The data is interesting but the quality factor is the most important. I.E. A 20000 dollar web designer may actually cost you money in the long run vs a higher paid one.
Agree that procedural knowledge is important. But I think the critical decisions that make a startup a success or failure don't have a specific procedure as they're unique problems that nobody has every faced before. I also believe that moving out of the box is the only way to truly take what you've built and make it much bigger than it is.
Completely agree, but what about understanding who that customer is, connecting the right features with the right group of people with the right marketing. That kind of information has a lot of theory but not a step by step guide guaranteeing success. I suppose this is more idea decisions and direction decisions rather than implementation but I think my point still applies.
Agree with the benefits of having procedures, and great example also - but I'd change one small thing "determine highest performing picture headline combo by CONVERSION RATE". In my experience high CTR images don't always have high conversion rates.
I've never seen so many positive up-votes before. What do you think of this as a move? Do you think it makes him accesible or will it be seen as pandering?
It depends on the answers he gives to questions. From what I've read, they are fairly generic, which is ok, but I think we expect more on the internet. Its a good step in the right direction though, I think.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of Americans on reddit were already going to vote for him, and that it will have virtually no impact on anyone who doesn't use reddit.
Outsiders often have a valuable viewpoint on other groups, because they are not emotionally invested.
Bush was always ridiculed and seen as stupid in German media. The US should be proud that Obama is seen as intelligent and that his word carries weight. (And Romney had a bad start with his remarks in the UK about the Olympics.)
I also remember the doomsday mood 2008 about the economy. It bordered somewhat on the brink of a depression. I think the administration handled that very well! And as practically every other industrialized country has universal health care the struggle in the US about that is baffling. On the other side the Republicans were obstructing so much important stuff! I remember the shenanigans about the debt ceiling. I wish they would be punished with an election loss for their irresponsibility to the world and the American nation.
>> Outsiders often have a valuable viewpoint on other groups, because they are not emotionally invested.\
I wasn't discounting outsider's opinions, I've traveled the world several times, America is great because we are all outsiders. I was addressing the nature of his comment which sounded to me like he was intending to represent all Europeans, rather than a European expressing his view.
Bush should have acted sooner to restrict the door Clinton opened which allowed many people to get loans who had not the finances nor shown the responsibility to own a home.
If common sense regulation should be required of big banks and "wall street"; then we should require it of ourselves as individuals.
A 78% stock market rally, US unemployment dropping from 11% to 8.2% and record corporate profits are a failure? Or is there something else you don't like about Obama?
He isn't a leader, he's a facilitator. The job of President of the United States of America requires a leader. Is there something else I don't like? Nope. He's a likable, smart, very charismatic guy with little business experience.
Is there something else that you're suggesting you think or want to think that I don't like about him?
When the vast majority of Americans ever vote for one of the two candidates, the system is uncalibrated. Both parties try to set it up so they can cut closest to 50.000001% as possible, so the two candidates end up being fundamentally similar. If you're familiar with the game theory exercise of competing ice cream stands on a beach you'll see why.
Well, no. The smart money[1] is on Obama being re-elected, but likely not by the same margin as he saw in 2008...when he won 52.9% of the popular vote. However, it's too soon to tell what the effects of a couple developments will be:
1. A systematic effort in 'swing' states (the states that are not predictably behind one candidate or another) to disenfranchise as many poor and minority voters (traditionally reliably voting blocs for Democratic candidates, such as Obama) as possible by implementing stringent new voter ID laws just months before the election (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-vote...). The nominal purpose of this is to prevent voter fraud, but between 2002 and 2006 there were only 86 convictions related to voter fraud out of 200 million votes cast (http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_o...). Another (self-described conservative) source indicates the number as being 400 in the last ten years (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/sore-losers/).
2. A relentlessly negative and admittedly not-reality-based campaign from the Romney campaign to re-litigate welfare reform, which hasn't been a real issue in sixteen years, since Clinton gutted the system (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/peter-edelman-mit...)
Also, please note that a poll conducted last year indicated that 25% of Americans believed that Obama was born outside the United States and, therefore, ineligible to be President[2]:
While 25 percent of all Americans in this new poll say
Mr. Obama was born outside the U.S., 57 percent correctly
said he was born in the United States. Another 18 percent
said they did not know where he was born.
To say that the United States has a massively uninformed electorate would be an understatement[3]. And the problem is getting worse now that the US Supreme Court allowed corporations and high net worth individuals to anonymously contribute unlimited amounts of money to so-called 'SuperPACs'. SuperPACs are supposedly not allowed to coordinate directly with the candidate(s) they support, but that doesn't matter for two reasons:
1. Their ads are overwhelmingly negative[4], and it doesn't take a genius to figure out how to run attack ads against the opponent.
2. The 'firewall' between candidates and the SuperPACs is so narrowly defined that it might as well be non-existent[5].
[1] 538, TPM, Sam Wang at Princeton, etc. etc. I can provide citations if necessary.
[3] http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/09/brains-and-ballo... -- my favorite quote: And here’s where it’s interesting, and a little scary. “The dirty little secret of American politics is that the least-informed people are decisive in elections,” McDonald said. This is because the most well-informed voters, the highest on the socio-economic and educational attainment ladder, tend to be partisans and not up for grabs. They know how they’re going to vote.
I think it's an awesome, inspired idea - a direct public forum of discussion with your leader. I can't get to the page to see how he's handling it, though.
That would be great, wouldn't it? In practice, it turned out to be more like having a conversation with a bot: when someone asked a question that he could answer with a super-generic, achingly inoffensive rephrasing of one of his campaign messages, he did. And that's all he did.
I would be disappointed, but I wasn't expecting anything more.
