billirvine

Sure. But it's only part of it. And Kleese considers solitude the be distraction that the creative process also needs.

To clarify; I'm referring to smallish startups with less than 15 people. If I were to count the number of times that chance encounters in the kitchen, lounge, common area, etc. resulted in ideas that dramatically improved the product, it's be in the 100's. Creativity needs time to ferment, and a catalyst to clarify.

Large enterprise corporations with dozens of people on the tech team and a rigid process? That's not a creative environment. Startups MUST foster a creative environment.

As a founder of startups, I take a bit of exception to the tonality.

Yes, lots of inexperienced founders/leaders drink deep of the open office koolaid and do it wrong. But doing it right (allowing flexibility, having private spots, etc.) yields better overall results because people are more creative in groups. The chance serendipity of investigating new ideas with your fellows will always result in a better work product.

It's a trap! WhoIS shows a private domain registration through GoDaddy, and the site now shows a Plesk default page. This was probably not the site for an official Silicon Valley Alliance.

The iOS 7 examples look like something My Little Pony puked up in a general configuration of something similar to Windows Phone 8.

Maybe Bronies are the target market?

> I hate it when I hear people who have probably never coded

> in their lives, saying how easy it is to build something...

I believe, in this case, the author was using a rather effective technique typically called "sarcasm."

People are inherently biased. It's impossible for any person to read news and not inject their own personal tendencies into a summary they write.

Summly's help desk: https://summly.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/761930-what...

Launch coverage: http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/01/summly-app-nick-daloisio-vi... http://gigaom.com/2012/10/31/summly-wants-to-make-news-summa... http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3583720/summly-nick-d-aloi... "Summly uses a combination of natural language processing and 'rocket science' from the famed scientists at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to pick out only what's important from news articles"

> I find your reaction fascinating

Ooo fun, -4 on the Karma for that comment.

My comment was not related to porn so much as to the obvious link-bait and predictable "0_o pron!" pile-on. Smells faintly of Reddit with a soft lingering bouquet reminiscent of DIGG of yore.

Alas, Hacker News - - - I knew ye well.

(poor subject for this site)

With abuse apparently rampant in "crowd based" efforts, can we trust their trust? Especially if this enables them to scale beyond their "50 million downloads" to the point where they become a target of those looking to cause mischief? Imagine teams of users giving rival sites we can normally trust, a slew of negative ratings.

I for one welcome our new Pyschohistory overlords.

Next time, you can be first.

I've long had "issues" with the madness that tech startup culture inspires. MVP should be IVP, where as IPV = Initial Viable Product. If one really learns "lean" methodology, MVP really is IVP, but no one seems willing to actually pause and learn. Sad.

> First off, this isn't a pivot. They're expanding their service

Apparently the users felt differently. From the feedback and reviews, the users saw a different direction -- not an expansion.

There's no way to know that, is there?

And with impression-based advertising, if you're blocking ads on sites you visit, you're blocking the income needed to pay the bills.

"Limits" in terms of advertising are relative and often moving targets. As a new product or service, it's hard to get noticed without testing where a certain limit may be. GoDaddy -- loathed by many, but not by most -- would not be the large firm it is now without having tested those limits. For better or worse, it worked, and some nice people have jobs (their campus is less than 2 miles from us).

I serve on the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) mobile committee. As a newish member, we don't have much influence... but I can confirm lots of "limit testing" is on the way. It's hard to monetize mobile, and ad delivery/targeting firms are in a panic.

I blame the insane culture springing up around inaccurate and ill-conceived interpretations of the lean startup methodology. Many young entrepreneurs and early-stage startups seem entrenched in a mindset that they must be pivoting or iterating or using all their runway or sumsuch similar nonsense.

The word "pivot" should be banned from tech startup lexicon.

Hi Chris...

"Fleeing TV" -- indeed, a shift is being observed. However, the medium exists because of advertising. Also, the audience segment that time-shifts is not yet at a critical mass, though rising. And, live event TV (sports) is still doing exceptionally well because of advertising.

Email is another matter. Being a former advertising executive would you believe I never did an email campaign? (Probably not) Email spam (simultaneously posted advertising message) has always been more considered a path to malicious exploit than legitimate advertising.

I'm not denying that an increasing segment of users are becoming frustrated with ads, only stating advertising is the best method we have _now_ for monetizing content that costs some degree of expense to obtain and disseminate.

A one-line drive-by snipe. HN has indeed fallen low of late.

The idea of micro-payments for online content and services has been around since Softbank Services Group failed at it in 1995 with $10 million tossed at the problem.

And it's a suggestion that shows limited awareness of the enterprise costs of attempting to create and deliver compelling content at scale.

If you (rhetorical you) desire free content, then a value exchange is implied. For now, no better value exchange has been created than a moment of your time for ads. It sucks. It can be irritating. But it's the only solution that works right now.

That being said, I like flattr -- it's altruistic and well conceived. But it won't work because you (again, rhetorical) are both lazy and entitled... and won't micro-pay for content you consume, but then doesn't please you.

Human nature... it's not altruistic.

Except that, your opinion can't be substantiated.

How did advertising substantially discourage people from engaging with television? There were times when a major portion of the country was all watching I Love Lucy at the same time.

I just don't see how you can logically defend that opinion.

> I'm paying for my bandwidth

Publishers pay for bandwidth also. And as a publisher, if I go over my 6,000 GB/month (which I have), I pay more. Very few home users are metered.

> And what about the blind guy who uses Lynx to surf? Or the non-blind guy?

Men of straw need not apply.

What about the struggling blogger (Brand Friedman?) unable to sustain his important and vital efforts on donations alone, who must turn to ads in order to eek out some revenue in order to continue?

> Advertising ruins every communication medium

Bull.

Without the revenue of advertising, you'd not have the live broadcast of the activities of Apollo 11 on the moon.

I could cite dozens (if not thousands) of important events of which the public was made aware because advertising sustained news papers, radio, TV, and the Internet.

Self-entitled madness.

Yeah?

You just made the conscious decision to use the paid property they purchased (bandwidth) to deliver you content that came at some expense. If the content is worth your time, the only revenue model available to sustain the content is not?

Self-entitled madness.