deepinsand

Here's my experience:

- When you hire, you implicitly put people in a level which dictates what you're willing to pay them.

- People will always feel underpaid, and demand more $$. Without a system, you give them out arbitrarily.

- You now have enough people to add structure to the process. Do you base people's levels on their current salary? On their skill?

- What happens when people notice the discrepancy in pay or skill among a level? Especially if it's skewed by race, gender, etc?

I think you should have as many levels as pay-bands in your startup, which might be 6.

I believe startups should implement levels once you hire 2 engineers. It's hard to retrofit a system, especially if you're trying to be thoughtful about any pay imbalances.

I've spent a good amount of time on oil wells, and this was always obvious. Methane passively leaks from the ground of most wells, and is usually related to the quality of the cement reinforcements. There is no real incentive for oil companies to use higher quality materials.

This idea has been tried a few times. There's a fairly liquid market for the resale of oil and gas wells already. There is also advanced software packages for analyzing the data. If the angle is exposing retail investors to these assets, it'll go as well as $USO.

Air is a better insulator

I believe it was going to start manufacturing its own panels (IRIC in NY State)

Most VCs will mandate founder equity to vest over 4 years. They must be actively employed for it to vest, so since he's stepping down and resigning from the board, I guess he'll lose what he hasn't vested.

I think Yelp is missing proof of identity and proof of patronage. It was created before social media took off, and before you could reliably know if someone had been somewhere.

I don't know if you need both, but proof of patronage alone might not be enough to trust a review (See Amazon verified purchases).

But shouldn't that have been priced into expectations or previous outlooks?

Twitter, LinkedIn, GrubHub, and Yelp all had decent quarters, and yet they all reported tepid outlooks. When they're in such disparate industries, how did they reach this consensus? Shouldn't this be reflected in the broader economy somehow?

The article assumes that car batteries will feed into the grid. Tesla seems to think that won't be the case, car batteries need to be secured against harsh outdoor conditions and have tougher charge cycle limits.

I've heard that one of the major hurdles to smaller scale deployments is security (easier to secure a larger facility than many small ones).