billirvine

Sure. But it's only part of it. And Kleese considers solitude the be distraction that the creative process also needs.

To clarify; I'm referring to smallish startups with less than 15 people. If I were to count the number of times that chance encounters in the kitchen, lounge, common area, etc. resulted in ideas that dramatically improved the product, it's be in the 100's. Creativity needs time to ferment, and a catalyst to clarify.

Large enterprise corporations with dozens of people on the tech team and a rigid process? That's not a creative environment. Startups MUST foster a creative environment.

As a founder of startups, I take a bit of exception to the tonality.

Yes, lots of inexperienced founders/leaders drink deep of the open office koolaid and do it wrong. But doing it right (allowing flexibility, having private spots, etc.) yields better overall results because people are more creative in groups. The chance serendipity of investigating new ideas with your fellows will always result in a better work product.

It's a trap! WhoIS shows a private domain registration through GoDaddy, and the site now shows a Plesk default page. This was probably not the site for an official Silicon Valley Alliance.

The iOS 7 examples look like something My Little Pony puked up in a general configuration of something similar to Windows Phone 8.

Maybe Bronies are the target market?

> I hate it when I hear people who have probably never coded

> in their lives, saying how easy it is to build something...

I believe, in this case, the author was using a rather effective technique typically called "sarcasm."

People are inherently biased. It's impossible for any person to read news and not inject their own personal tendencies into a summary they write.

Summly's help desk: https://summly.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/761930-what...

Launch coverage: http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/01/summly-app-nick-daloisio-vi... http://gigaom.com/2012/10/31/summly-wants-to-make-news-summa... http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/3583720/summly-nick-d-aloi... "Summly uses a combination of natural language processing and 'rocket science' from the famed scientists at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to pick out only what's important from news articles"

> I find your reaction fascinating

Ooo fun, -4 on the Karma for that comment.

My comment was not related to porn so much as to the obvious link-bait and predictable "0_o pron!" pile-on. Smells faintly of Reddit with a soft lingering bouquet reminiscent of DIGG of yore.

Alas, Hacker News - - - I knew ye well.

(poor subject for this site)

With abuse apparently rampant in "crowd based" efforts, can we trust their trust? Especially if this enables them to scale beyond their "50 million downloads" to the point where they become a target of those looking to cause mischief? Imagine teams of users giving rival sites we can normally trust, a slew of negative ratings.

I for one welcome our new Pyschohistory overlords.

Next time, you can be first.

I've long had "issues" with the madness that tech startup culture inspires. MVP should be IVP, where as IPV = Initial Viable Product. If one really learns "lean" methodology, MVP really is IVP, but no one seems willing to actually pause and learn. Sad.

> First off, this isn't a pivot. They're expanding their service

Apparently the users felt differently. From the feedback and reviews, the users saw a different direction -- not an expansion.

There's no way to know that, is there?

And with impression-based advertising, if you're blocking ads on sites you visit, you're blocking the income needed to pay the bills.

"Limits" in terms of advertising are relative and often moving targets. As a new product or service, it's hard to get noticed without testing where a certain limit may be. GoDaddy -- loathed by many, but not by most -- would not be the large firm it is now without having tested those limits. For better or worse, it worked, and some nice people have jobs (their campus is less than 2 miles from us).

I serve on the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) mobile committee. As a newish member, we don't have much influence... but I can confirm lots of "limit testing" is on the way. It's hard to monetize mobile, and ad delivery/targeting firms are in a panic.

I blame the insane culture springing up around inaccurate and ill-conceived interpretations of the lean startup methodology. Many young entrepreneurs and early-stage startups seem entrenched in a mindset that they must be pivoting or iterating or using all their runway or sumsuch similar nonsense.

The word "pivot" should be banned from tech startup lexicon.

Hi Chris...

"Fleeing TV" -- indeed, a shift is being observed. However, the medium exists because of advertising. Also, the audience segment that time-shifts is not yet at a critical mass, though rising. And, live event TV (sports) is still doing exceptionally well because of advertising.

Email is another matter. Being a former advertising executive would you believe I never did an email campaign? (Probably not) Email spam (simultaneously posted advertising message) has always been more considered a path to malicious exploit than legitimate advertising.

I'm not denying that an increasing segment of users are becoming frustrated with ads, only stating advertising is the best method we have _now_ for monetizing content that costs some degree of expense to obtain and disseminate.

A one-line drive-by snipe. HN has indeed fallen low of late.

The idea of micro-payments for online content and services has been around since Softbank Services Group failed at it in 1995 with $10 million tossed at the problem.

And it's a suggestion that shows limited awareness of the enterprise costs of attempting to create and deliver compelling content at scale.

If you (rhetorical you) desire free content, then a value exchange is implied. For now, no better value exchange has been created than a moment of your time for ads. It sucks. It can be irritating. But it's the only solution that works right now.

That being said, I like flattr -- it's altruistic and well conceived. But it won't work because you (again, rhetorical) are both lazy and entitled... and won't micro-pay for content you consume, but then doesn't please you.

Human nature... it's not altruistic.

Except that, your opinion can't be substantiated.

How did advertising substantially discourage people from engaging with television? There were times when a major portion of the country was all watching I Love Lucy at the same time.

I just don't see how you can logically defend that opinion.

> I'm paying for my bandwidth

Publishers pay for bandwidth also. And as a publisher, if I go over my 6,000 GB/month (which I have), I pay more. Very few home users are metered.

> And what about the blind guy who uses Lynx to surf? Or the non-blind guy?

Men of straw need not apply.

What about the struggling blogger (Brand Friedman?) unable to sustain his important and vital efforts on donations alone, who must turn to ads in order to eek out some revenue in order to continue?

> Advertising ruins every communication medium

Bull.

Without the revenue of advertising, you'd not have the live broadcast of the activities of Apollo 11 on the moon.

I could cite dozens (if not thousands) of important events of which the public was made aware because advertising sustained news papers, radio, TV, and the Internet.

Self-entitled madness.

Yeah?

You just made the conscious decision to use the paid property they purchased (bandwidth) to deliver you content that came at some expense. If the content is worth your time, the only revenue model available to sustain the content is not?

Self-entitled madness.

I know a significant number of Hacker News readers use ad-blocking options, which is why I thought of making this my first submission to HN.

My confession: (1) I'm a publisher that relies on advertising as my only viable revenue model (2) Before that, I ran the digital department of an ad agency that managed millions in online campaigns

So my opinions will be predictable.

But I'm going to (hopefully) sway the conversation into an area few think about -- the "independent web" exists because of advertising. There are thousands of websites that gain either significant viewership (and thus expense) or require significant time investments whereby online advertising makes the effort worth it for those involved. If "ad blocking" and "do not track" increase in popularity, the independent web will be in serious jeopardy. As a publisher of one such site, I know first hand.

And beyond just those important websites that provide thought and opinion which may be contrary to the "mainstream," are a host of other pure information sites on cooking, building, etc. that many of us find useful from time to tim.

And extending further, the massive ecosystem of hosting companies and their employees would also be at risk if their clients are no longer able to pay bills.

The unintended consequences of stifling the only currently viable revenue model for thousands of websites is far reaching.

Yes. Lots of ads do indeed suck (I made good ones!). And there continue to be unscrupulous ad networks that do bad things (though significantly less than 3 years ago). As imperfect as it is, it's the only option.

So -- brains of HN -- if you feel blocking ads is important, and realize that broader use endangers a great deal if important content online -- what's the alternative?

When did Hacker News become "Spam my Stuff" news?

Isn't it possible to discuss the merits of the product provided in the opening post without one-line nonsense posts spamming your own thing?

JEEZUZ.

What steps are you taking to mitigate spam and bias in summaries created by people?

I know if I wrote a summary of a Microsoft Surface article (I have one), it'd be very different from someone who loves it -- or is even an MS employee.

And spam... big issue there.

(disclaimer - I have your plugin and have tried it, summaries seem way too short.)

> there will be a disincentive for artists to sign up with records who indulge in such nonsense

Why would a creative person who's primary method of feeding the family are checks from publishers not want their publisher to diligently protect the revenue model?

I think (or hope) we're learning to compartmentalize our information consumption. As someone who's been involved in "user generated digital content" since before the web, I've had a front row seat for the evolutionary process that, to me, is logical but to others feels accelerated if not sudden.

I see it as our brains adapting to the information overburden that we feel is being imposed on us. As a result, those learning to adapt are creating four categories of information: (1) Stuff I need to know (2) Stuff I should know (3) Stuff I'd like to know (4) Stuff I don't care about

Content shortening/summarization helps augment our ability to quantify what fits into 2, 3, and 4. If I read the first paragraph of a traditionally written journalistic piece, I know where it fits before the second paragraph. But a precious small percentage of online content is written in that manner -- first paragraph giving the reader enough information to know what to do next. (There's a whole rant on our lost ability to write, but that's for later.) So since a smaller and smaller percentage of potentially viable information is written traditionally, automated summaries (should) help us decide sooner where something fits.

Does that make sense or am I just spewing madness?