Isn’t the article confusing correlation with causation? I read like there’s a correlation between acceptance rate and author’s pedigree, but the article sounds like the pedigree is the cause of the high acceptance.
I’m no expert, so please correct if I’m wrong. But for example, how likely is that a Nobel prize winner produces worth-publishing research? Or how likely he is simply good at the skill of paper writing?
not really looking out to make money with this. The main purpose was just learn more about how bitcoins works (specially about key and addresses generation)
I would still recommend Upwork. Start very small, try to score some low budget fixed-priced projects. It's not that hard even for beginners in the site. Then do a good job and make the clients happy so that they write amazing reviews about you. Then keep biding on bigger projects. It worked for me.
If you have done something a million times, so that you can partial or fully automate, like say 'integrate google analytics into your website', then you might consider selling as a low price gig at fiverr.
I had been asking myself this since I started following IndieHackers a couple of months ago. And now this article has brought up that issue more intensely. Point is, how can we really trust any article from the website if no minimal check is happening on the interviews ?
I’m no expert, so please correct if I’m wrong. But for example, how likely is that a Nobel prize winner produces worth-publishing research? Or how likely he is simply good at the skill of paper writing?