Yep! Restart Fund is actually partially a product of our pivot. We basically weren't getting anywhere with micropayments, and we weren't sure where to go next. We got approached by a few big companies about talent acquisitions, but we knew we really wanted to be working on something early-stage with a lot of opportunity for growth. So hopefully if anyone else is in a similar position, Restart Fund could be another option to consider.
Hey everyone, I'm the co-founder of Twice. Just wanted to add my 2 cents too.
- @jboggan, agreed. YC knows how to pick em.
- We're only planning on one acquisition for now.
- Yep, it's a mix of cash and equity -- we haven't quite finalized all the details -- and everything will vest (as is standard), but you'll at least be able to buy a car on day one.
- The equity is valued based on our Series A valuation, which, unfortunately, was substantially less than $100 trillion :-)
- It's definitely an expensive proposition for us, but awesome people make awesome companies, so we think it's worth it.
More at restartfund.com. Feel free to shoot me an email as well (noah@liketwice.com)
You also can check out my company, https://www.minno.co/. We only support prices denominated in USD right now, but we accept payments from many different countries, and we can transfer your earnings to you via a standard PayPal transfer.
Yeah, that's not how the NYT rolls. We got around the paywall pretty easily -- getting around the legal wall though... It's a shame, because we really want to work with partners to help them build their businesses. In due time! :-)
Thanks for the interest! Minno is our main project, and TorrentTraveler is just a quick hack that we put together to try Minno out. We'll be working with other developers to roll out more sites over the next few months. If you have any other questions ping me at noah [at] minno.co.
Unfortunately what is really tripping me up is when we draw that line. I get the principle of regression to the mean, and why it occurs. What I don't get is this particular manifestation of it.
Fair point about "no connection between a and b".
What I should have said was something like: Why is it important that a come before b chronologically? If we were mistaken, and we thought that b came first, then what we would be seeing is "progression from the mean".
Does the concept of regression to the mean depend on the chronology of events? That would be weird -- most probability doesn't, right?
And I guess I made an assumption about the situation you described. If the students were all answering in identical random ways, then you'd see what I describe. I think this part of the wikipedia article describes it well:
"Consider a simple example: a class of students takes a 100-item true/false test on a subject. Suppose that all students choose randomly on all questions. Then, each student’s score would be a realization of one of a set of i.i.d. random variables, with a mean of 50. Naturally, some students will score substantially above 50 and some substantially below 50 just by chance. If one takes only the top scoring 10% of the students and gives them a second test on which they again guess on all items, the mean score would again be expected to be close to 50. Thus the mean of these students would “regress” all the way back to the mean of all students who took the original test. No matter what a student scores on the original test, the best prediction of their score on second test is 50."
So, to your question, why is time important? Its important in the sense that you need the first test to determine who your "high flyers" are for the second experiment.
Yep, I assumed they were normalized. I don't see the canceling out, though.
If you do poorly on the first test, the x-coordinate is low/close to y-axis. You're then expected to do better on the second test, so the y-coordinate is high. This will flatten the left half of the line.
As you said, if you do well on the first test, the x-coordinate is high, and the y-coordinate is low. This will flatten the right half of the line.
I'll assume up front that thee scores on the two tests are independent, since that's the scenario in which regression to the mean applies. (It also applies if they are correlated but have some independent "noise" component, but that complicates things.)
Your mistake is here:
"If you do poorly on the first test... you're then expected to do better on the second test, so the y-coordinate is high."
Actually, under my assumption, a student who does poorly on the first test is no more or less likely than anyone else to do well on the second test. Their y-coordinate will not be "high" in absolute terms; on average, it will be the same as the mean for the whole class. The regression exists because the group has a low starting point, not because it has a high ending point. As a group the high scorers will regress to the mean, not past it. (In the case where scores are partially correlated, the group will regress toward the mean.)
For example, suppose scores are independently, uniformly distributed on both tests. Then your scatterplot will have dots distributed uniformly over its entire area - obviously this does not change if you switch axes. And yet there is regression to the mean. Divide the graph into quadrants. If you look at the right half of the plot (high scorers on first exam), you'll see that there are as many in the upper quadrant as the lower (their mean on the second exam is the class mean). Same for the left side of the plot. This isn't order-dependent; you'll find that the high-scorers on B also regress to the mean when you look at their A scores.
You don't want very passive people working for you. You want people who can route around what you're busy doing and manage their own projects.
If you are absolutely critical to whatever they need to do, they have to be managing you about it, not just sticking more work on your lap and waiting for it to bounce off. Which means more than sending an email and never following up.
i am only refering about requests that involve more than one person and not about multiple requests from one person. E.g. A feature request by more than one person.
Interesting excerpt. But isn't Murdoch actually something of an "upstart" in media, who himself has been viewed as corrupting the journalistic standards of yesterday?
