HN user
I sell insurance professionally and make apps on the side.
Historic begins with a hard h consonant sound. The h isn't silent. "A historic" is correct.
With that said, I don't personally have a problem with "an historic." I recognize it as a convention adopted by people whose dialect favors the silent h historic.
My firm is working to improve the social determinants of health/health equity through better data and analytics. Broadband access risk is of central interest.
We’ve incorporated this specific FCC data into our Equity Data Geo Explorer, which gives a visual of broadband risk (among others) down to the neighborhood level. [1]
I welcome a conversation with anyone else who is working in this space. Email in bio.
Clarifications like these are helpful to people like me who tend to read the comments before making a decision to read the article.
You’re probably thinking of design. Consultants will assemble the deck contents then ship to an offshore contractor to pretty them up overnight.
I'll be very interested to see whether this interpretation comes to bear. The more likely explanation, I think, is that something unexpected is happening, and markets don't like uncertainty. A little reductionist? Maybe. But maybe not.
To offer a counterpoint to fit2rule's comment, I'm probably smack in the middle of your target demo (currently employed as a business analyst, technically competent but not a programmer, have entrepreneurial ambitions, etc...) and I think your price point and subscription model are abundantly fair. I've paid a lot more for a lot less over the years. Don't see myself shirking at $25/mo when it's (potentially) core to my business.
I haven't tried PencilCase yet, but it looks like a great product with solid implementation. Good luck to you guys.
Anyone interested in reading more on this topic should check out Adam Grant's Give and Take.
Incidentally, one of the interesting takeaways from the book is that if you look at plot of people mapped to career success, you'll find that benevolent givers dominate -both- ends of the distribution. The theory goes that those who are in the left tail got there by being too preoccupied with others' needs, to the exclusion of their own success. Conversely those in the right tail got to where they are both by helping others and by consistently asking others to help them. In the latter scenario these folks have harnessed benevolence as a strategy for career growth, and the collective goodwill "out there in the ether" nets out to measurable success over the long-run.
I realize what's right for one isn't necessarily right for all, but to my mind this is a recipe for trouble. Especially in light of multiple endorsements that read "Owing so much in student loans, I wouldn't be able to pursue my dreams if it weren't for this investment."
Move back home (if it's an option) and spend a year or two working 9-5 until you can finance your dreams with no strings attached. There are countless mentors who will help you find your way, and it won't require a stake in your future earnings to get where you want to go.
I think it comes down to discretion. I would never recommend flooding an interviewer with internal email, but one helpful nudge from a respected colleague who vouches for you won't hurt.
Maybe my industry (consulting) is different but yes, absolutely yes, this is a tactic with nice ROI. I can't think of a single good reason not to leverage your existing contacts.
Really fantastic news. Congrats!!
Beginning as far back as high school his "7 Habits" book had a profound impact on the way I think and feel about relationships and work/life balance. I return to it every few years to look at it with fresh eyes.
I am saddened by this news and will surely take some time today to reflect on the lessons I have taken from his work.
That strikes me as shockingly low.
For context, KillerStartups bought the domain "startups.com" 4 years ago for $500,000. No IP, no brand recognition. The domain.
The honest-to-goodness justification you're going to hear is that Facebook is a nascent company, the potential earnings of which are only loosely a function of current earnings. That's to be contrasted with the likes of Google, Apple, and others as those tech staples have more predictable future earnings potential, which is at least relatively more bounded by current streams of income from reliable businesses.
NOTE: This is not to say I think a P/E of 100 was remotely justified.
This is just brilliant. Please create a Windows equivalent and make my whole year.
Apple will never be the first "person" to do anything.
With that said, point taken.
Each of those books is public domain.
Importantly, "Aussie," "Texan," and "Russian" aren't homonyms for fruits in the English language. Context matters.
This is exactly the premise behind Michael Gerber's E-Myth series of books: That loving something /= running a business that sells or does that thing.
I agree with this 100%. I feel guilty staring out a window - that's wasteful - but I don't feel guilty spending an extra half hour with my girlfriend or investing the time preparing myself a nicer dinner.
If I told you I'm more productive in the office than I am at home you'd probably tell me that's a fairly common reaction from those of us who have been on either side of that fence. This guy tells you he's more productive on his commute than at home and he's "...the type of person who can't do anything productive or healthy unless forced into it." I find that thinking unsound.
It sounds like the browser integrates with the application so that the line becomes blurred between where the browser ends and the app begins. As a long-term strategy you can almost see them releasing an API so companies can easily create websites "Built for Raven."
With that said I don't think that's at all clear from the copy... just what I'm inferring.
Because it's one line and because its implications are that important:
For quantities you can count (windows, money, people...), the word is "fewer." For quantities you can't, the word is "less"
The pledge should read: No first use of software patents against companies with fewer than 25 people.
and VistaPrint.
Interesting but the problem with this, at least as far as AdWords is concerned, is that low CTR means low Quality Score means higher minimum bid required for the same positioning. So it is costing you more in the long run.
If you're doing a CPM bid on the content network then you're bidding on impressions anyway, in which case there really isn't a reason to disincentivize clicks.
Of course it is. I'm saying that maybe the guy investing his time hacking the long run would be more gratified giving his all in the 10k or half marathon. What about that (innocuous?) piece of advice unnerves you so much?
Q: What's an easy way to bench 1,000 pounds?
A: Lift 100 pounds 10 times.
There's nothing wrong with taking it easy, and in fact I think you should if you're just starting out. But at some point you have to ask yourself whether you're in the race because you're passionate about it or whether you're in the race because you want to tell you facebook friends you ran a marathon.
I was never into running but until this past summer when I logged around 25 miles/wk. I ran my first 'official' 5k at the end and curiously felt like I was being dragged through it (for all the reasons runners much more experienced than me cautioned I would). So I can 110% appreciate your experience.
There's another principle at play. Colleges aim to maximize their yield, or the percentage of students who are offered admission that ultimately matriculate. Nothing against CMU - it's a fantastic school in nearly every regard - but these perfect scoring students... are they most likely to attend CMU? In a lot of cases the school is competing with HYP and others of that ilk.
So if you're CMU admissions, how do you maximize yield in those scenarios when P(student matriculates) is relatively low? You reject the student in favor of the better (if lower scoring) fit. Not only does it enable them to better predict/manage the size of the incoming class, but it also increases yield, which is a number that's reported directly to US News and which (in principle if not in practice) describes the desirability of admission from the perspective of incoming freshmen.