The most interesting aspect of this playbook IMO is the cartoon. Using 1-1 to bring up promotions.
When employees ask for promotions:
good managers know how to harness this ask with clear, manageable, attainable goal setting and delivering on the promise. Most employees are also not beyond solid transparent reasoning. Average managers get into a defensive mode
If anything good managers are like high-performance coaches, they understand your motivations and channel your energy. The reality is most companies promote people into management roles by picking people like them.
As a counter test, watch out to see if a newly promoted manager starts talking and acting (in subtle nonconscious ways) like their manager or the real power in the organization. Examples include - Working hours, decision making, predictable agreeability and even hobbies etc.
As a manager, it’s your job to grow your directs until they’re ready for a promotion. It’s also your job to make sure that they want whatever that promotion entails. Typically speaking the crossover from IC to management is a pretty common trouble point for engineers, and you should make sure that nobody gets put into management who doesn’t want to go there. You’d also be surprised about the number of engineers that are actually interested in leadership too, fwiw.
As a manager myself, I actually keep a private sheet of the internal career ladder and progress for each of my directs, with notes and an unambiguous “meets expectations, exceeds expectations, or needs improvement” across each category that company has set for their role. This helps me keep my feedback to them consistent, clear, and focused.
While the short to medium-term impact of this is terrible, I am optimistic that a few of these individuals (not the usual high profile stars) will kick start the next big idea.
Do we have a list of affected individuals listed to work on interesting projects?
Wish HN can curate a Database of individuals open to working on special projects that could lead to a YC submission
For me, the aspiration to own a GoPro was to capture footage in wet / water conditions. With an iP68 rating for the iPhone to makes sense for light use-cases, an iPhone is sufficient for me.
1. I think the underlying problem has been the lack of innovation from GoPro. I find that while the number of cameras in our daily life has increased, the use-case for something like a GoPro is marginal at best. Apple and other vendors have done an excellent job of improving camera technology on the iphone11 that today, I no longer carry a GoPro or even an SLR camera on holidays.
2. Another amazing shenanigan from GoPro was their accessories business. When I got my only go-pro in 2014, it required me to spend another $200-300 on some really basic accessories like an LCD screen. It just felt like the company added barriers that stopped you from actually using the product.
2a. Minor nitpick - Their packaging in 2015 was a piece of work. It took me forever to get it unpacked and even get hold of the device.
3. Mgmt focus - I live in San Mateo and the stink of constant GoPro layoffs made it an undesirable company to even consider working for. The people I knew that worked there all quickly bailed and went to work for Google or Apple. It also didn't help that I only remembered about my GoPro when I saw Mr Woodman show-up on Shark-Tank. I just felt he didn't focus on a struggling company and wanted to find other things to do.
1. They have added some newer models that are interesting, like the 360 one they just released that actually has a screen which I guess is also 2.
They're priced way out of the budget of idle curiosity for me though. Sure 500 dollars isn't a lot for a camera, but it's way out of the range for something I"m going to goof around with.
I have to wonder realistically how long a character/canon has traction in order to pay back a $4 billion investment.
Something like Mickey Mouse is probably past the end of its lifetime now, but Star Wars franchising is going strong and was probably a good buy for Disney. Things like He-Man were barely blips.
Mickey Mouse is anything but past the end of its lifetime. He and his associated characters are refreshed often. Mickey and the Roadster Racers is a relatively new show and quite popular with my own child and those of our friends, and we're far from the over the top "Disney people".
> The character is owned by Entertainment One, which makes and distributes TV and films including Grey’s Anatomy, Spotlight and The Hunger Games. The company said Peppa pulled in more than $1.1bn in retail sales, adding that it struck 500 new or renewed deals with TV and product licensing partners in the year to the end of March.
Is Mickey in the public domain now? Can other companies start using him and the other early Disney characters in new content?
As an aside, people are awfully enamored with "Star Wars" and other big tent pole series. However, if the costs of writing and filmmaking were low or non-existent, I believe the market would be flooded with new creativity. There would be tons of new stories in the sci-fi and fantasy genres, and the value of any single brand or series would plummet.
All of that to say, I don't feel like people are necessarily attached to "brands" or "licenses" like "Mickey" or "Star Wars", it's just that there aren't enough choices available. It's too expensive to create new entries. Copyright enshrines these brands, companies seldom want to invest in creating new ones, and the barriers to entry make it hard for competition to arise. Experiments are risky.
Imagine a world with substantially lower cost to produce. In the limit, there would be so many stories that we'd be hearing about new experiences in content from our friends on a daily basis. We couldn't explore the entire graph. Discovery would be ephemeral and happenstance, and very few things would ever rise to the cultural prominence of Marvel, simply because there would be worthwhile novelty everywhere you look.
Imagine when our computers can dream up stories to tell us. That excites me.
Yep, my 2-year old too, despite my vigilant efforts throwing every Disney toy/gift/book he or his brothers received directly into the trash before exposing them to it... they absorb it from their adjacent kids via something like osmosis.
There are many episodes and the target audience continually renews as they land in the age range for the show. Plenty Hasbro can do to improve product lines I guess, but there's also the opportunity for more theme parks, there's only one in the UK (quite wonderful, full of toddlers mobbing the main characters).
My daugther loves to watch it, too. But what a terrible series that is. The characters resolve every problem they run into by calling this magic gizmo that resembles ... a slot machine? What's that about?
I try to avoid it now and offer other options.
Disney is in the process of setting fire to the Star Wars brand's value. Their new SW theme park was a colossal flop by Disney park standards, and after the boondoggle that was The Last Jedi, Solo failed to make anywhere near its projected numbers.
And a lot of those filmgoers eager to see it, left the theater disappointed in the story and soured on the brand, which contributed to the franchise fatigue Solo suffered at the box office from.
I did the same thing for a year before I got married. I ate my lunch and dinner at a Panera bread next to work place - 5 days a week. I ate half a cup of tomato soup, half a vegetarian sandwich and an apple. I lost nearly 20 pounds over a 1 year period. Infact the team at Panera knew me personally so many times, by the time i paid for my meal it was ready for me to eat. I had a fixed workout/running and meal routine.
My wife hates the monotony but i love the daily structure. I have put on 35 pounds.
To take over Mombasa port is the equivalent of a strategic takeout/takeover of a number of East African countries. Mombasa port and its adjoining highway connects Uganda, South Sudan, Rwanda, and Burundi. 100% of East Africa's export cash crop produce (Coffee, Tea) flows through the port which translates to significant revenues and GDP. I really hope that African para-state agencies (African Dev Bank) steps in and provides monetary assistance to Kenya.
Times like this make me wish that the EA community takes off and together these tiny countries are able to better band together and pony up.
hmmmm.... I wonder if Uber eats can do what AirBnb did to the hotel business by allowing home chefs-after-6pm to take low risk experiments and launch micro Uber only restaurants from their home kitchen or a common kitchen (managed by Uber eats to deal with sanitation challenges).
It would have to be from a commercial kitchen to pass health regulations in most places. There are a few restaurants than share kitchens with the one next door, and I would not be surprised if they had a virtual restaurant or two for delivery only.
No reason that the kitchens that food trucks use can’t support this as I suspect they dont have much demand for space around 5pm.
I agree with your point on kitchen sharing, but I'm wondering if we sharing an incorre assumption:
should we expect that the laws will be followed?
Policing unlicensed taxis _should_ have prevented Uber from succeeding. I recall early Uber being a considered "ride-sharing" in attempt to avoid this problem.
How will unlicensed restaurants be enforced? Will people simply call the practice food-sharing or splitting-meals? Start from the same model: two friends living across the city but one didn't cook, the other makes large meals. Uber meals is just a delivery service. Combine with money transfer app: it's not a restaurant, is a group of friends pitching in for a good meal.
Uber successfully managed to get driver's to assume the risk when running unlicensed taxis. It wouldn't surprise me if they could reimagine that success here. The biggest hurdle I foresee: keeping the branding, and scale small enough to fly under the radar until it's well established
There are a few places that stay under the radar, but generally they don’t heavily promote the food side of the “experience”, and aim their businesses at non-locals who would be less likely to report them if they are not perfectly happy.
Another problem is that health laws are generally stronger and better enforced than taxi law. See [0] for the definition of a Food Establishment for Washington State. Also there are generally tip lines for reporting restaurants and it only takes 1 person to have a bad experience to shut down a location.
One story about a dead cockroach or rat feces making into a meal will let market forces take care of it. The story doesn’t even have to be true.
On the other hand, it's a virtual restaurant. So all you have to do is pay some kid on Fivrr five bucks for a new logo with a different name, and you're back in business!
In Portland damn near every food cart is on some delivery platform. It’s actually made ordering from some of my favorite spots almost impossible in person since their order volume is just too high.
Well then you and your family and friends happen to follow good hygiene standards... but plenty of people don't, and are even more incentivized not to if there's a buck or two in it. ("I think I can still use this meat..." "I'll just wash off this mold...")
I don't know why you'd trust random strangers cooking out of their homes with zero food safety training whom you haven't personally vetted at all. It's not to say commercial kitchens are perfect, but there are verifiable processes in place to try to hold them to certain standards and ultimately shut them down if they don't, which simply aren't scalable to apply to home kitchens.
You clearly have never worked in the food industry.
I have, and I trust most of my neighbors to prepare a chicken cutlet with more care than any revolving-door restaurant I ever worked in.
Consider just restaurants of a rank <= Outback Steakhouse (where I was a line cook for three years). Pure minimum-wage apathy will be cooking your food. Almost anyone can do better than that, especially someone inviting people into their home.
I'm seriously having a hoot over someone on the internet using restaurant food/hygiene quality as a standard for any argument.
I wouldn't have a trust issue assuming there is a rating system. If people are getting sick from someone's kitchen, they're going to leave a bad review.
Think about taxi drivers compared to Uber drivers. Uber drivers know a few bad ratings can be detrimental to their income, so they typically try to put their best foot forward. They push hard for perfect reviews, offer bottles of water, try to be extra considerate with the choice of music, air temperature, etc. Taxi drivers don't have the same incentives. They're not going to be fired if a few passengers feel it's too cold in their car.
I imagine the same would apply to home chefs. They know one batch of food that gets customers sick could leave them out of work, and cost them their entire reputation. A few bad ratings and they're dropping down the recommendation list and watching 80% of their business disappear. I could see home chefs trying to go above and beyond like Uber drivers to secure better reviews. Did you order 6 cookies? Well, they're going to give you 7, and a little note that says thanks, here's a free cookie just for you.
It could actually be a great business for more elderly people. We all love our grandmother's specialties, right? Imagine a grandparent that could prepare big lasagnas, soups, and chilis at home, and a driver could come pick up portions to deliver to people around the neighborhood. Feel like takeout tonight? Instead of Dominos, you can see Ruth down the street prepared homemade cabbage rolls that you can get delivered. I wouldn't mind supporting that type of business.
> I wouldn't have a trust issue assuming there is a rating system.
That was the original free-market rationale for not having food or medical regulation at all: reputation will take care of it!
Unfortunately, unsafely prepared food can literally kill you. So the country wised up and requires food safety certification.
Ratings are great for pushing up average quality. They're a non-starter when it comes to guaranteeing minimum quality, i.e. the product won't make you sick or kill you.
Honestly, I don't trust someone's grandmother who thinks it's fine to cut the cooked chicken with the knife she used when it was raw, because she was never certified in a food safety course, even if it only happens 1% of the time. It's not fair to make people get sick so enough of them leave 1-star reviews.
Because again, there's a world of difference between an Uber driver who doesn't know the route (minor inconvenience), and food that makes me ill for days.
We allow strangers that haven't had their driving or eyes tested in 50 years drive us down the highway (Uber). We allow strangers to operate hotels out of their homes (Airbnb). However, we can't allow a stranger to cook us a chicken breast or prepare a soup?
There isn't a world of a difference here. They all present minor dangers, and I'm willing to take the risk of buying a piece of lasagna from my neighbor.
I do trust random taxi drivers and I do trust arbitrary individuals to cook for me (trust is a bad word to use here; rather, I think the positives outweigh the negatives, I'd rather pay less and take some small risks).
But regulation in these areas doesn't apply because I might get into trouble. With food it's about preventing illness outbreak, with taxis it's about preventing massive congestion. At least, that's the goal (in practice the regulation gets corrupted).
> I do trust random taxi drivers and I do trust arbitrary individuals to cook for me
Do you though?
All the taxis you take are with licensed drivers. The government has already set up certification standards.
Likewise, how often do you eat a meal by an arbitrary individual? Generally it's either someone you know and trust, or else a professional cook under food safety certification working in an inspected kitchen.
Are you saying you'd get into a taxi driven by someone without a driver's license because you'd rather pay less and take risks? Or eat a hamburger made from ground beef sitting in a refrigerator for 4 weeks because the cook "thinks it's fine", and again you'd rather pay less and take risks?
Without going in to huge detail I'll just say that most of this is false. A few years back I went hitch-hiking around Europe, no licensing was involved, as far as I'm concerned my drivers _were_ randomly selected (if anything, _they_ chose _me_).
Your last sentence is essentially an enormous strawman.
That all said, this isn't about me. The point of regulation is to prevent tragedy of the commons style situations. One instance of someone buying a meal from a neighbour or paying a friend for a lift doesn't matter, the commercialisation causes problems.
Most restaurant food is expensive and terrible for you. It all depends on the risk rate but I suspect for people with a good reputation the risk rate of home cooked food is low.
Your "home cooking" wasn't required to make profit. This perverts the incentive from "good food" to "profit". Also your home cooking has a reputation issue.
Uber Eats will not have a reputation issue. Any given "restaurant" can be a facade easily recycled into a new brand name. Any problems Uber can pawn off as a problem with that restaurant and not a fundamental problem of Uber operating above the law and not having safety regulations on its "independent contractors".
As Uber has repeatedly shown a disregard for laws, we can expect it will continue to show a similar disdain for safety, including food safety.
That's not a good comparison. The rental market always had a big part of black market through local listings, mouth to mouth or sites like craiglist/gumtree.
The regulator/IRS could go through some residential blocks in popular cities and find undeclared tenants in almost every house. AirBnB makes it worse and shorter term but it didn't invent any of that. It just makes it more visible.
In comparison, restaurants are rarely undeclared or illegal operations.
Also, unlike AirBnB, even a conscientiously-run underground restaurant would have trouble not attracting attention from my neighbors. If the house down the street has a different car in front of it every week I would never notice. If there's a constant stream of people visiting (parking on the street, etc.) I'd notice and probably be inclined to figure out what's going on. That pattern of behavior is also likely to get the cops called on suspicion of drug dealing.
I think a very, very cautious person who carefully screened their clientele could get away with having one, maybe two small groups dine at their house a night. Probably not even every day a week. Suffice it to say that we're talking about a market so small it might as well be said not to exist, and by that point you might as well just call it catering or a private chef, not a restaurant.
> Individuals are not allowed to opt out of commercial food safety in most advanced economies.
Since 2011, Finland (and now also some other countries) has twice a year a special "restaurant day" food festival, when anyone is allowed to run a pop-up restaurant for one day, and serve food cooked at home.
I think Deliveroo Editions use commercial kitchens from temporary shipping containers, dropped in 'dead space', out of hours car/ industrial parks. Ah, from 2017:
Seems like mismatched expectations largely on your part. You get what you pay. If you ask for the cheapest workforce, you get shoddy work. I am not arguing the validity of your experience but I think it shows lack of depth.
On the other end of the market, there is a very talented workforce that commands a premium price that delivers world class products. You just need to know where to look. Most western tech decisions to use Offshoring/Outsourcing are based on the key belief that costs can be lowered. In a truly capitalist market, workers are also looking to extract their maximum worth (and upward mobility) and If you pay less, your workforce will bail at the first opportunity.
Additionally, no one wants to work for a project that is driven by a spec document that you authored and requires no design input from the local team
