Vandy_Travis
Joined 17 years ago
Joined 17 years ago
My simplistic understanding of his 3 types theory is this: "In summation, I realized that no matter how a guy came on, he would, in the final analysis, attempt to grab all of my chips (again with the one exception that I pointed out)." (The exception being the classic "win-win", where the other party benefits from my success, thus aligning incentives.)
My reaction to reading that was to think about myself. If the theory is correct, then regardless of my own intentions, I'm going to try to "grab all [his] chips". That actually makes his "Type Number One" guy the most honest and ethical.
I don't think I can quite reconcile my own ethics with that analysis, but I'm willing to consider it. It paints a somewhat bleak picture of business ethics.
How do you read his theory, if you put yourself in the shoes of the other party in the transaction, rather than his first person?
The biggest concept is to use technology to support the existing dr's workflow. This can vary, a lot, between different types of doctors.
The thing he most often comments upon is the text replacement feature for his office's electronic records. He can type "issued XYZ medication due to past history of .HT." and the system will automatically insert the relevant heart history information (maybe a recent test reading, etc.) into the record.
Saves him time in recording info into the patient records. That seems to be his #1 desire for better tech -- saving time. And making complete entry into the medical records is a good place to work, as it solves a frustration that already exists.
However, it feels fairly sparse, and it doesn't tell me what uberzet is. Is it a web app? Is it a page for me that i can send other people to in order to search my public folder?
A little more work on the layout would make me feel better about giving login credentials to my dropbox.
But who cares? After all, it's unlikely the next Vonnegut is going to spend his time playing MafiaWars instead of writing "Slaughterhouse Five" or anything.
I am reminded of the aphorism, "Time you've enjoyed wasting is not wasted time."
[I agree with all the points above, but wanted to add in the fact that early employees are rewarded for risk as well as production. Esp if they signed on for below market salaries, with stock calculated as deferred compensation.]
"Hotfile has also tried to turn the tables by arguing that one of the studios, Warner Brothers, has itself violated the DMCA by issuing bogus takedown requests"
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/warner-admit...]
However, what about Apple's 1984 ad? Or the BMW mini-movie advertisements they ran about 6 years ago?
There are some incredibly cool concept ads out there. They usually are not the ones broadcast, but if you watch the end of the year awards for the industry, there are some very creative minds working there. (And creating some impressive work).
However, it also tends to devalue the work invested by the analysts. They are doing the work for essentially a lottery ticket -- winner take all. That's the reason that it can be so cost effective to the company running the competition -- they don't absorb the costs of the failures (or less optimal approaches).
Those costs have to be absorbed by someone. In this model, they are eaten by the analysts, who (generally) don't have enough resources to cover those costs. Due to that, I don't think this model is sustainable or will really catch on.
OTOH, in some (ideal) academic endeavors, having multiple groups compete for more funding or for a prize has certainly benefitted the sciences. In that case, however, the competition was more friendly than zero sum. Also, I believe the different sides tend to share information more than hoard it, yielding lessons learned to the entire group from one team's failures.
Your points about feedback are valid, however.
Does anyone think it could also be useful to tie a twitter feed in with weather information? I feel like weather is one of those things that ppl complain about on twitter all the time; some simple geolocation and keyword matching and you could pull up recent geolocated tweets near you. Could be a nice qualitative weather report to accompany the actual data (people like a personal face on the weather).
Edit - just saw the question. The problem right now is not that you don't have a partner; it's that you don't charge enough for the work you're doing. Adding a partner is going to create another set of distractions and issues.
Much of the time I'd simply prefer to self-serve, because it's more pleasant and faster for myself. (Note that grocery checkers don't really fit this category in the States, because they tend to be fairly well paid.)
Not too difficult to do.
I was actually asking about this from the opposite person's perspective. I didn't catch the "in sales" part -- did I just miss that, or am I missing a larger context of his theory? Having missed that piece of info, I was wondering what this theory says about my own motivations (I would categorize myself in the 3rd category, where I try to help my friends. But shouldn't I question my own motivations, given this outlook?)
I suppose it's reasonable to question one's own motivations pretty regularly, anyhow.