5 ms·
And on a few more: Jury Board: SaaS note taking to enrichment (third-party api) to ML; solid long term strategy. Real user interest. With a large unique datase
by ig1 10y ago
And on a few more:
Jury Board: SaaS note taking to enrichment (third-party api) to ML; solid long term strategy. Real user interest. With a large unique dataset you could essentially build a monopoly business. Founder seems to understand the space, but perhaps not commercial/sales side. Selling to legal firms will probably mean a salesforce which results in a much higher per-unit cost but that’s potentially sustainable. Not clear there’s a large enough market to take to IPO but could be a decent size trade-sale to someone like Lexis-Nexis or Reuters. Accept.
AuthorInvestments: Interesting approach to modernising “advances” structure of book publishers, likely extendable to other markets. As more content creation becomes freelance this could provide an alternative for creators that doesn’t rely on fans (ala Patreon) or pre-buyers (Kickstarter) but rather treats it as a form of alternative investment. Not clear if the founder is capable of delivering but definitely has potential to be a breakout. Accept.
Trusert: Seems to fix a hypothetical problem rather than a real one. Not clear what the market is for employers who are concerned that people crammed for test. Might be useful in markets with high-rates of cheating on exams. But doesn’t seem generally applicable. Pass.
- danieltillett 10y agoOn Trusert I am curious why you think the market is employers? A few people have raised this exact same point yet I am unsure why as I explicitly said they are not - there must have been something I said that makes you think this.
- ig1 10y agoIt was this paragraph: Since any potential employer can't rely on a candidate's certificate/degree to indicate that they actually knows the material (or can apply it), they are forced into retesting every candidate (i.e. the dreaded technical interview). This is an incredible wasteful process for both candidates and the employers. What is needed is a certification process that can't be gamed that measures true retention of knowledge and skill.
- danieltillett 10y agoThanks for the reply. I guess you (and others) were confused over who might benefit from who will pay. I guess I assumed that everyone recognised that no employer will pay for this service because of the way it works - you can hardly pay to have candidates tested when the testing might not occur for another 12 months. Not that it matters too much at this stage, but I would encourage you to read through the whole discussion - the idea is not as obvious as it appears on the surface.