Yep, that's what i did. Every 15 min I would measure the sentiment of given topics, normalize the messy data and plot them. you can overlay this against a time series of price data.
Twitter also has a historic tweets api. It's more work, but you can backtest as well.
I work for ConvertKit. We’re fully remote and have public, standardized salaries regardless of where you live in the world. Pay is based on title. If you want more pay you need a new title and if you know someone’s title you know their pay. Not all employees share their title because it’s personal but it’s also not a secret.
It’s way more fair than what Gitlab does IMO.
Also our financials are public. We’re bootstrapped and profitable with no outside investment so saying standardized salaries hurt the company is a lazy cop out at best. https://convertkit.baremetrics.com/
Do you expect to scale up, and if so will you continue with this model? I took a look at your team page and you have 48 members, whereas GitLab is almost at 800.
We do plan on scaling to $100,000,000 in ARR. We are planning on keeping this model. We have actually purposely limited how many people we hire to fewer than 50. I'm curious what GitLabs ARR is. I know GitLab raised nearly $170MM whereas ConvertKit has raised $0. 52% of the profit is distributed twice a year to employees at our company retreats. We're on track to hit $20MM ARR by the end of this year. We have a 401k program with 4% match. We get a $1000 "Paid" Paid time off bonus once a year. GitLab is a "Unicorn" but they've cheated their employees to get there. A billion dollar company can't pay people the same based on their role? Sounds like SV venture sharks speaking under the guise of remote work.
ConvertKit is an absolute rocketship of a bootstrapped company. What Nathan as done is nothing short of amazing, I'm saying that having followed your story for years. But that amazing MRR curve is the bootstrapped equivalent of a unicorn, which is what allows you to have those nice things. Taking them for granted or lamenting why other companies simply don't do the same is entirely unrealistic.
Look at any of the other companies on the Baremetrics open startups page https://baremetrics.com/open-startups (save maybe Buffer). Should Baremetrics itself hire a SF developer, blowing 25%+ of their annual ARR on it? They've been around for years, and are doing pretty well. Of course they should not, that would be crazy, and it has nothing to do with the company being cheap. They should keep hiring for reasonable salaries in anywhere-but-SF.
I do not take ConvertKit for granted. Every point I made is pointed directly at GitLab. GitLab isn't open or bootstrapped. I have nothing but respect for every company on the open startups page of Baremetrics, including and especially Baremetrics themselves.
I have worked for a few startups and I've been laid off from a couple of them. I would never believe a bootstrapped company could do what we're doing but we do and I'm lucky enough to be a part of it. We aren't unique either. Basecamp has been doing this for a lot longer than ConvertKit has.
Bootstrapped companies face many challenges that VC backed companies don't. GitLab isn't bootstrapped. I lament that companies with all this money don't treat their employees better when they definitely can afford it. If they say they can't then they are probably wasting money. @emilycook said in a comment below
> ...I was able to negotiate for a higher salary and they adjusted. If GitLab wants you badly enough then they'll do what every company does and try and make themselves competitive. You just have less leverage to negotiate in general because you're competing with international talent vs local talent.
So, they have the money to pay more but they are simply choosing not to.
The CEO of a VC backed company I worked for got a 40% pay raise immediately after a 60% workforce layoff. He was already the highest paid person in the company.
He isn't explaining why the blackhole would look like a fuzzy coffee mug stain. He's explaining why the _picture_ of the blackhole will look like a fuzzy coffee mug stain.
To your point, it's like taking a picture of Uranus with film and waiting for it to develop. People familiar with the matter can guess what the _image_ will look like not what Uranus actually looks like.
This is all very clear in the first 25 seconds of the video if you actually listen to what he's saying.
He was born a US citizen though. The requirement isn't that you are born on US soil, but that you are born a US citizen. John McCain was born in Panama.
McCain is distinguishable from Cruz' case though. He was born on a Naval Air Base in a US territory (the Canal Zone) which is legally a lot closer to US soil than Canada is--and some of the old common law precedents specifically address cases like this.
technically it says you must be a 'natural born' us citizen. who the hell knows what that means. If we assume the framers were well-read and fans of shakespeare, this means that anyone born by caesarean section is disqualified from holding the highest office. They were wise enough to know that the dermal microbiome of c-section children is destabilizing creates individuals of temperament ill-suited for the role.
The requirement is that you be a "natural born" citizen.
That said, although legal scholars can have how many angels can dance on the head of a pin debates about this, the most reasonable interpretation is probably that they're US citizens/eligible for US citizenship from birth. If push ever came to shove on this question, one would hope the courts would side with the most liberal interpretation.
Which isn't 100% defined and legal scholars can and do argue the edge cases based on lots of things including very old British common law antecedents. The consensus seems to equal citizen from birth although some disagree.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen ... shall be eligible to the Office of President"
Natural born means "citizen at birth", not "born in the US"> One can also be a citizen at birth (under certain circumstances) by having parent(s) who are U.S. citizens. Ted Cruz unequivocably meets this standard.
I don’t think so. I think it’s pretty naive to think some people exist without personality flaws.
Everything people do is out of some sort of greed. Some of it results in good deeds others not so much.
You volunteer or donate to charity because it makes you feel good, boosts your ego, and/or inflates your sense of self worth but you ARE being helpful in the grand scheme of things.
I know someone who is genuinely altruistic. She does things for other people cause she enjoys helping other people.
If you're consistently doing good for reasons which are in no way indistinguishable for pure goodness, to me it's the same. Call it "boosting your ego" or "inflating your sense of self worth". Some people just feel good knowing they've helped other people. I don't see how these people can be considered "shit".
Say the same person is having Lamb after she finishes an exhausting 12 hour shift helping people be safe. She tweets "Off home for some tasty lamb after a hard day!". Within 5 minutes, someone is going to say she is a 'pos' for eating baby animals!
Enforcement in practice is almost certain to be "at the edge" with things like payment processors and ad networks that have direct business operations in the EU and are easy to demand third-party compliance from.
If you literally don't do any business with EU entities, even at arm's length, enforcement is going to be impractical and unlikely.
I also believe this. If you run a side project by yourself and you don't target EU users directly, but might have a few, it most likely won't be worth the effort to actually follow through on enforcement.
However, that seems like a very arbitrary line and governments love to waste money.
Ha. You’re insane if you think that the US Congress is going to start letting 28 agencies in the EU start fining small businesses that have no EU presence whatsoever. The political ads write themselves.
I have an answer: no way is the EU going to cut ties with the US over this, and no way is the US going to let the EU trample their national sovereignty by letting regulators start fining small businesses with no US presence because some EU citizen sent their data INTO the US. That’s ludicrous.
But like you said, this is also just a hobby project for me.