ramirez60

anyone interested in the pdf -> word doc space?

Have you explored any non-digital marketing channels for growth yet? I am working on a sales model for companies like yours that sell to small/medium sized businesses. Would love to chat if you had some time to discuss. Is there a good way to contact you?

I don't mean to claim doctors do fine without enough sleep. Doctor friends I have spoken to talk about this talk about the reforms but it is not uniformly positive. I am trying to posit that the claim that we function better with more sleep is true. But that claim is made in a vacuum. Person A operates at 100% well rested. But operating at 80% or 60% is more valuable than 0% if averaged out over time. So I can write better code when I'm well rested, sure. I agree with that. I think everyone logically will. If I have 1000 lines of code to write. And it will take me 10 hours to write it. And I have 2 days to do it. I'll spread it out over 2 days and write good code, and maybe it only end up taking 800 lines of code. But if I have 1 day to write it. I might end up writing 1200 lines of code, but still get it done in that day, it is more valuable to me, than a day later when the code doesn't matter anymore. I'd argue I'd rather a doctor save my life that day, than do a great job and make sure I never scar over two days when the option isn't there.

Medicine is a regulated industry in that the number of people trained almost precisely matches the number of jobs available. The training process is designed to prune out people who cannot function when they have to choose between life saving procedure, and doing the life saving procedure perfectly but losing the patient. It's a straw-man I know, I'm just tired of everyone being absolutely fascinated by this idea that resting is better than not resting. Isn't that just obvious? Does anyone feel like they work better when they are tired? What knowledge are we gaining by these discussions?

I can't be alone in being exhausted at these studies. Doctors and Lawyers have spent the better part of the last century working on little to no sleep. Academics too. As an engineer, I would regularly work through little sleep because the process of loading a large project into my head to work on it would take more time than the gains from being more well rested. I'm older now, and no longer work as an engineer. I value my sleep and appreciate how much more I can task-switch on a good nights rest, but the idea that I'm not being productive when I'm grinding through work that has to get done and I'm tired seems an overwritten idea.

I'm not arguing against rest and recharging and clearing your mind. I just don't see what these articles are trying to prove. When I was in college I had several stints of no sleep days to finish projects. Even into my early engineering career, I once billed 40 hours straight. Was I as "productive" per minute for that entire time as if I had slept through 5 nights? No. Would the work have gotten done faster than those 40 hours if I had slept for 8 hours in the middle a few times? No. I had a deadline, and there was nothing getting around the work needing to be done.

The argument seems to be against a constant sprinting mode, which I don't think any company employs. Humans burn out after continuous work for weeks, sometimes months. But a week or 3 of little to no sleep to get through everything you need to? It's worked for a long time. Arguably building up muscle memory while forcing rote things to be learned while on little sleep works. What are we trying to prove by this? That "the man" is out to abuse workers? Of course he is. But did anyone make partner at a law firm by claiming he's going to more productive by working less? If you're goal is work life balance, go ahead. But if you're goal is to excel in a field, then it probably involves some sleep deprivation. PG wrote an article about the reason startups were suited for youth is that you could push through unreasonable hours to crank a lot of life into fewer days.

Sorry for the rant...just wondering if I'm alone in thinking this

Cuff - San Francisco, Android Lead, Mobile Designer, Electrical Engineer

https://cuff.io

We are a fashion technology company, bringing beautiful hardware enabled solutions to the world.

[email protected]

Isn't the argument about instagram's valuation pretty much solely based on it's potential for usurping facebook?

There is no true social network born on mobile, and although facebook might win, I'm not sure that it's "never" going to happen

The comment about stickers makes me think you don't understand how much money they make and how much people use them. It's massive. Look at Line made 17 million from stickers in Q1 this year, Kakao made 311 million in revenue and I'm not sure the breakdown but stickers is significant enough that it's mentioned in with gaming as the main source of revenue.

Stickers, whether it's reasonable or not, are a great way to monetize on messaging.

Snapchat also allows you to find someone to talk to that no other service does as seamlessly. From my understanding anyway, people will send out snaps to a group of people, many time everyone they're connected to and after a few snaps back and forth with one or two of the responders, they'll switch to another channel and chat. One could argue adding messaging here would increase the stickiness, but I think snapchat is right in that adding it in would just be distracting.

Are you just boring? It's obviously not something that should be done everyday but that doesn't detract from how awesome it is. Were you never young? Did you not try to go for glory on something that had risk?