This is a common issue for game communities too. Discord works better for bringing together game communities not only because it's a more active and responsive experience, but because it's a centralized platform where users are already spending time across multiple communities. But chat's not publicly indexed, so lots of valuable game knowledge Q&A isn't accessible through search engines.
I'm working with a game studio that's self-hosting their most recent game (Cyber Knights: Flashpoint)'s wiki for the first time: https://cyberknightswiki.tresebrothers.com/
It's going well content-wise, but it's insane how hard it's been to get it ranking in search results at all, much less outrank Fandom.
I canceled Soylent a couple of years ago after two silently-failing billing errors within a year and a rude customer service response. Looking for replacements, I ended up going with Huel.
It's been fine; I have had a couple of bad batches (too salty / bitter), but they replaced them. Switching from Soylent's ready-made drinks to Huel's mix-with-water powder was a small adjustment, but Huel's shaker bottle makes it easy. Soylent was fine unflavored for me (I'd describe it as "cheerio milk"), but with Huel their "original" flavor wasn't doing it for me so I've been ordering the chocolate. It's 1g of sugar, which doesn't bother me.
I'm just using it for a daily breakfast shake. I've never been that hungry in the mornings so can't comment on if you'll feel sated by it, but it works for me as a way to get some easy nutrition.
I'd encourage you to expand the book-promoting paragraph to include a bit more info / some interest-generating hooks about what the book offers that the article itself hasn't already provided.
If you really want to make this model sustainable long-term I might even make the recommendation paragraph dynamically customized based on referring source (here's a WordPress plugin that would let you do this: https://wordpress.org/plugins/if-so/). History enthusiasts are likely to be intrigued by a different set of things from the book than HN's business & systems-thinkers or an RPG community interested in world-building inspiration.
Lots of people will read a general-interest article (quick & no cost), but to get conversions to an actual sale, you need to target specific interests.
Well for one, the trend is hugely toward people consuming media on mobile devices, where resources like processor power and battery life are much more limited and unsuited to effective crypto mining than even a standard PC is.
Could you talk a bit about what you've done to promote it? Or has it been a hands-off, 'whatever traffic the marketplace provides organically' kinda thing?
I'm curious if other assistive software solves this need at the OS level, or if you other similar tools are already known to the community that it would be useful for.
Windows has built-in speech control that lets you scroll and click, doesn't it?
We have an EdTech accelerator here, LearnLaunch, with a program specifically for scaling startups that are already growing after achieving product-market fit: http://learnlaunch.com/x/#programs
Hey team, it'd be nice if the landing page actually explained what the software is, not just the benefits of it. Is it an embeddable video player (and if so what am I being asked to download) or is it a desktop video player (and if so how is it different from VLC?).
Mostly I just found the landing page confusing. It took a bit to see that the page wasn't scrolled down you just have half a screenshot, "video player that loves the internet" doesn't really tell me anything, and nope, that play button doesn't do anything either that's just part of the logo. =/
I've relied heavily on search traffic / SEO, because it provides ongoing benefit even if I step away from it for a while.
It's an easy fit for the information-focused sideprojects I've typically created, providing the content needed to rank with no additional effort, but it can work for any project creator willing to put a little effort into creating content about their project and promoting that content (to gain links to their domain). And most importantly, it keeps me focused on creating something people want, because I'm typically expanding the project in areas where I see there's a high volume of searches (through keyword research tools).
"you get the same response rate when you write one-sentence cover letters as you do when you put a lot of effort into them" is faulty thinking. There are many reasons an employer might not be interested in an applicant, and many reasons why they might be. The frustrating part of the hiring process is that not getting a response doesn't provide you with visibility into any of them.
But assuming the cover letter doesn't matter is as much of a mistake as assuming industry experience, or years of experience, or having gone to a particular school doesn't matter.
a) different companies prioritize different things, even if the requirements list is the same.
b) small things can get your application silently rejected (or more often, delegated to a 'maybe we'll come back to them' virtual pile), because employers get dozens of applications (hundreds over multiple positions) and the cost of interviewing is high (and worth noting, much higher than your cost of writing a cover letter).
Because IP addresses are often shared resources. Your ISP gives each customer an IP address (often a temporary one), and then that customer's router system handles assigning private, local-network-only IP addresses to any devices connecting through the network.
So if a DNS provider starts banning public IPs (which are the only IPs it sees), you could end up with an entire college getting banned because of one hacked webcam in one student's dorm room.
Or someone in an apartment somewhere with (unknowingly) a hacked thermostat finds their internet no longer works (DNS provider has banned them), so they reboot their modem, which causes their ISP to provide them with a new IP address. Guess what happens to their old IP address? It goes back into the pool of available IPs that that ISP can assign to other customers, and more and more banned-from-DNS addresses keep getting passed along to innocent, un-hacked customers.
I was writing about this for some friends recently. A lot of people don't "get" twitter because it's a very multi-purpose tool; it's not built around a central use case.
I find there are 5 useful ways to think about twitter:
1. It’s a way to follow people you’re most interested in. (Friends, authors, celebrities, professional mentors, restaurants you like.)
2. It’s a way to follow publishers of content you like. (Comedians, news, industry pubs, local events aggregators, food bloggers, magazines.)
3. It’s a tool for actively finding content you like or things you want. (Discussion about a show you like, jobs, deals, feedback.)
4. It’s a platform to get people interested in what you have to say, and be followed by those that already are.
5. It’s a quick, accessible opportunity to communicate with a peer, influencer, business, or supporters.
If you're interested in the rest of what I shared with friends (more actionable stuff on how to find what you want, how to handle noise, skimming other basics), you can find that here - https://medium.com/@jayneely/how-you-can-use-twitter-a-guide... - but the above is probably what's most interesting to the HN crowd.
If I spend my grandmother's retirement fund on lottery tickets, maybe I'll win her a lot more money, maybe I won't -- should I try?
Of course the likelihood of effectiveness matters. As does the potential harm you're risking. What the article is arguing is that keeping the site up allowed for a much greater distribution of the photos -- to potentially many, many more individuals who continue to elude prosecution, and may continue to spread those photos themselves.
At the time the FBI took over the site, there were 11,000 weekly user logins. During the additional time they ran it, it grew to 50,000 weekly user logins. Out of a potential 50,000 individuals, the FBI is able to prosecute only 186. pavel_lishin is asking a fair question when he wonders if allowing a potential 39,000 additional individuals to download those photos and potentially distribute them elsewhere actually resulted in any additional prosecutions, and if so, is that number worth it compared to the (potentially massive) amount of additional distribution the FBI enabled?