Reg Ex: Replace all tags except style and script tags

Took me a bit of hacking some regular expressions together using look aheads until I realized although it worked it’s not what I wanted after all….guess its late —

I figured I would post it to have it be at least worth a bit of SEO since i couldn’t google it myself…

Java String: “<(((/)|())(?!(/)|((script)|(style))).*?>)>*?”

The ol’ switcherooo

I realized todaythat with the advents of iPhone and Google voice free calling from my computer I now use my phone for computing and my computer for calling more then the other way around.

Maybe this is anoter indicaton that mobile is more about sponetaity and look ups where the computer is used as a momemt in time reserved for an action. I am walking and curious about the weater i am about to enter, check phone. I need to talk to my mom at 8 sit down and use skype or gchat for 30 mins….

Maybe ist just ironic, but it was a funny thing to notice today either way.

My greatest life lessons from Computer Science

I really appreciate  my education in Computer Science. The most valuable mental shift I gained was the understanding that there are no “hard problems.” To recognize that even extremely difficult problems were easily solved once you were able to deconstruct them into smaller more simple ones. Problem-solving is about figuring out how to simplify, dismantle, and rebuild toward solutions. Simplifying is all about getting good and asking the right questions.

For instance, playing the guitar is hard, playing chords with rhythm is easier, playing chords is even easier, playing a note is more easy – and so on and so forth.

Just breakdown what you want to accomplish and get great at each little piece of it. Then, get great at putting each individual piece together and your problem isn’t all that bad.

 

Thesis: AppMakr

So this is pretty cool. Your head is in the grinder day and night, in and out. Is it worth it? Does anyone care? And then you stumble upon some guy at Oxford writing a thesis about us. It’s small in some ways, but big in others. I mean someone we don’t know found out about us and was interested enough to write a thesis. I am not sure why, but it was a nice morning pick-me-up none the less.
http://fundable.co/2010/11/what-does-fundraising-look-like/

Hit the ground running

I love focused ideas that get one thing perfectly right and easy. Remembering URLs is getting easier and easier and more and more tools will be used per day on purpose and app like based on social discovery (I’ll explain more in other blogs). For now here are two sites that are hella useful. The second you go to the site it gives you a unique idea. Simply save the unique url and share it to collaborate with friends. Super simple:

Pirate Pad: Instant realtime collaboration document writer:  http://piratepad.net/ep/pad/newpad

Thingler: Instant todo list: http://thingler.com/

Google testing out preview pages in search

I stumbled onto the google test list tonight and noticed a new preview feature in search. It works really well and takes good advantage of the excess white space on their search page. A nice bonus is the non forced nature of it. If you mouse over any of the results nothing happens unless you click on one of the magnifying glasses. The full length preview of the page immediately comes up (way quicker than I have ever seen on other search engines) and since its the full page scrolled you can read and browse it quite thoroughly. After the first magnifying glass is selected, subsequent search results show the preview by simply putting the mouse over it. Also if you scroll the preview does not flicker through mouse over events so you can browse the full preview. When you stop scrolling and mouse over a new result it then switches. Overall feel was great and I hope they roll this out.

“And” and How it Can Kill Your Business

Focus is extremely important, especially in the early days of a startup or idea. It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the best thing to offer your customers is everything they need. I mean why wouldn’t you want to be the one stop shop for a user’s needs? Then you can be sure they’ll keep coming back for more, right? Unfortunately, it may sound good in theory, but in reality it’s a concept that kills.

The problem is, everytime you add an “and” to a to what you offer you risk proportionally devaluing each other thing you claim to be the best at; which I call value dilution.

Say we are a company that focuses on the very best linens (but then you think: how do I get the linens to the customer – so you continue on) … and we will deliver the very best linens to your door in under an hour. What just happened there is once you started thinking about alternative ways to increase the value of your company you have inadvertently admitted that the “fine linens” part of your company’s offerings isn’t good enough to stand on its own. I have the finest linens – [period]. I am so focused and great at making fine linens you will want them – [period].

Internally, (and here is a point of import) in every conversation and meeting that comes up, if the discussion doesn’t ultimately improve the quality of your fine linens don’t waste your time talking about it until you have the very best linens. Every new offering (if you want it done well) deserves all the attention it needs and will suck attention from another offering unless you have the brand, management, money, exposure, head count, or customer base to help carry your company into a new offering.

No idea is too small to warrant focus. You will be amazed at how deep you can dive into any one concept. The improvements you can bring to a single idea are infinite. There is always as much depth available in any one subject as there is breadth to the number of subjects available to explore.

A side benefit of going deep in one area, as opposed to picking many things to get involved in, is with each iteration of depth you find on any one subject the differentiating knowledge and expertise you gain will grow exponentially.  As a budding startup this exponential gain in knowledge through focus is the far better bang for your buck than compared to the costs of having to learn unrelated points of information when creating new products in new directions.

People try to avoid this law all the time. I’ve heard, “our team is special – we can do it (without more talent or time)” or “why can’t you move all your chess pieces at once?” or “it’s not technically a different focus and blah blah.” Sorry, you can’t avoid this law no matter how smart or hard working you are.  In order to provide the amount of time and energy needed on a each core value  you will need more people, a larger budget and more time (at all levels of the company.) Without it you will give your customers mixed signals, employees contradicting objectives , and a product that can’t compete with a rival that has chosen to focus all its time on one of your things.

When can you add an “and”? I’d say a good rule of thumb is, you can add an “and” when the “and” is not novelle/unique/innovative. Though, often if you are and’ing something that is not innovative then you probably don’t need to “and” it at all. It can come into play when your offering is a novelle way to offer an aggregate of many non-novelle things — but you had better be the best damn aggregator out there and make sure your team works toward that focused goal.

Note: I should make one more point. This doesn’t mean that you can’t have new ideas, just recognize that the new idea will need focus and attention and if you think your original idea/business isn’t good enough to stand on its own then it may be time to decide whether to keep the old business or shift focus completely to the new one. There is a time and place for R&D, and there is a time and place to grow your offering, but without total market fit your “and” should not be added to your core. There is also a difference between supporting features and additional cores that people get confused about a lot – I’ll save that for another post.

Hiring

For years employees would hire veterans because after x amount of years of experience an employer knew they were getting a knowledgeable person based on track record, but that is kind of a lazy way to hire. It’s just like football, you hire skill and lose potential, you pay to mitigate risk. Employers would then hire young people at a low salary if they were bright, once again to mitigate risk. “You seem smart but you don’t have a track record so we will have to pay you less.” Much like football you are not setting your team up to win a super bowl in the coming years. (This also sounds similar to VC world)

What FaceBook, Google, etc. well in addition to hiring smart veterans was they flipped the script a bit. They started hiring young people with alot of potential and paying them alot of money. A few years later they are winning super bowls. And the old employer style is having a hard time finding talent. Now everyone wants a young genius and they are in short supply.

Time and time again this risk mitigation strategy is a red flag and one should be sure they are mitigating for the right reasons. Also, when you save time by mitigating it is a red flag because in a way you are being lazy, and when you are lazy you give opportunity to those that aren’t lazy to move ahead. (not lazy cause you don’t work hard but lazy because you are using a system to think for you and when you do that you get further and further from being different and different equals success because not everyone can be successful).