Installs is a vanity metric, the more interesting metric in consumer social is retention numbers like d30, d60, and beyond. If they're able to keep users onboard for long periods of time, TikTok becomes a threat to incumbents.
It's insane. One of our core hypotheses is that a lot of people in SF don't want/need to rent out their rooms for a profit. They'd rather just meet and host particularly awesome people.
> One of our core hypotheses is that a lot of people in SF don't want/need to rent out their rooms for a profit. They'd rather just meet and host particularly awesome people.
hmmm, I think "a lot of people" referred to above is actually the group of startup founders with a room to rent? In which case probably not a lot per se?
Is this a side project or a product? If it's a product it doesn't seem like it will "scale" (sorry to use that lingo).
Yeah, that's definitely a concern we've heard. We're starting with startup founders because that's a niche we know well, but it can work for any frequently traveling professional.
There's a big tailwind for more people traveling for work and working remotely, and staying 1+ weeks in a hotel/Airbnb is prohibitively expensive. There are startups working on solving this by creating their own custom spaces, but we know tons of people who just leave their room unoccupied because they don't want to deal with minor hassles like key exchange, cleanings, making sure the temporary visitors get along with roommates, etc. We think solving all that will open up a massive new supply of short to medium term housing.
Indeed, the US presidential election is a joke on various levels.
1. The president is not picked based on the people’s vote. The US is a republic, not a democracy, where government officials cast the deciding votes.
2. The voting infrastructure can be easily tampered with, likely by design as pointed out above.
3. There is no limits on campaign spending, enabling billionaires and corporations to own the winning candidates that got the most airtime.
4. Two private entities have a duopoly on the presidency. They’ve established rules that prevent any new parties from serious consideration.
5. As surfaced by the Wikileaks DNC dump, at least one (if not both) of these parties actively sabotage some of their candidates to ensure the party’s pick a spot in the final national election.
> The president is not picked based on the people’s vote
Yes, the US President is. It's not a straight referendum but that doesn't mean it's not based on people's votes.
> The US is a republic, not a democracy
It's both.
> where government officials cast the deciding votes
No they don't.
> The voting infrastructure can be easily tampered with
The machines appear to be. That's quite a way from saying that the infrastructure is. That would require the tampering to be easily achievable. There's little evidence of that.
> There is no limits on campaign spending
Yes there are. They're not very effective but they exist.
> Two private entities have a duopoly on the presidency
Effectively yes.
> to ensure the party’s pick a spot in the final national election
This would be way more convincing if Trump wasn't the President. He clearly wasn't the pick of the Republicans establishment. Or anywhere near. If anything, his election shows that the parties don't have the control that they'd like you to think they have.
The US presidential elections are far from a joke. Not perfect by any means but internationally important events and, in historic terms, beacons of democracy. And in case it need saying, I'm not American and have no interest in being American.
This is a lot like consumer cryptography - yes, technical exploits are a problem, but they're overshadowed by social engineering.
In the case of US elections - even with secure infrastructure, the election will be determined by billionaire-sponsored campaign budgets and policies that entrench the 2 party system.
After the DNC email leak, I'm amazed how little attention was placed on hard evidence that the Democratic Party methodically sabotaged candidates in the primaries. Shifting public focus to the "Russian Hacking" was amazing PR work.
While Stripe is extremely developer-friendly, the alternatives aren’t that bad. They’re annoying to set up, but certainly not prohibitive to a determined founder starting out. Today, options like Braintree are comparable in terms of dev-friendliness.
Yes, but I’d credit Stripe for increasing the overall dev-friendliness of processors by introducing competition. And there were several companies started in the years before their competition caught up. I built two applications in 2012 using Stripe. One wouldn’t have existed otherwise, and the other would have cost my client a lot more money.
I’d also credit Atlas with new revenue. I don’t think that program has a peer yet.
There's a few reasonable reasons why FB should allow gender-specific job ad campaigns:
- Employers will likely see better ROI on their ad-spend by creating separate ad campaigns for every gender, with copy/creatives optimized for the target demo
- Employers may see that FB ads are ineffective for a specific gender, eg. fb ads are good for finding male candidates, while other marketing channels (radio, tv ads, etc) work better for female candidates.
Given these examples, I wouldn't blame Fb for allowing gender-specific ads. The onus should be on the employer to reach out to candidates of all genders throughout their recruiting campaigns, with gender balance when you aggregate efforts across different mediums.
Ha, likely there's a similarly sinister list of reasons not to do business with the United States. A quick glance at US foreign policy should suffice, or even just the actions resulting from Kissinger's direction.
Very interesting - the few times I've had a cigarette, I've definitely noticed a sense of clarity in thinking and alertness. For non-smokers, showers seem to be one of the rare times where one is left alone with ones thoughts to explore, while cigarette smokers may experience this with every smoking break.
Yes, I’ve never smoked cigarettes but I’ve always envied the way smokers could always just take a few minutes to gather their thoughts whenever they wanted. And smoking as a social activity cuts out all class and other boundaries.
