Knowing the author's other writing (which is, by the way, very recommended), I would think he isn't trying to say "look how wrong we went, lets make things smaller again" but instead "look how fun that was, but come on, those days are over. Now that we have comparably infinite resources, lets focus on what can be made with them."
tl;dr The Author would probably agree with you more than you think
I'd link to the video itself, but I wanted to write commentary on what's so amazing about it and the FAQ instructed me to blog about it and link to the blog.
If this is considered bad form, tell me and I'll resubmit the video only.
I was in a lecture about legal matters in starting up when I figured out that the easy and fool proof way to make money in this business is not creating a great product, but instead marketing yourself to VCs, getting some big money and spending it away pretending to do something.
Most of the start ups that fail, I think, aren't people that couldn't succeed in creating a great product and selling it - they're just people taking advantage of a very broken system.
Myself, I still think that creating a great product is more fun, more challenging and more rewarding. It also fits my moral code.
The site has some great info, but try not using it to hack a broken system - instead, use it just to have the smoothest ride through one of the best experiences our world has to offer.
Aur Saraf
It would be fun for a few moments (for boys), but that's it.
Geeks are people who tend to stay OUT of the really stupid ego matches, which is what it would become.
Geek girls I've talked to, like every other girl, naturally understand that a good relationship hasn't more to do with intelligence than beauty - both are factors that can add a bit, but insignificant compared, so only guys would be lured in.
And remember that the only way to "win" an intelligence competition is to not participate.
Yes, there are criteria that has value in relationships (contrast with "people value in relationships") that could hold such a site alive. But it is really hard to judge them.
The really good tests would create a situation where any high value bloke that applies would have girls chasing him on his application stage, before he's even in. That would have good sides and bad; in the long run, it would obsolete the site. If you can find such a test, though, you can make a lot of money out of site like this.
There still is a lot to say about communities that pick their members. Email me if you want to continue the discussion, I have one good idea that I'd happily share.
A "dating site for geeks", though, should be done completely differently. No competition, no pressure. No meat market. Just a nice, calm place to meet people, talk about actual subjects ("star wars is hot", not "you're s0 hut1!"). Modeled after geek conventions and get-togethers (D&D, hacking weekend, ... Geeks use the same recipe for all). It would even succeed. I'm pretty sure something exists, though.
"Either you didn't read the article carefully or have not used the site."
I've read the article very carefully, which is not to be said on the way you read my comment: By asking for an invite, I expose the fact that I haven't used the site.
"On most dating or Social network sites, people can easily cast a wide net of people [...] Once a game is finished, the person who put on the game and the chosen player establish a connection like in other social networking sites."
So basically, IILWY is limiting/filtering/queuing connections based on a 'how much he's willing to invest' filter.
Why is that a better filter than any other random filter, like, say, what day of the chinese blogoscope he was born or what color hair does his grandma have? It seems like something totally irrelevant to relationship success, IMHO, especially at a stage where the parties don't know each other at all.
To tell the truth, I just don't like services based on limiting the user. I think that requiring the other user to accept a connection (like most IM services, LinkedIn) is good enough at filtering connections without forcing it on the users.
Are you a founder/involved person? You sound so. If you are, cool. Regardless, can I get an invite so that I understand better what this is about?
I don't think that a club only made up of "hot people" is any less of a meat market, especially since females tend to pay very little attention to physical attractiveness compared to other qualities (men DO tend to judge a lot by physical attraction, sadly, though I'm an exception).
So what will we have? A group of hot women pursued by a group of blatant men feeling really good about themselves since they managed to "get in", but probably are only slightly better in average than the average guy at pleasing women. Of course there will be successes, even a bit more, relatively, than in a normal dating site, but the mechanism will be 100% the same, so there's no REAL filtering done. The social game will be the same one. Nothing REAL gained (except for the good feeling of superiority from rejecting people, yuck).
Tell me, how do you meet women? Do, and I'll give you a better idea for a dating site.
Because flirting is about communication. Perhaps it's the journalist's mistake, but it seems like communication plays secondary role here to a currency based trading system.
Is that a way to show value? "I answered more questions and logged in more, and I believe I'll win your heart, so here, I'm bidding 25 points on you, sweetie"? Even MORE competition? How objectified can a poor sweet lovely girl BE?
No.
I really don't think so.
I agree, dating sites suck. They are a badly implemented meat market.
I just think this amplifies the problems instead of fixing them.
The good dating site still isn't public.
We'll have to wait.
BTW an invite to prove me wring would be appreciated.
I believe that every geek should submit himself to a crash course in social skills (to a level where he can control a room in a party). It's really not that hard. The problem is that it's one of those problems where no one would admit it and therefore I currently research the field alone, recording my results in private (anyone interesting in starting a community dedicated to it should contact me by mail, hunt my address).
Start ups are about work, not ideas. Ideas flow freely with some people (like me) that just have about one idea per day worth implementation.
The skill to bring a product to life is the critical part.
Still, since you shouldn't drop the idea of starting a start up, you should either find someone with the technical know how (track down my email and email me for help in that) or go for an idea where you can contribute 100%.
Just my opinion, of course, though I highly doubt anyone would disagree (yes, this is a challenge).
Early French Gendarmes earned their bread capturing criminals and charging the populace for the service (as freelancer professionals, not employees of the government).
That model worked for them.
Could it work for Web2.0? Could an online "gendarme" find a way to police all social networks?
This is definitely something users would want, as far as we only filter for really bad spam/trolls/bullies that are hated by everyone (otherwise flames will rise over net neutrality and free speech).
The problem is that the net doesn't have jails. I can think up a few solutions.
This is an idea for the taking, offered as a public service since it doesn't match my taste and criteria.
If you DO take it, please track down my email and tell me so that I could smile over it.
No, this won't happen. We're drifting AWAY form that, not TOWARD it, in the last 50 years.
And yet, a revolution in education WILL come. Some day, someone WILL figure out that generic schools are stupid and will provide a better solution en masse, and creating a better solution is trivial.
But there's no money in education. Why? Because it's declared government business.
Therefore, he who will do that will sweat blood and do it just because he's so passionate about it.
Myself, I'd rather work small - pick a few good ones, instill in them the proper ideas and virality, so that they do the same.
If you want to change the world, you have two ways to do it:
1) By force - in this case, don't do it. Waste of energy on anti-productivity.
2) By creating something people REALLY REALLY want (like your examples) - in that case, yes. Create a company. Find someone as enthusiastic as you. If you create something people want, money will come.
Email me for details, I'm a gmailer and my nick is SonOfLilit.
So simply, in fact, that had I met the criteria, I'd ask Paul to sponsor me in setting up YC Israel.
YC can be scaled by both growing and duplication (creating copies that operate in different locations):
What do you need to run a YC "chapter"? Some of you might reply "Paul Graham". Well, I appreciate that, but it's wrong. The only resource needed to run a YC chapter that isn't abundant is people with the enthusiasm and experience needed to guide young entrepreneurs.
But what does YC produce? Exactly that.
Paul, you remarked lately that the reason you run YC is probably that you don't need money and do want to work with people you like. Well, take any hacker that has successfully sold a start up and he'd probably want the same.
So young hacker =} YC =} experienced entrepreneur {= YC
When I'll exit my business (or stabilize it and stay within), I'll call Paul and ask to found YC Israel. For now, I have other work to do :)
With Codecademy I could do that, here I cannot. So Codecademy it is.
Skipping is a really important feature for those who you hope would promote your service for you :-)