It wasn't meant to be an ad -- I wondered about the differences myself, and figured other people may as well. But in reading about the alternatives, it became a little bit more clear why NSNG has worked for me where other 'diets' have been too difficult to stick with. Anyway -- definitely wasn't intentional. I'll try to add more substance to future posts -- this one was just a quicky, trying to share some of what has really worked for me. Onward... PS just noticed your username -- we have a fawn frenchie named stella :-)
Any headline with 'dog' in it grabs my attention. In this case, I couldn't agree more -- had 1 or more dogs at TeachStreet for many years, and I know it kept things more casual and low(er) stress. As one of the key dog-owners, though, I do admit that the need to take them out a few times per day can turn into a bit of a distraction, especially if you finally get in the zone and then have to break it up -- I know everyone says that it's good to walk/relax, but I'm not sure they're the ones who are supposed to be running the show. Anyway, love the article.
Totally agree on the more casual and low(er) stress. I've found that working in an office with a lot of dogs really keeps things mellow...I've, literally, never seen anybody lose there cool and I attribute that to the dogs. It's just hard to get wound up and bend out of shape about something with these amazing, adorable creatures around!
This was a fun week's worth of work for Team TeachStreet. Felt good to get everybody working on a single project (we've spent many months working on lots of different areas of the site, and working with different partners). It was really refreshing, and you could almost 'feel' morale climb, as we all had a chance to just have fun for a few days!
No, I don't think that's it (having lived here for 13 years). I think it's just more that people are focused on their own thing, by and large, vs. getting out with a small % of their time and building a community for the greater good.
This 'problem' is so fixable; we just need another catalyst (like what www.GeneralAssemb.ly and New Work City are doing in NYC... and what TechStars did in Boulder, Seattle, Boston and NYC, and many other examples).
We're just a few nudges away, and there's no doubt we'll get there -- we just need to keep focusing on the good stuff, and it's going to happen.
That's exactly what we're looking for -- Something like GeneralAssemb.ly in New York.
We're a startup working out of an architecture firm right now. The space is relatively inexpensive, it would be stellar if there were other startups around who are interested in putting together something similar with programming around design and technology.
If you're intersted, reach out to me via twitter (@ashbhoopathy) or email, ash@bettr.at. I'll also email Seattle Tech Startups about it.
>I think it's just more that people are focused on their own thing, by and large, vs. getting out with a small % of their time and building a community for the greater good.
Ya, they're not enough "crazy" people.
I think Seattle needs a big consumer-based (2.0 or 3.0) hit. It needs a Facebook, a Groupon, a Twitter, a Skype, a LinkedIn, an Etsy, a Dropbox.
or, if you want to be cynical that Amazon's a long time ago... how about like an AWS, or a Kindle? The innovation's here -- we just need to get more commingling going on
it's going to happen -- if you're in town, reach out, please -- would love to have you help
Amazon and Microsoft do not like startups - they prefer to build things internally. And when they do buy startups they tend to kill them. Yes, IMDB is a nice exception, and lately they tend to buy firms and let them run on their own (Zappos) but Amazon got too burned during the dot com runup buying firms that turned out to not be a good match, a la Junglee.
Amazon was a long time ago, and AWS/Kindle, while being great products, did not contain really an element of risk the way a scrappy startup does.
I think parent poster has a point - there aren't a lot of recent examples of taking the risk and having it pay off, which may lead to some risk aversion in the community.
For example Big Fish Games. There's also Tableau Software (although not consumer). Neither large compared to Skype, but both ~$100M revenue companies founded about the time of Skype.
UPDATE: After I wrote this I realized what is different about Seattle than the Bay Area, which is something a previous poster put in parentheticals... (web 2.0/3.0). Look at this list:
Facebook, a Groupon, a Twitter, a Skype, a LinkedIn, an Etsy, a Dropbox
These companies, except maybe Dropbox, are about connecting users together. Not about product. Seattle tends to be more focused on providing product. Is it the case that you are less likely to see a Tableau or Mathematica come out of the Bay Area?
I wonder if the problem is that the music scene is so good here in Seattle that the recently graduated want to participate in that area, both as producers and consumers, and not so much in the tech area?
I'm fired up by Mark's idea, to much more deeply engage with our local leaders (Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, etc) -- think every geography has these, and presenting it how Mark does makes it so much more compelling. Everyone benefits from these relationships, and really, the Bay Area has crushed it in this area (think growth of Zynga and others on Facebook... the wave of startup involvement with iPhone/iPad Apps store launches...) -- I look forward to helping make that happen, more quickly
Dave deserves a ton of credit for all he's doing in the community. I'll offer up my own time as well - if you have ANY questions, i'm happy to help - follow me at @aronchick or email me at aronchick (at) hark.com.
I think getting the patrons moving is a huge win - they all have stacks they want startups using and/or hiring problems. Getting a vibrant startup community makes things much better.
People also forget that in short order there will be other people holding varying % ownership stakes, that makes 'control' much more about persuasion/consensus building.
Plus, you can always start at 50/50 and allocate more to the person bringing more financial support (or work-for-free-ness) to the venture, as that's pretty darn valuable in the earlier days.
This is awesome. When I was in college (1986-1990) internships were a pretty new concept. Then when in MBA (1997-1998) it obviously became a bigger deal. But now, the practice is very much becoming the norm. But, the tools for students and companies to find one another are still archaic (school recruiting systems... and afterthoughts on Monster, etc).
Plus, it's just as important for companies to provide killer internships (to get the best students, year after year) as it is for students to perform.
It's an ideal way to recruit, and find great companies, and a space ripe for innovation and investment.
Very excited to see what the team comes up with (and yes, I'm a fan and advisor -- my enthusiasm runs deep, and is very genuine)
I think this has huge implications, not just in this space, but in others (which restaurant? which vacation? other facets of favoriting co-workers? ways a person could improve) -- ties in very well with Jon Bischke's article on Reputation Graph:
This is a great point -- this was originally (and still is) a deck geared to founders. The large issue is to try to find people (as employees) who would prefer less short-term salary for more longer-term equity. Not only because it saves $, but also because it shows the right owner mentality.
In this market, when you find someone willing to take 1/2 salary for 6 months for 2x equity, beware that you may be creating a system geared largely to suckers.
