Yeah! I'm really curious how long it will take for those "closed loops" to develop. I think cryptocurrency co's should be working as hard as possible to find them and get them online.
Agreed that there are lots of well designed on-network mechanisms for this as well. My point was that early Stellar uses cases will probably involve blending on-network/off-network transactions, especially in communities not (yet) comfortable with relying on bitcoin.
I built a feed compiled from a few different sources (places like Longreads and The New Yorker), and I check that feed for new entries once a day (scheduled rake task).
Agreed- there definitely seems to be some kind of mental hurdle people have about those $2 purchases. Like you, I'll probably end up purchasing it now that I've thought about it logically and because gregcohn took the time to respond to my post.
That said, my comment was more focused on the business decision of making an app like this paid. If you could effectively A/B test this kind of scenario, I wonder which approach would actually lead to more long term revenue.
This looks like a great concept- but I have to question the one time purchase price.
Right now, Burner is top of mind for me, but I don't have an immediate need to use the app. If it were free, I would gladly download it right now, and simply pay for a number whenever a use case arises.
As it stands now, I probably won't download the app, and when a potential use case does arise, who knows if I'll remember (and be able to download on the fly) this app.
Great concept, and love the rest of the pricing model built on Twilio. I just think the Burner team might be missing out on potential additional distribution.
I think it is important to note that there is a big difference between weeding out resumes due to a heuristic like experience, and weeding out candidates based on experience.
Take the oft-quoted Tristan Walker/Foursquare example. If Tristan had simply sent his resume to "[email protected]", It's likely that Dennis and Naveen would have hardly looked past the first lines of his resume. However, because Tristan worked his ass off to reach out directly, he was given a chance to do amazing things despite his inexperience.
I entirely agree that inexperienced people shouldn't be discouraged from trying to punch above their weight. I just believe that the bar for them to gain entry is a bit higher than submitting a resume.
I certainly won't disagree that the rejection was a mistake (since admitting that mistake is the whole idea of the post).
However, it is worth noting that when we rejected Dan, we rejected a skilled developer. We did not reject a (skilled+proven) developer as you asserted.
Our mistake was in failing to see past Dan's relative inexperience in the areas that mattered to us. We knew he was skilled, but we were unsure how well his raw talent would translate to our product needs at the time. In other words, he was not "proven" in the ways that mattered to us.
Obviously, Dan has now developed enough of the social proof needed to be classified as (skilled+proven), but I think he would be the first to say that his skillset last year was very different than it is now.
Many companies regularly pass on very good people who simply don't fit an immediate defined need. I think this is a common mistake, and one that isn't just made by corporate HR drones and technical recruiters. Part of the goal of this post was drawing attention to how common this mistake is.
I should probably note that the use of the word "rejected" was done to emphasize the humor of the situation (we rejected someone who is now being publicly recruited), and to draw attention to what a mistake it was.
I would completely agree that A level hiring isn't about rejection, job descriptions, or assembly lines. That's why I am such a fan of what Jason Freedman is doing at 42floors.
To your second point, I remain a firm believer that early stage companies (less than 10 people) in this hiring environment should be open to bringing on A players, even if they don't fit into an immediately defined role.
Anyone who has actually dealt with Dan in person knows that he is a humble, quiet guy who would never seek to misrepresent his work in any way.
I first met Dan shortly after the launch of wheremyfriends.be, and he was effusive in his praise of the work both Wesley and Ajay had done as they collaborated on the project.
Thanks re: postage stamp :)