millerski150

Thanks and agree!

Thanks! Great feedback and ideas.

Thanks for the feedback. So far the questions are mostly about what it's like to apply, interview, and work at a company. We'll let companies answer what they want to. The purpose is to make information about jobs more transparent. There are numerous questions that could help a job seeker / candidate (and thus an employer) that aren't harmful to anyone. Maybe they'll answer those, we'll see.

Focus is a big part along with trying to get the company buy in to using it as a tool for their benefit. Building the product around helping people find info about jobs or careers will change some aspects of the architecture and layout.

Auth with a social account (Linkedin or Facebook) or verifying via their company email.

Thanks for sharing. We didn't know about Aaron's project, but it definitely resonates. We definitely agree with you here --> "Information I should had well before I ever applied". Hopefully companies / their employees will answer the questions!

Thanks for asking. We're going to pool the questions together and send them over to the company and let them know they can answer them (publicly) on an interface we built for them. If someone has cced an employee, we'll put them on the email. We'll probably send to HR or the founder(s), depending on how big the company is. We're not sure yet how companies will respond.

Agree!

It's a good question. We think there a lot of questions with answers that are beneficial to both sides. Perhaps some companies won't filter their employees - we're not sure. We might break out a section that allows employees to review or answer questions anonymously.

Hopefully these companies would be willing to answer questions publicly for everyone to benefit (= our goal)!

Good feedback. The company will be involved too. We're going to pool the questions, send them to a bunch of employees (including HR) and the company can decide how and if it wants to answer. Agree on it can help recruiting, that's part of the goal!

Thanks, looking into it now

Thanks for the comment. The full product will make this more clear, but the idea is to allow anonymous questions and answers will be from real employees who show their names.

There might be a section later for (current or former) employees to review or answer questions about their company anonymously, but that'd be broken out.

We did. cc/ @anto215

Thanks! Making some of these changes now. We're working on the fly so we're not totally sure how companies will respond, but there is definitely demand from people with questions. The goal is to have employees answer with their real names so you can solve (a) & (b) above.

Thanks, looking into it (ff 19).

Incredible stat:

"Facebook is one of the greatest consumer Internet companies of our generation, but for the time being the company is trading at half its IPO price. Groupon and Zynga, also titans of the industry, have been in free-fall since their last earnings call, now down more than 80 percent from their peak. $76 billion in wealth disappeared from those three companies alone — enough to buy every home that sold in Silicon Valley this year nine times over."

The article says "Restrictions on Internet gambling in the U.S. may also ease." Both Bloomberg citing the "U.S." as a whole and these states bucking the anti-gambling trend (historically states have been pioneers for trends in federal legislation) might (I said "considering") mean the US (= federal) will some day let those transactions be ... honored.

Yes. But it's interesting because the US is considering legalizing it: "Restrictions on Internet gambling in the U.S. may also ease, as several states, including California, Nevada and New Jersey, are considering legislation to legalize the practice."

Well now you never have to leave the casino

I wasn't trying to focus on energy consumption as much as the fact warming is happening in general, which isn't good. My point was the article title and data set (March - Jan) could mislead one to think global warming is reversing because of lower C02 levels from the winter. I'm saying it's likely not reversing, because the planet is warming overall and warmer summers will cause more energy production (like you said) and, overall, especially when you account for other nations, C02 production is still rising annually. Unfortunately, we only have one atmosphere and planet.

I agree global warming does imply warmer winters and summers. I'm not sure if you're addressing the article or what I wrote, but if you look at C02 emissions over a full year, I doubt the warmer winter would result in a reduction of total annual C02 production, because summers will now require more energy & C02 (to cool). I'm saying the title is misleading because just because a small reduction in the US' winter's C02 doesn't mean the planet is cooling (or global warming is reversing) ... especially if you factor in developing world emission growth, which I didn't mention before.

I'm reading between the lines a bit. The theory of global warming is that the world's average temperatures are rising. The warming has been attributed in part to rising C02 levels.

Because winters consume the most energy of any season (in the article) to heat, we emit the most c02 during that season.

Given that the planet is warming, the winters are milder (quoted above) (see this article on 13 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last 15). Because winters are milder (because global warming), they require less energy to produce for heating.

The section I'm referring to is: ""However, CO2 emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors: A mild winter that reduced household heating demand and therefore energy use"

I'm not sure the "13 years of average global temperatures have all occurred in the 15 years since 1997" is "normal. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8...]

The headline, while certainly nice to hear, doesn't fully capture the reality that this is not all good news (while the use of "cleaner" fuels is). Global warming has caused our winters to be warmer, which reduces energy demand (and thus emissions) from the most demanding time of year.

From the source of the article: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=7350

"However, CO2 emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors: A mild winter that reduced household heating demand and therefore energy use A decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas prices Reduced gasoline demand"

I'm nowhere near Ben's experience and don't fully understand the challenges of layers of management yet, but positive energy (clear objectives and highlighting success to the group) has always worked better for me than negative energy (threatening to fire). Maybe it's specific to the workplace, but I think it'd prefer the former as a leader or employee.

Agree the "why" is key to buy-in and success. But leaders need to coach not command. 1:1s and firing can be necessary, but only after the CEO has done a great job of setting clear objectives that everyone buys into. It's also ideal when people hold themselves accountable versus a leader having to (e.g. report at group meetings).

As a data point, Jeff Bezos, who Ben references, apparently doesn't like 1:1s. He prefers group meetings so everyone gets on the same page and to avoid "the telephone game." [source - Bing Gordon's 2011 talk at the Endeavor Summit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdTaywChuYM]

Good point. In the really early stages of a startup, it would seem best err on the side of focusing on maximizing the potential / value of "what makes you win" given the danger at that stage tends to be doing too many (unfocused) things. I still think "slack" time is important, but only after what "makes you win" is running out of juice or you need a different stepping type / level of stepping stone when expanding (say, when you cross $10,000 users and you've run out of friends / acquaintances to sign up). As you get bigger, it's probably easier to more formally dedicate people and time to "slack"