ryana
Something like a spark file, or a single evernote file for interesting data points that come up in a project has made this a lot better. Sure it may take time to read through, but I know where everything is now and it doesn't require some complex tagging or filing strategy.
Absolutely no complaints.
Every book that comes in gets scanned and assessed to one of a few possible streams: - List for sale across all markets - Donation (too many of that title in inventory, desired by one of the specific literacy partners) - Recycling (too many of that title in inventory, not desired by literacy partner, or condition too poor) - ARC Books
That last business line is the Antiquarian, Rare, and Collectible group. These books are diverted to a team of people whose sole job is to manually price these books and work with rare book dealers as well as some of the more high-end marketplaces to move them. This went for more than books as well, as sometimes there were interesting related pieces that came in the door.
Also, fwiw, when I was there any book like this that sold for > $500 had a whole separate commission structure where at least half of the sale price would go to the group that sourced the book. So if an academic library sent a book from the early 1800's, and that sold for $15,000, they library would get $7,500 back.
"Very much enriched the owners" is quite a stretch. Especially considering pretty much every equity holder was wiped out ~5 years ago when they had to raise money to stay in business.
The CEO lives in a house in central Indiana that costs less than the average 1BR condo in San Francisco. Before that he lived in a townhome in suburban Atlanta. This business is not and never has thrown off cash. At best they've made as much money in profit as they've donated, in cash, to literacy causes over the life of the business.
A "very small percentage" donated to charity is up for debate based on everyone's belief of what that means, but all charity payments were made as a percentage of net sales revenue, which was essentially the money that came in from any sale. The only cost that was subtracted out was marketplace fees when selling on Amazon, ebay, etc. Sales percentage back to the book sources (academic and public libraries) and non-profit partners (on all sales from all sources) were paid out before shipping costs were even accounted for.
"Their entire business is based on receiving donated books from people who think they are donating to charity" is not true. Drop box books accounted for < 10% of all books sourced and even less than that of revenue since those books are typically the lowest quality stream (slightly better title mix than thrift purchases, but much higher logistics cost and risk of spoilage). The business is almost entirely dependent on public and academic library partnerships.
There were many, MANY monthly all hands meetings we sat in where the business lost money but wrote 6 or 7 figure checks to literacy partners. Donations were not a function of making money.
BWB was a great company full of people who truly cared about the mission. Some people did well, but nobody got rich off this business. If they didn't move most of the corporate activity out of Atlanta and up to Indiana I would still have been happy to keep working there.
If you have concerns about Edison's methodology or application of standard survey weighting then I think that could be a fruitful conversation. But implying that 1,500 responses can't be predictive for a country of 350 million is woefully misinformed.
Tesla has a larger market cap than Ford, GM, or Honda.
It does a lot to make sure this doesn't come off as "YC won't take a stand on political actors unless it directly affects almost all of our founders."
Either YC is an organization that takes political stands or it's not.
$200M per delivery seems a little tight to design and build 25 planes from scratch (the latest version 787 is ~$300M for comparison) but I'm sure they have smart people working on it.
See the graphic at the bottom of this page and feel free to peruse the linked dataset as well.
First thing, they say that a move from $10.74 to $15.00/hr will cost them $28,000 (from +$3k to -$25k), which implies they're paying over 6,000 hours worth of hourly labor.
Another option to make up that $28k would be to increase sales by 20%, which means their current annual gross margin is somewhere around $150k.
"[R]ent, payroll, and credit card processing represent 68% of all [their] expenses" and since they're basically breakeven let's say that merchandise costs are 30% with 2% miscellaneous costs (utility bills, etc).
So their gross margin is probably something around 65% as CC fees should never be more than 5% and merch is around 30%.
With $150k of gross margin at 65%, it looks like this store, employing 3 FTEs worth of part-time labor, is grossing about $225,000 per year.
If the average book in that store costs $15 (they say they're limited on what they can charge based on the sticker price, so this may even be low) they're staffing 3 people in the store at all times, all year round, to sell 42 books per day.
I think I found why you're having to pay yourselves out of the cafe money, sirs.
However, I do worry about that last point. One of the most important part of NPO fundraising is around building a relationship with the donor. Dollar a Day seems to take that piece out of the fundraising process, for better or worse.
Best case, outsourcing your donor outreach to Dollar a Day opens you up to thousands of new donors who get to learn more about you.
Worst case, it's Groupon for non-profit donations; taking away your ability to market your brand and spamming you into a few million inboxes who will likely unsubscribe after a 3-6 months of daily emails.
I see comments to this effect every now and then on HN (ie. any skilled team could build out Facebook in 30 days)
It's great to shoot for the stars and have faith in yourself, folks, but shockingly lots of people who get paid to program also happen to be REALLY GOOD at what they do.
While I could focus on the benefits of a little bit of humility (and they are many) instead I'll say that there are people who come on to these sites and see ridiculous statements like this and will suddenly start to wonder what's the point of learning to code if they'll only be good once they can build any app in a weekend.
So no, there aren't people who can build any app on the market in a weekend. And that doesn't mean that any of those people are bad at what they do.
There is a definitely model and need for filling empty seats at a restaurant. It just has to be done profitably over the variable costs of food (significant) and additional labor (much less significant).
This is a) a lazy narrative that simplifies the realities of Amazon's business models and b) flat out false.
The last 4 years Amazon has posted EBITDA of $1.497B, $934M, $544M and $506M (2010-2013, respectively). (1)
Over that same time period they've had Net Income of $1.152B, $631M, ($39M), and $274M
So yeah, I'd say unequivocally that $3.481B in EBITDA and $2.018B in Net Income over a four year time span is absolutely "posting a profit."
1) https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAMZN&fstype=ii&ei=...
If never or not often, why will Soylent be different?
If this creates another 3 David Cummings, for instance, the next 10 years of growth and investment could be incredible for a region that has historically been underserved.
It seems likely to me that making certain changes to a Tesla through rooting would just mean the car would end up not being street legal.
I think his point is also that this type of thing is not just accepted, but encouraged within engineering circles when talking about business people.
But yes, it wasn't delivered very well and the confrontational nature of it will mean that a lot of people who would do well to heed its advice will immediately turn defensive and get nothing from it.
I would guess that has something to do with Google and Rupert Murdoch's well publicized icy relationship. It'll be interesting to see who blinks first if this takes off.
It's also worth pointing out that the highest stakes tables have starting stacks in the 10s of thousands of dollars and pots in the hundreds of thousands. Your ROI doesn't have to be super high to pull in 4-figure hourly rates at those levels.
But for fun sometime, do a search for "Isildur1" in late 2009, early 2010.
http://www.pokerlistings.com/online-high-stakes-the-isildur1...
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/12/pokernews-exclusive-is...
And the biggest pot in online poker history ($1.4M) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfn6FjF0tc8
But seriously, if you stumble into a diamond mind worth a couple billion that does all the work for itself maybe you can find a way to keep all that money to yourself. But I'm willing to bet you're talking about 1% cases here, not the standard type of story that is brought up on HN.
I've seen a lot more people who think they have maximized their success and want to keep their "secrets" to themselves who end up crashing and burning because they don't realize what they're doing wrong. Meanwhile, people with 4-figure hourly rates keep talking strategy to root out mistakes and find new areas to exploit.
Now, if you think you alone are smarter than the collective then go for it I guess. If you think the community isn't trustworthy and you get less from it than you gain maybe you should find another group to work with.
But isolation isn't going to make you more successful.