paulgrimes1
Joined 10 years ago
Joined 10 years ago
Paul (Elevator) here. I'm posting this Show HN in response to (and support of) "Finally, I closed my LinkedIn" [1] posted here on HN yesterday.
To echo PC Maffey's sentiment, LinkedIn has always been an annoyance (but necessary evil) for me as a software person. It's never gotten me a job, even indirectly through the many (many) recruiter connection requests that flow through each month.
I was annoyed that my profile was being monetised by LinkedIn and the recruiters who pay to use it. As a software eng who would be looking for a (say) 100k salary, recruiters would pop 10-25% on top, meaning smaller shops who _can_ pay 100k, now possibly can't afford the (say) 115k price tag, so there's a chance I wouldn't be put forward for the role as my salary request would now be out of their price range. I lose out, and the company loses out.
Why don't companies pay to obtain our details, and connect directly? The connection would be more "real" as there's a price tag attached to it. Connection requests would be from people who were willing to part with a fee in order to get in touch, and it's not a social network: it wouldn't be just about growing audiences with mindless "how to business" updates.
I teamed up with some colleagues to build Elevator over the past year. We workshopped a couple of early prototypes where people monetised their CV, but there was relevance issues when companies searched; they got unrelated results from historical role info.
So, we reverted to a "hard skills and experience" search model where companies can search for what they need (and only what they need). we found that it helped remove early-stage bias in that gender, orientation, and race are removed from the connection process.
We're at around the 500 user mark now in MVP mode, and only operating in Australia right now, but feel free to give it a rattle and tell us what you think.
Thanks - Paul G.
In the current market situation we’re getting a good few people coming on board.
Our team identifies at-risk stock (packaging issues / overproduction / close to code) and uses an ML-based engine to match the produce with suitable buyers, and offers up to 80% discounts; stock is saved, buyers get discounts, no ecological issues, everyone wins.
About to hit 1MM kilos of saved surplus stock, gaining some good buy-in from big name food producers, which is really promising.
Hypothetical: If you build a product meant for use in other countries than (also as well as) the one it’s been built in, should you be allowed embargo its use based on the (possibly arbitrary) politics of a single one of those countries?
I suppose the makers can do as they please/are required to in their home country.
However, it opens another costly-to-startups hypothetical: If the politics of our home country swing to the (insert x-axis direction) and we decide (insert country Y) are baddies, do we have the resources to comply with an enforced embargo?
I had it stop right there, and asked it to tell me exactly where it got this information; the date, the title of the chat, the exact moment it took this data on as an attribute of mine. It was unable to specify any of it, aside from nine months previous. It continued to insist I had ADHD, and that I told it I did, but was unable to reference exactly when/where.
I asked “do you think it’s dangerous that you have assumed I have a medical / neurological condition for this long? What if you gave me incorrect advice based on this assumption?” to which it answered a paraphrased mea culpa, offered to forget the attribute, and moved the conversation on.
This is a class action waiting to happen.