I played around with the site, and I like it. I was able to quickly check off skills that I have, and make an assessment of areas that I could potentially focus on learning. I appreciated the fact that I can choose to learn the additional skills using the recommendations provided, or any other platform I desire and still credit myself for the skill achievement. Pretty straight forward interface.

I happened to like the "gamification" of the UI. But mostly because it does not muddy the value prop. It does not detract from what you can, or cannot do to make a quick assessment and checklist. IMO, I do not need another no frills site in my network. I already have a github, evernote, and many others. Bring on the silly funness!

We talk about this alot in my office and there is always a mix of opinions. We talk more about things like the ability for a user to customize the UI. It is hard for me to understand why people spend so much time personalizing their facebook or twitter page, instead of concentrating on posting good content. But there are enough users that spend time doing it, to validate the format.

Keep the fluff, as long as it does not derail content objectives.

I get it and no disrespect, but not sure that I would need an analytics provider to know what happens when google goes down for any period of time.

I guess I was hoping to see a bit of analysis as to options available to compensate for these instances. I kinda already knew that we rely on a handful of major players for everything, the hope that we can effect some change in that structure is why we hack-on!

This may very well be at the heart of his submission, especially since he is the first to point out that most of the real kinks have not been worked out.

What do most of us in the general public really know about how projects like the high speed rail get on the ballot. A lot of people have their suspicions, but we have to ask ourselves if there was a competitive bid process to determine the best solution.

I, for one, would have voted to throw money into future technologies over current rail solutions. Mostly because I shudder to think how much current tech will be old news in ten years when the high speed rail is completed (if at all).

If we pursue the hyperloop or similar tech, and whether it can be completed or not, at least it would be a first of it's kind and on the cutting edge.

Somewhere in the book written by the founders of 37signals they allude to the premise that we should all remember that the term "start-up" is interchangeable with the term "business". As such, you have to protect your interests as if you are running a business, and not get lost in the idea of a start-up. Getting things in writing can be tricky prior to launch and proof of persistency, but at the point where you are hiring additional staff and opening satellite offices, the topic has to be addressed.

The authors' attitude, while polarizing, is not really as important as the underlying issues that the article is trying to address. I agree and disagree with a few of his points, but just understanding the current environment in education, there are too many obstacles to overcome systematically.

How do you strike a balance between budget, administration, curriculum, and execution. Inevitably, one of these stakeholders prevents change and growth.

In the end, it may fall upon us tech professionals to continually improve UX. As far as the masses are concerned, that is the point of our professional existence. When a car breaks, they want a mechanic. When a computer doesn't connect to the inter-nets, they want a tech professional.

Just to throw it out there. Think of how much tech has advanced in the last ten years (Google is only 10yrs old)... do you really think, knowing what you know about agility in education, that public schools could have kept pace??? There are tech giants that have fallen by the wayside over the same period of time.

I think this is spot on. Many of the brick and mortar stores are scrambling, but finding ways to be just fine They have a certain customer base and actually are being forced to provide better service and value. I shop at Macys now more than I ever did because I can buy items online and deal with a live person at the store if I have any issues. I can't say that I ever shopped there often before getting on there mailing list. Best Buy is being forced to step-up their price matching policies because of the "show-rooming" trend, supposedly leading to better deals for buyers.

I tried to Love AWS, but right now I just like their effort. There is something organically that feels right about the way DO has positioned themselves, they can always scale pricing based on additional features added. Yes, there margin is thin, but the the fact that the service is easy to use means less user support issues when adding them at 500 per day.

Maybe my glass is half-full, but furloughing everybody for one week may have prevented them from cutting a number of individual positions completely. The thing that I find interesting is the statement about efforts being made to return the business model to sustainability: "new product launches, investments, acquisitions, changes to its go-to-market, new client centers of competency for Linux and flash memory".

Did I miss something or is this a list of things on any viable business model. I would have liked to see them make "out of the box" moves, but alas, this is the IBM we all know and love.

IBM just have had a large series of layoffs. People have suggested IBM is trying to get more employees to quit.

If you get them to leave, you don't have to pay severance. It's a typical maneuver to shake the tree before the culling.

Not to mention Google has a better office in the city, and hires a lot of the high-end IBM talent fairly quickly as it becomes available.

In what city? Poughkeepsie? Rochester MN? Austin?

"The City"

As in, much of IBM's operations are still in the NYC area.

They'll have another layoff ("Resource Action" in IBM-speak) later this year. No later than mid-December, so they don't have to pay the 401(k) match (if you leave before the end of the year, they take back their match for the whole year).

This makes sense when there is, in fact, a story to tell. Depending on the item, I think that the story can be simplified by concentrating on the BENEFITS of the item. For example this is the description of a watch for sale in a daily deal I just received on email:

Lancaster XXXX Quartz movement Case diameter: 43mm Mineral crystal protects watch Stainless-steel case; black dial Water-resistant to 165 feet (50 M)

Rewrite, with story:

When you hit the street, do it with style and confidence. The Lancaster XXXX features a big face, steel case (unapologetic rhyme there), and a quartz movement that is more reliable than your cell phone service! Oh yeah, and if that unassuming pothole is deeper than you thought, this watch will survive a dip in the water.

So you get the general idea, there is a story in the benefits. After all, how many people buying a $10 watch really care or know what a quartz movement or mineral crystal are?

>a quartz movement that is more reliable than your cell phone service

Is this talking about being able to make a call, or the time reported by a phone? The former is a non-sequitur and the latter is a lie. This would not make me very impressed with the seller.

I would bet my ten dollar watch that you are a developer and not a marketer. I suppose that you might point out that geckos can't really talk, and Flo will not answer your questions about car insurance :)

Being a champion of world class service is always the goal and stories like this never get old. Keep in mind that there are also hidden/intangible costs associated with delivery of this level of service, for every "Bob the 4 million dollar client", there are 10 "John the 2 hour time-syncs". I am not saying that you should not strive for world-class service, because you should. I would speak more to pricing your services accordingly and not under valuing them to the point where you cannot take care of clients properly.