Kind of. Except that there's no restriction that there has to be a 1:1 correspondence between the key and plaintext bits (or characters) that get mixed, as there would be in a conventional OTP. And, indeed, the DNN doesn't learn that - it mixes multiple key and plaintext bits together. Probably in a way that's worse than a true OTP -- the adversary is more successful than it should be were the encryption scheme a "correct" OTP with XOR.
I haven't. Interesting - that'd be a nice way to try to probe how strong the encryption is (i.e., "bits recovered vs. key bits supplied to adversary"). I'll have to think about that more - thanks for the idea!
Sort of. The key was only shared once, but over 20,000 messages were sent. In the real world, that would allow you to crack the OTP, since you're not supposed to reuse them.
Your analogy is better if the books or articles are written by the same users, like eg research papers and the editors (like Springer) dont allow the writers to even share their articles on the web.
Relevant info: the lawsuit of craigslist vs padmapper and 3taps: "3taps claimed that Craigslist was a public website, so anyone, including 3Taps always had authorization. The court disagreed with this..." (Wikipedia)
Sure, but if Kalzumeus can't verify the candidate's identity while playing the game, how could they verify it afterwards? Until someone physically walks through your door, you really have no guaranteed way of knowing who you're talking to.
I don't think they'll really need to worry about these things for quite a while, though. Good problems to have, I guess.
So, if I understand correctly you've the top biz category app and it's just generating ~100$ daily in ads? Seems a bit low actually :(
ps: would love some support for multiple data-sources per currency: for instance in Argentina we've official dollars but since they're impossible to get we also have sidemarket "blue" dollars...
I think its low by comparison to other apps that generate significantly more and/or if your expectations are relatively high. But his expectations were to get ~$100/month so I'm sure he is ecstatic. And besides, an extra $36,000 a year in relatively passive income isn't too shabby.
Agreed. But I still tought the top category app should drive so many installs that even users launching the app just once should generate more than that. Looks like the the business category is driving less installs than other more popular ones, like games or photo apps...
My problem with this isn't that the advice is obvious, but rather obvious _only in hindsight_:
"The best startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas.",
"the fast-growing market is going to be important but others dismiss it as unimportant"
these aren't obvious at all before they happen, not just for first-time startup people but everyone.
Exactly. One could easily come up with a corollary: "The worst startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas and really are." Which is a truism that probably applies to most startup ideas.
""The worst startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas and really are."
Based on the original thought "The best startup ideas are the ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas."
That one for sure is culled from a list of outsized successes (because they didn't make sense or had a large amount of barriers to success) but doesn't provide balance in the sense that bad ideas are more typically bad ideas. VC's like to hide behind this type of thinking often but they get around it by making bets on many companies whereas the person starting their own company has more of a reason to worry about the downside of a stupid idea.
I don't think for a second that it makes any sense that "best startup ideas are ones that seem like bad ideas but are good ideas".
Facebook wasn't a bad idea
Linkedin wasn't a bad idea
Amazon wasn't a bad idea (selling books to start)
So how do you define "bad idea"?
Is airbnb a bad idea because "who would want to rent out their apartment to strangers"? Or is it a bad idea because "you will never get regulatory clearance" (ditto for Uber).
Facebook was a bad idea because MySpace had already won.
LinkedIn was a mediocre idea b/c it would be very difficult to get enough user adoption to be valuable.
Amazon was a mediocre idea b/c people want to go to a bookstore and look at a book before they buy it (usually). Also, that business has no moat (anyone could sell books online).
You're right though - ideas that seem bad are more typically bad ideas. I still think Twitter is a bad idea. :-P
Really the corollary to this is that all the obviously good ideas are already being executed by huge corporations with massive resources and its very hard to compete when you are severely outgunned.
Also, it seems like it's important to have an understanding of the domain that is somewhat counterintuitive and contradicts the common understanding that people have about it.
Also, be lucky. Your "understanding" might be insanity.
1) The public, reading about the idea doesn't know the full idea or the future plans.
2) The bad idea can allow a pivot into a good idea, once you have money and resources.
3) Impossible to predict the future and what will happen. Twitter is a good example of this (celebrity mention, mainstream media mention, civil uprisings, etc.)
IMHO, the worst startup ideas are the ones that seem like GOOD ideas, but turn out to be bad. A horrible idea that's clearly bad will never go anywhere. Ideas that seem good end up getting funded, offices are rented, people are hired...
A lot of it was just trying the wrong things to convert users to customers. Giving away too much for free or not enough, things like that. I can see the graph change directions when different strategies were at play.
Not jumping on the IAP train fast enough was probably the stand-out one. Over time, it seemed like people got used to buying via IAP and almost resisted doing anything else. Sometimes it was as simple as being afraid they'd have to start over with their data if they purchased a whole different app (they wouldn't).
I think its important to let people pay when they are ready with as little friction as possible. If you have the friction of returning to the App Store, you will lose a lot of them in the process.
