colmanhumphrey
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
73
Submissions
32
Member since
Mar 8
Recent submissions
Comment · 11 months ago
Comment · 2 years ago
haha, not sure I agree with this one at all, I think a name is pretty far down the list of priorities for a business. I would be extremely surprised if "customers who started trials but then didn't use the product at all, but then later wanted to, but couldn't because they couldn't find the name" is a segment that moves the needle.
From this brief note, you sound like you potentially are trialling an order of magnitude more services than the average person. I bet that gives you a ton of interesting perspective on all these products, sign-up flows, etc, but probably puts you in a very unusual position with respect to product names!
Comment · 2 years ago
This rings true, and I guess further backs up how important it is to carefully choose your initial customers, so the product is actually good enough by the time it gets to the broader swathe of companies. At least, that's my guess — I'm the one that failed after all!
Comment · 2 years ago
I am surprised to hear you say this given your previous experience founding a product that from a distance might look to cover some similar space to retool but in practice is quite different. My perspective: only investors ever asked us about retool, not customers. Some of them even used retool tool. Hah even just typing this out brings me back to investor meetings!
Comment · 2 years ago
a very generous comment! Very interesting you say that, I believe we did at some point have some thoughts about targeting B2B2C, but sadly that was one of the areas we failed to fully learn about / experiment / iterate on.
Comment · 2 years ago
oh that's an interesting perspective. I would say you're right, and maybe I didn't phrase it well. I probably should have said something more like: if you don't know how, or if you can't learn how (through iteration etc), then how can your customers. Or something to that effect.
Comment · 2 years ago
That sounds like a very viable and valuable type of business, but it's kind of a different category of business model
Comment · 3 years ago
If instead I had supplied a time series for eight years ending just prior to all of OP's data, you wouldn't discuss "comparing" the charts (I assume!), so it's a little unclear what the concern is with comparison.
If you just need the last few data points, of course you can either just look at OP's chart, or if you don't trust that data, then quickly get the data yourself. Again you can even create an account on slight.run and recreate the full graph if you prefer.
We are also not currently in a recession. If instead you're referring to market conditions that affected tech heavily, that was in place by Q3 2022 (e.g. https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/20/remembering-the-startups-w...), and this also lines up more closely with how the Fed has been raising rates (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DFEDTARU).
Comment · 3 years ago
It includes the Nov 1 post, you can see the data here: https://slight.run/apps/colman/job_seekers_vs_job_hiring_hac... (Vega reads 2022-11-01 into your local timezone, hence why you're possibly seeing 2022-10-31).
They claim they update it daily (https://console.cloud.google.com/marketplace/details/y-combi...) but they only update it every few months it would appear.
Of course you can manually get this data from the HN API and create a query built on https://slight.run/apps/colman/job_seekers_vs_job_hiring_hac... by adding the extra few rows manually (but unlike OP, I recommend you exclude non-top level comments).
Comment · 3 years ago
Here is a chart going back to 2014: https://slight.run/graphs/colman/ratio_of_seekers_to_hirers_...
Not quite as drastic as yours, but still not ideal.
The underlying query and data source: https://slight.run/apps/colman/job_seekers_vs_job_hiring_hac...
I'm restricting to top-level comments here, because those seem like a better proxy than all comments (excluding some discussion on a given post for example).
Comment · 3 years ago
exactly! It's a version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusion%E2%80%93exclusion_pr...
Comment · 3 years ago
I got 71.13647% on a first pass. So we want P(all 4 in 9) = 1 - P(not all 4), and we can split that out a few ways. To not get all four, we can restrict ourselves to three, so that's (3/4)^9, but there are four ways of doing that, so that's 4 * (3/4)^9. But that counts using singles and pairs too many times. Specifically each version of "three" can be exactly three balls, three ways of one ball, or three ways of exactly two balls ("1 or 2 or 3" = "1&2&3" or "just 1" or "just 2" or "just 3" or "1&2" or "1&3" or "2&3").
- We can then subtract 6 * P(two balls), so 6 * (2/4)^9. Now this counts singles a few times too, in fact it cancels all of them out.
- We then need to add back four singles, so 4 * (1/4)^9
Putting this together gives:
1 - (4 * (3/4)^9 - 6 * (2/4)^9 + 4 (1/4)^9) = 0.7113647
Comment · 3 years ago
I'm surprised to read this — while the examples could be more cleanly presented, I felt like the title for this post and the initial gif on landing show what this does reasonably clearly. I do see what you mean about the PRO part.
Comment · 4 years ago
Can’t begrudge anyone involved, but this feels kind of lame. I thought Figma really could compete long term with Adobe.
I also kind of get why it's built into an editor! I wonder how it compares to e.g. https://www.coscreen.co.
The default method of remote work, with e.g. Slack and video meetings, I think leaves a lot of potential on the table. I wonder if a flexible collaboration system like this could actually be a lovely default method for many companies.