dtkuhn

I don't know how to fix news. But like you said, Starbucks Steve and his buddies probably aren't the answer. Maybe they need to work together with journalists.

Can this be scaled? http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/23520052/the-big-roundta...

I have been under the impression that the point of Facebook is to log in regularly, scan through postings from the Ridiculous and Obscure, and to deduce, accordingly, that life could be so much worse. On the bright side, the product ("Facebook Therapy"?)seems to work so well that, in time, logging in no longer becomes necessary..

I'm curious as to why the conversation about compensation for work done for "non-technical" upstarts is almost always framed as a binary "payment in equity vs cash" issue. Seems like there would be a huge market for MVP development by developers with a hybrid compensation model. (Maybe this is already common?)

For instance, a developer could quote Price X to non-technical co-founders to develop a simple, proof-of-concept MVP with an agreement to would receive Equity Y upon completion if the developer either (1) stays on for Period P or (2) helps the founders successfully land a more suitable, long-term developer to take over the project. The parties could even agree that Equity Y would be larger (e.g. 2Y) if the developer stays on.

Benefits to the non-technical co-founders would be (a) a proof-of-concept (or failure), (b) alignment of incentives with a developer to try hard, and (c) access to an insider to help find a permanent developer upon completion of the MVP if the MVP developer wants to exit (e.g. for a better opportunity).

The benefit to the developer would be (i) guaranteed fees, (ii) potential for equity (even if he exists) and (iii) flexibility.

More, a subsequent developer would have the chance to deal with someone who speaks his own language in the negotiation with the non-technical cofounders, and could avoid and annoying and/or exhausting translation of technical details.

An obvious objection may just be that non-technical co-founders never have money to pay for an MVP. I am far from an expert, but I would think that some do.

Chicken/egg. I'm not sure reform is practical until consumers have the help necessary to shop / compare. Otherwise, you basically have a bunch of old, angry voters.

Agree. Patients need better information if we are ever going to be serious health care consumers. Doctors have very little incentive to help us shop for services. Co-payments, lack of reimbursement, etc are all tools used by insurers to reduce cost (combat moral hazard, etc), but very little has been done by patients historically to systematically lower costs.

(1) Help Medicare track cost-effectiveness of tests/procedures involving really expensive technology (development of which will only get more & more expensive); (2) Teach Medicare patients how to become actual consumers of health care (how to shop for price/compare treatment options) -- i.e. help transfer some of the burden of reducing cost from payers to patients w/out causing mass hysteria