the "extremely" creative ways parsing and runtime errors are communicated to the developers.
"PHP's vision is being simple and practical and focused on the web. PHP is what people use to get their first site off the ground. PHP is what a web designer learns when he/she wants to go into programming. PHP is what a random Joe uses when he needs to whip up a page and he's in "do it yourself" mind. PHP is what you expect everybody to be able to handle, and everything to be able to run. It is not to serve everybody, every use case and every possible need."
Frankly, I don't understand this vision at all. Is PHP supposed to be a beginner's language that a webdev eventually moves on from? I mean, don't get me wrong: I used PHP for exactly that when I graduated from high school. But is the directive really, "Real programmers don't use our language"?
That said, outside of that to make PHP work on bigger projects you end up with a lot of structure and ceremony that make PHP suck, not quite as much as Java, but it's not amazing.
Thiings like testing and testability aren't much fun in PHP. For a long time package management was a joke.
PHP is for webdev. That's it.
The response hardly seems warranted. The vision is pretty stated there.
1) No one from Zend or Rasmus can apply.2) facebook - would love if you guys forked it, but you don't need my money.
IMHO, a programming language should not just focus on itself or whether it has such and such feature, but on how it can be used in the entire software development cycle. This is something Go and Ruby are doing exceptionally well, and is why I like using them so much to build software, whether its web or otherwise. Probably because of its history as a template language embedded into HTML (way back when :), PHP has still got some growing pains in order to build up its software development paradigms, but I'm still hopefull, it has gone amazingly far and continues to improve.
Programming languages are hard to change, very hard, because it will certainly break programs written in it in many places. So if you want a programming language with a vision you should start with it, or simply accept it has no vision and it merely goes with the whim of its maintainers. The latter is what I believe happened to PHP. No biggy, there are plenty of languages that do have strong visions and are very suitable for web-development; just move on.
If PHP was to implement a vision, it would soon not be PHP anymore, whether that is a good thing is up to the users of that language. In that case I foretell a hack of a lot of porting effort and a fork (facebook?)... :)
"PHP is what people use to get their first siteoff the ground. PHP is what a web designer learns when he/she wants togo into programming. PHP is what a random Joe uses when he needs to whipup a page and he's in "do it yourself" mind."
PHP is a great language in that its very flexible and quick to get going with, the sad thing is people don't want it to grow up...after all, so many massive companies (FB?) use PHP for core components. Why can't those internally have a slightly larger vision...
However, thinking back through my own experiences with the kind of minor pull requests I've occasionally made to projects in the past, I can see this being quite useful. Have you ever actually cloned a big repo like the kernel's? Even the Node.js repo takes a fair old while. If you're just trying to submit a correction for a minor typo or omission in the project's README, then this feature lowers the barrier from minutes to seconds. Hopefully that will be a net positive for the community.
We're going to continue spending more and more of our computer time in the browser. It's the universal platform.
I've had this exact same attitude at every company (many!) I've ever worked at. Until someone or something completely outside my control fucked it up. Then I took my positive attitude and moved on to my next "last place to work".
Kinda makes a difference if it's your company, huh?
I seriously have nothing against them, I wish them more success even: just not success getting to the front page here because frankly they don't talk about interesting algorithms, technologies or business strategies. They are incredibly boring. No mobile, no Google glasses, no new computer game, no crafty actionable patio11 strategy, no raspberry pi hack, no programming language hack, no excellent presentation, no struggling story of success, no rejection and comeback, no scaling of servers, no clever command lines, no new SSH shell, no browser plugin, no investment philosophy, just "I love my business".
75% of their posts are simply not HN-worthy and there isn't a voting ring but there is probably a bunch of social contacts who are up voting this. Please just subscribe to their twitter or RSS because their weekly show here is frankly tragic and they should cut down to 1/4th as much and spend more time with their family.
Edit. Just to note I own a DHH book, so I will pay for the writing of this guy when it's actually worth it. I'm just saying this blog stuff isn't even worth free.
There are worse things in the world than a founder looking to make a company a good place to work for the long term. Consider: If shit is broken, we'll fix it now, lest we be stuck with it for decades. Now think about people flipping companies, people playing hot potato with toxic assets, or looking for the next vote, or surge in page-views, and this attitude starts to look pretty nice.
When I moved to the Bay Area both my wife and I were scrimping and saving to come up with a down payment for a house. After living there six years we 'traded up' to a roomier house, and in the process of getting our existing house ready for sale, we did a lot of the stuff we had planned to do 'someday' but in this case to make the house more attractive. We redid the hall bathroom, fixed the lights in the den, simple stuff. It was a lot nicer house to live in just before we moved out. We decided our next house would be different, we would do the things that made the house more livable/nice when we thought of them, that way we could enjoy them ourselves.
The tricky bit is doing this even if you aren't "sure" you're going to be in the same place in 10 years. The fear is that if you suddenly are going to be doing something else, living somewhere else, well you could have used those resources better by not spending them on something you wouldn't use/enjoy.
My experience has been that it is always the right thing to invest for the long haul.
This was a transformative realisation for me. It empowered me to take the pride in my work that I knew I wanted to, and drove me to push myself a little harder. It was also useful in helping me see my long term career goals more clearly. Once you've thought "this is what I'm going to spend my one and only lifetime doing" all the bullshit falls away.
The first software job I ever had was pretty much perfect in every respect. Great team, fun projects, respect & support all the way up to the owner, plenty of leeway to experiment with fun tech on the off chance that it might come in handy one day.
But they hired me at the market rate for a junior dev. And I got better fast. Like so fast that the things I built attracted attention elsewhere. And before the first year was out it was abundantly clear that I could make twice what I was making simply by responding to an email or two.
So I talked to management, and they did everything in their power to get me up to the market rate for a regular dev. Which was still way less than I ended up taking when I did eventually respond to one of those emails. (and a ton less than I was making a year after that).
Your value just goes up too fast in this business for a single company to keep up with. Nobody gives 100% raises every other year, but the market as a whole seems to be quite happy to do exactly that.
Unless that changes, I think we'll find that most people end up on a track like my own. We might find our dream job several times along the way. But unless we're pretty near the end of the track, it'll be hard to justify staying there forever.
If you want me to treat a position like it's the last one I'll take, then show me the same: treat me like a member of the team that you'll fight to keep around. Offer equity, take that at-will clause out of the contract, treat me like a partner in your success.
Anything else is just blowing smoke, I'm afraid. At the end of the day, you can be let go without notice (and, to be fair, you can also walk away at any time); that's the agreement you sign during your first professional interaction with most US-based companies. And it sets the tone for the rest of the relationship: this is a transient arrangement, and can be discarded as situations change on either side.
Then reached the end and it's DHH. Of course he wouldn't mind working there, he owns that place. That punchline made the entire article insipid.
The funny thing is that I make better decisions even with extremely short term projects. If I'm working on a 1-month software project, I'll get it done better and faster if I have the perspective that I'll be using it for 10 years than if I have the perspective that I'll be using it for 6 months.
So it may be worth putting yourself in a long-term state of mind, even when it's not necessarily true.
I'm sure picking up the odd Lamborghini ( http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/coyotes-pulitzer-... ) as a token of last month's worth of effort is also a good plus... :-)
I'm no longer young, but I've bounced around to quite a few jobs because I've always run into a wall in terms of growth, personal growth within the organization, or professional growth - not expanding my skill set fast enough while limited to one employer.
As the founder of a company, you have a lot more control in pushing the envelope in lots of different ways, but I think the challenge is being able to create that for yourself vs. creating it for those that work for/ with you.
dhh can create 37racing, work from wherever he wants, push the envelope on technology as much as he desires, but I believe the challenge is giving the same to your employees, not just through profit sharing, but sharing the ways your company can grow.
Receive greetings from our company, through this post we want to maintain a good communication with each and every one of you, and inform you more about us,our company has successfully delivered medications through all the globe for the last 6 years with no inconvenient, we have become one of the most reliable company's in the internet. We want to let you know about our shipping offer:
Buy medications with NO prescription.Xanax, Alprazolam, Diazepam, Clonazepam, Phenobarbital, Etcâ€¦.Benzos, Sleeping Problems Aids, Weigth Loss, ambien, Pain Relief .etc...
Url Website: https://secure.icomstec.com/savings/store/src ...Customer Service: email@example.com
If you don't find a medication or drug enlisted please mail us.
1-3 Business day deliveryMost Discreet packaging you ever seen, no one will think you are receiving medications.
Thanks in advance for your purchases.
Every slide has a secret note
Any idea how to show that on something like an iPad? Once per day to see the alt text on xkcd is already too much to bear.
"'We have a more informed class of college consumers,' said Bonnie Snyder, founder of Kerrigan College Planning in Lancaster, Pa. 'Everyone today knows someone who went to college and ended up with a career that didn't justify the cost. They see college as a more risky investment.'"
Yep. More and more of us know more and more examples of college graduates who live in their parents' basements because they can't support themselves with their college diploma. It's time to be more discerning consumers of higher education.
Colleges try to confuse the issue of their value with imaginary list prices subject to discounts ("scholarships") that mislead about what a college is actually worth. Here's an interesting link about how colleges are advised to set their prices by consulting firms, a link I learned about from a Harvard-trained economist and policy analyst:
What about the remaining 82% and 85%? What fraction of these project an increase? It's not mentioned, so perhaps there's also been a similar rise in the fraction that projected an increase, and all you can say then is that there's increased variance in projected revenue change, not that universities on average are facing projected revenue decrease.
The project I'm working on wants to send SMS messages to clients, but we postponed that for v2. But after seeing the example for Twilio I'll heavily recommend we implement this feature now, as it seems very straightforward and will be a major upsell for our startup.
My brother is studying Comp Sci (well in Bolivia it's called Ingenieria de Sistemas - less b-tress more ASP.Net), and I really want him to learn Ruby and become happier with his work.
I feel more and more like now is one of the best times to want to learn anything, programming included. But you guys really are making it so easy for the next generations of programmers to learn the right way.
Thanks for this. I hope it makes the kind of impact it is capable of.
Will dig into API stuff once I actually finish the other basics.
I'd love to see them do something on OAuth / Twitter. I find that stuff very confusing.
Unfortunately this means I'm having all sorts of data integrity issues: for example, I can't access the third lesson in the Parse track, which is showing 9/4 exercises done. I'm also having trouble finishing several exercises in these courses, due to puzzling errors and, possibly, flawed tests.
But, wrinkles aside, I think these lectures are a brilliant way to generate leads: I subscribed to pretty much every service that has course on its API (Parse, Twilio, NPR...).
I also wish they would fix their current classes. A couple of bugs are keeping me from finishing their Jquery and web(original) tracks. I emailed them about it, but still doesn't work.
Also, its quite likely that one would be using jQuery (or some other lib.) to do all of this in practice.
One of the things I've been playing around with have been the Phillip's "Hue" lights (see the Apple store) which you can control via the Zigbee light protocol. Taking the colors from the screen and doing accent lighting of similar shades. Its kind of amazing how that makes your screen seem bigger.
It's an incredibly 'simple' concept, and yet the perfect next step in immersive display.
This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules.
"Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."
The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater.
Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.
>But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.
Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?
Information is as useful as your ability to act on it--no more, no less. Real-time analytics is something that sounds sexy and gets a lot of headlines (and probably sales), but it's not particularly useful, especially compared to the cost to implement. Most organizations aren't capable of executing quick decisions of any significance. In fact, quite a few business models wouldn't have much to gain even if they were capable of it.
My experience is that there are three types of companies, with very little overlap:
1. Companies large enough to receive statistically significant amounts of data in under an hour.
2. Companies small enough to make decisions regarding significant site updates in under an hour.
3. Companies whose name is "Google."
Fact of the matter is, any change to your site more significant than changing a hex value will require time overhead to think up, spec out, test, and apply. Except in the most pathological cases of cowboy coding, it will take at least a day for minor changes. Changing, say, the page flow of your registration process will take a week to a month. You won't be re-allocating your multi-million-dollar media budget more often than once a quarter, and you have to plan it several months in advance anyways because you need to sign purchase orders.
In short, you can usually wait 'til tomorrow to get your data. Really, you can. Sure, you can probably stop an A/B test at the drop of a hat, but if it took you a week to build it, you ought to let it run longer than that.
I have had one client who really did benefit from real-time-ish (same-day) data. It was a large celebrity news site. They could use data from what stories were popular in the morning to decide which drivel to shovel out that afternoon. This exception nonetheless proves the rule: Of the 6 "requirements" listed in the article, only 1.5 were needed in this particular case: hard yes on accessibility, and timeliness was relaxed from 5 minutes to 30.
(Note that when I say analytics, I mean tools for making business decisions. Ops teams have use for real-time data collection, but the data they need is altogether different, and they are better served by specialized tools).
His math is right, but the logic misses a basic fact. In A/B testing nobody cares if you draw a conclusion when there is really no difference, because that is a bad decision that costs no money. What people properly should care about is drawing the wrong conclusion when there is a real difference. But if there is a significant difference, only for small samples sizes is there a realistic chance of drawing a wrong conclusion, and after that the only question is whether the bias has been strong enough to make the statistical conclusion right.
He also is using 95% confidence as a cut-off. Don't do that. You don't need much more data to massively increase the confidence level, and so if the cost of collecting it is not prohibitive you absolutely should go ahead and do that. Particularly if you're tracking multiple statistics. If you test regularly those 5% chances of error add up fast.
1) You have to provide context for everything. Current real time revenue is presented right next to the 14 day average revenue up to that point in time, and also how many standard deviations the delta between the two is. Ie: Current revenue is $100 at 10am, vs. 14 day average of $90, which is 0.2 standard deviations of revenue at that time.
2) Hourly revenue is presented the same way, right next to the 14 day average revenue for that hour and the SD delta.
3) Look at it a lot. I've been looking at this sheet regularly for over a year now, and I have a really good feel/instinct for what a normal revenue swing is, and an even better feel for the impact of different features/content/events/promotions on our revenue.
4) This approach also works better when the impact of your releases is high. A big release typically spikes revenue 2-3 SD above baseline, and causes an immediate and highly visible effect. So while I'm not strictly testing for statistical significance, it's one of those things where it's pretty obvious.
5) It also works better if you use it in conjunction with other metrics. We validate insights/intuitions gained from looking at realtime data against weekly cohorted metrics for the last several months of cohorts.
The central theme is a good one though, tactics or strategies have an innate timeline associated with them, and deciding on tactics or strategies with data that doesn't have a similar timeline leads to poor decisions. The coin flip example in the article is a great one.
Ideally one could say "What is the shortest interval of coin flips I can measure to 'accurately' determine a fair coin?" And realize that accuracy asymptotically approaches 100%. One of the things that separate experienced people from inexperienced ones are having lived through a number of these 'collect-analyze-decide' cycles and getting a feel for how much data is enough.
"So, what's the real-time system going to help you decide that the current system won't?"
There is a long, uncomfortable pause as the two people look at each other, each hoping the other will answer.
"Well... it's not so much the real-time element, per se..." one managed. "But we want more granular data about how people are using our app."
"Okay. But you're currently doing analytics via HTTP callbacks, right? Why not just extend that to hit some new endpoints for your more granular data? You've already got infrastructure in place on the front and back end to support that."
No answer. We moved on. I don't know if I actually saved them 1-2 man-years of work or if they plowed ahead anyway.
While I agree with the basic premise that Real-time analytics are rarely helpful, here are a couple places where they could be very useful:
* Conferences - Being able to see live user analytics on a conference site, since it is ephemeral, would be great.
* Pop-up Sites - Again, the short nature of the site means seeing a blocking action or a broken link early is tremendously valuable.
Basically there are a couple circumstances where real-time analytics might make sense, but they're generally short duration engagements. Getting analytics info for a site which is no longer being hammered is useless unless it's a long term project.
I use analytics to do significant A/A testing on every configuration the sites users are actually using to determine what will work for my A/B testing later...Should I maintain a separate realtime analytics or delay deployments by 24 hours when I would like a little more assurance? This is not a rhetorical question, whether I should keep maintaining separate tracking for the 20% of the time where google analytics is unfit is an open problem for me.
Similarly, I would like to know if there is a sudden plummet in some demographic the second I start a test. It usually isn't significant, but the client panic will be. It is better to cancel the test and do a post-mortem before restarting.. A B test doesn't have to get its day in court.
Giving delayed numbers for routine reports is perfectly valid, dressing up that pig is luddism.
Real-time data isn't needed for A/B testing but this falls into the PEBKAC category.
"He's right, mortal. This isn't what you would call rocket science," added Athena.
"Okay, and my business will succeed if I can understand cause and effect?"
"Yes," said Apollo.
"Of course! Why are you wasting time? Go write some software", said Athena.
So yeah, real-time A/B testing seems like a bad idea, but real-time analytics sounds fine. On the other hand, maybe the Gods gave you the idea of cause and effect to destroy you. I bet more than one story on hacker news today pretends to understand the causes for an effect.
Big, bad, NIST!
Also, nearly every company that knows anything about internet routing is a government contractor. Because, you know, they invented the internet under government contract.
Could I suggest an extra column - Downloads * price
more constructively in comment threads here, and avoid the "worst argument in the world"
as we argue with one another.
One thing I've noticed is that they are used as counter-arguments. "OH, you're saying that because you're biased." Could we say that some people are biased toward seeing biases everywhere?
Even if you've rationalized an opinion of yours in its entirety, as deep as it's humanely and currently possible, you can still be subject to, say, "wishful thinking".
Say you hold a belief about something that is not yet verified to be true of false. It's a belief. It's not knowledge because you can't justify its truth value yet. A skeptic philosopher might hold that you will never justify it entirely. But that's a different story.
However, some people will just trow a "bias" at you for the simple reason they think you wish it to be true, not that you believe and think it to be true.
Unlike the Pi these offerings usually come with Bluetooth, WiFi, larger flash and 1GB RAM in dual or quad core configurations, and pre-packaged in consumer friendly boxes ready for hooking to a display, although access to auxiliary IO buses may be more difficult. SATA (Mele A1000G), GigE (Wandboard) and mini PCI designs (i.mx6 Sabre Lite) are even available.
Avoid shopping at Amazon (it's a ripoff by someone who is hoarding units).
It'd be great if RPi could find a way to expand production. At the very least, being more upfront about the delays in production and who will actually get units, would be a big help.
More information on the "opensource-ness" of Raspberry Pi:
Edit: Thanks for the responses. May be I should have explored the site more instead of just reading the article. http://www.raspberrypi.org/about
"So we've established that this is going to save you four hours a month. OK -- it isn't ready for you yet, but it will be soon. It costs $50 a month. Can I get a $50 deposit from you to reserve your spot? We'll apply it against your first month's fee."
If you've identified a problem people actually have, they'll crawl over you to give you money. You don't even have to accept it, just watch whether they're actually willing to get out the checkbook or not.
(n.b. A lot of software is sold prior to existing at numbers substantially higher than $50. For example, you might hypothetically be building something enterprise-y and looking for your first anchor customer. If you are, the conversation goes something like "OK, will you soft-commit to being our first customer on this? We'll draw up a Letter of Intent which says that, six months from now, after we've got the technology in place, we start implementing a field trial for $YOUR_COMPANY, with successful implementation to be followed by an annual purchase in the six figure region. Does that sound good to you?")
It launched with a price though. But also with a 30-day Free Trial.
The logic being that I could spend all pre-launch time building the actual thing. And then I had 30 days to get that payment processing stuff sorted out. Back then, you almost needed that much time. Today, you need a good hour to get Stripe up and running, so it seems even less of a priority.
So yeah, sure, you probably aught to have "makes money" baked in from day one. But if all you have is some Stripe sample code, I don't think I'd consider that a product.
Wow. Should I return a few million dollars to my customers?
But if you want to sell something for $15,000/year, it's not nearly as important.
This turned out to be good for a number of reasons:
1. I had no idea how long it'd be before the first person paid, so why optimize that flow? Instead I worked on things which would help me get to the first paying customer. 2. The IPN was the hardest part of PayPal implementation, so it saved me a lot of time to avoid it. The rest of the implementation can even be done with their button implementation and no coding experience. 3. Actually people having a slight delay, and my needing to personally email them, was a great thing. That built a lot of loyalty through the personal contact and those were some insightful conversations.
Then again, I hate living on credit as do most of my countrymen. I am amazed people would lend to buy a new car. If you can't afford it buy a cheaper model or one that's got more miles (or years) on it.
In Germany many businesses (assuming you are working on some SaaS / B2B / ...) would look at you like you just talked Klingon if you tell them you only accept credit cards. Sad truths is that most smaller companies do not even think about having credit cards. There is slowly some change, form what I have experienced, mostly due to older CEOs and business owners being replaced by a younger generation but overall credit cards are not as common here as in America.
On the other hand I currently looked at some providers for credit card processoring (currently working on a project where it could become necessary). Most of the services seem to require your company to be in America or England, most won't work in Germany. So maybe I skip credit cards for the beginning and chose to go with something else (just hypothetical) - does this mean I do not have a product? Because I only support 5 out of 6 possible payment options?
Then there is still the option of in app purchases. For most apps which are "just an app" I believe they will work way better. No need for another service, no separate website or member area, nothing to care about but integrate an existing system which is designed to move money from a customer as fast and easy as possible to you (and a middle man).
The author is right that you should think about payment processing while working on a product - but processing credit cards is not the holy grail.
Even though I only made $95 my first month (a lot less then what I had hoped) I now have a clear idea of where I stand and what needs to be improved and tweaked. It'll be a slow and at times painful process (SEO, A/B testing, blog posts, re-design, features) to make the profitability worth all the hours put in so far...
A business is likely not a business if they aren't charging someone for something. Instead it might just be an organization that builds things, but for better or worse a business is something that is created to make money. If you don't like that idea, you shouldn't be "in business".
CISPA is a "tell" that says "I oppose cybersecurity legislation without considering what it says". CISPA did not enable "government snoops" to access personal information. It enabled the government to share incident and attack data with private companies, and created a mechanism by which large service providers could share incident data with the government.
I like Wyden! I just wish he wouldn't make comments like this that make it seem like he's demagoguing. Any schmuck could figure out that there's a lot of very loud people on the Internet that will cheer on opposition to regulation of any sort. I'd like to think Wyden isn't just that!
Good to see the benefits FC brings to their startup clients extending beyond just capital sourcing.
There's also a great quote from the TechCrunch author, affirming FC's investment model and clarifying doubts he had just 3 months ago : "I raised questions about whether FundersClub was operating illegally as an unregistered broker-dealer, but after speaking with its legal team, I'm convinced it's in the clear."