One thing that I'm hesitant about is that people often use time-as-a-limited resource as a way of pushing people out they aren't interested in seeing or doing business with.
If people are buying time for other people (I'm assuming that's your business model), then people may be forced to simply tell the truth, which may harm some relationships/businesses.
Have you found someone willing to insure your startup against any possibly litigation?
I went on the site, set age to 18 and set gender to female.
Instantly bombarded with messages and dick picks from some very nice men. I guess this is what's it would be like being a woman on any sort of dating site.
One thing that might be a friction point reading this proposal (it was for me anyway), is that I don't know what a "staffing-prenuer" is, and a quick google search raised more questions then it answered. Is it someone who starts a staffing agency like a restaurateur?
Sorry this might just be me; but I just wanted to let you know.
Appreciate your comments. A Staffing-preneur refers to any Technical Recruiters who are entrepreneurs.
Would you have considered the proposal if I simply addressesed them as staffing entrepreuers? Or what would you have addressed them as? Open to suggestions/ideas.
My goal is to democratize entrepreurship amongst Technical Recruiters, especially those that are just out of college and struggling to find a job.
Ah I see. I think you can use the term but saying:
> A Staffing-preneur refers to any Technical Recruiters who are entrepreneurs.
At the beginning would have helped me. It's always hard to know whether or not to use or explain buzzwords, but keep in mind proposals might be read by lots of different kinds of people, so it's okay to be cautious.
I was also confused by this terminology. I personally find buzzwords pretty off-putting, and I don't really understand what "staffing" is in the first place -- is it like a temp agency?
Perhaps it might be more profitable to simply seek out the most entertaining types of work going on around the community and live-stream it. This would remove the costly and risky aspect of managing the work "entertainment".
That's certainly possible but a dedicated sponsored team will result in a wow factor that the average community based group wouldn't necessarily posess. You would be hard pressed to find a jackass caliber group in every community, but if they are sponsored they could travel and maximize the entertainment value.
The plan is to first focus on metropolitan areas, primarily in Los Angeles, where many artists and creatives tend to cluster. However, since we are focusing on residential garages as the physical venues to repurpose, we would be able to service different parts of the city quite effectively (since underutilized garages are fairly abundant wherever you go).
You might consider implementing the features you seek as a plugin to discourse. As for the hosting expenses, there are 3rd party services that will host it for you.
I think they failed for a couple of reasons. 1. not enough respect for the marketing side of things. 2. free labor only gets you so far need actual cash to be contributed. 3. equity plan needs laid out early so people don't feel like equity is going to be hoarded. 4. 3. needs to be more like a holacracy and a benefits corporation.
To offer a counter point, why does the girl seem like she needs or wants someone to guide her along in each class?
Asking people to help is one resource, but so is reading the textbook, doing introduction tutorials, looking stuff up online, etc. The author doesn't mention she spent time doing these sorts of activities.
> Not only that, but other people in the room jumped in to help explain
I've definitely seen guys line up to help people in labs.
Maybe the take-away is that CS is traditionally taught in a very individual way and should be more group-oriented.
> why does the girl seem like she needs or wants someone
> to guide her along in each class
Probably for the same reason that people enjoy personal assistance with questions on IRC or discussion forums. Sometimes you literally don't know enough to know what you don't know well enough to know where or how to look it up.
That seems like a cop out to me. Textbooks are by far the best resource you have available for your class work and even though they take the most effort, they tell you exactly what you need to know enough to know what you don't know.
Sorry, what? Literally the first time I've heard anyone claim that textbooks are better than in-person one-on-one tutoring by an educator, which is what we're comparing to, right? (Getting help in-person from the TA.)
Like sure, certain exercises may be more ideal with a group of peers, or may be more ideal if the student does it while the instructor stays hands-off; but if you had to pick just one of all the possible ways to learn something, until I read this comment I thought it was quite universal that everyone would say yeah, one-on-one in-person tutoring with someone trained in the subject matter is the single best way to learn something. Which is why, in spite of being the most expensive option, tutoring is still a thriving industry.
> Sorry, what? Literally the first time I've heard anyone claim that textbooks are better than in-person one-on-one tutoring by an educator, which is what we're comparing to, right? (Getting help in-person from the TA.)
A huge number of software developers are autodidacts. The implication is you don't know many people.
I know plenty of autodidacts, and arguably was one. I'm almost certain not a single one would say that if they could've afforded to be tutored one-on-one instead of reading on their own, they would've still chosen reading on their own instead. They learned from textbooks because the cost and inconvenience of tutoring was prohibitive, not because they're like "pffft, the tutor was just slowing me down, in the time spent with them I would've learned way more from a textbook".
I actively do avoid asking questions even when it is free.
Not only in computing. I really did not do to well on piano lessons. My siblings who where just taught the basics (IIRC) and then left to their own ended up playing the piano (and other instruments) because it was fun.
Of course in computing this is reinforced from time to time by e.g.:
- by visiting stackoverflow and see how many (IIRC again) of the questions that has helped me most are closed as not constructive,
- or by a colleague who seems they will use any opportunity to talk about something being junior-level stuff and then go on to waste a lot of everyones time by rewriting the whole thing.
Having gone through two degrees, I have rarely found getting help from others to be more efficient than learning on demand myself. I definitely deliberately avoided tutoring apart form the occasional sampling.
I've had exceptional teachers and tutors at times, but I always learned best from textbooks and articles. Information density (ideas per second) in text is much higher and I can scan ahead at my own speed. And with text, I can time-shift my learning. You only get personal tutoring at certain hours and only for a limited amount of time. You can't save your tutor on your hard drive and pull it up later.
Regular evaluation and correction from a human being is useful, though, so that I don't mistakenly believe I know something before I do. But there are subjects where self-evaluation (math quizzes, small software projects) can serve the same purpose. But it certainly speeds things up to have someone set a curriculum.
I can't recall any discussions directly comparing textbooks with tutoring, but I can recall many discussions that assume in-person one-on-one teaching to be the gold standard, and all other methods are merely cost-effective compromises. It's implied that textbooks, while not as effective as interacting directly with the textbook author, are an excellent compromise because the author's pedagogy can be widely dispersed for relatively low cost (compared to the author personally tutoring every reader).
While convenience could arguably be considered part of what makes something "better", I think it's also commonly not. Like, you might say a restaurant a half-mile away is "better" than one across the street because its food is tastier, even if the one across the street is so much more convenient that in practice, you eat at the less tasty place five times as often.
In this context it's not clear-cut, but even when re-reading great-grandparent it still seems to me to not be considering convenience to be what makes textbooks better:
> Textbooks are by far the best resource you have available for your class work and even though they take the most effort, they tell you exactly what you need to know enough to know what you don't know.
If anything, great-grandparent seems to be emphasizing an aspect of textbooks that's less convenient than a tutor.
for people with certain styles of learning. I've always found lecture with some degree of interaction to be of much higher value than the textbook for me.
> surprisingly few studies of this format have produced supporting evidence for learning styles; far more evidence (such as this study) runs counter to the myth.
There's been a number of meta-analysis done (e.g. [1]), and they overwhelmingly conclude that there's just no support for learning styles. So, it's a myth until proven otherwise. See also Willingham's book based on his research [2], and his FAQ here which links to more research [3].
For you, maybe - the commenter below me preferred lecture and I didn't learn anything until I did the project and trolled the mailing lists asking (and eventually answering) questions. Some people do better with the human interaction.
I don't think I was clear enough. I'm not saying that textbooks are the best resource for the concepts, but that they're the best resource for the course work.
The comment I replied to said that people can be excused because they "don't know enough to know what you don't know well enough". But the textbook is exactly that information. Most CS courses plan the lectures, notes, homework, tests, etc off the textbook. So the textbook tells you enough to know what you don't know well enough so you can look it up on mailing lists or pick it up in lecture.
Depends on the textbook tbf - a lot of textbooks are really, really bad. Same with basically all sources of information. They pretty much all make assumptions about knowledge level, mainly because they're written by people that (think they) know a lot about the subject. In a lot of cases (the PHP tutorials online are a poignant example), they don't or spread misinformation (yeah just use mysql_query ololooo)
There were no discussion forums or irc channels discussing the gnarly details of quantum mechanics - I read and taught myself until I got it.
The onus to learn is on YOU - if you go to college expecting someone to magically and painlessly install a degree in your head you've another think coming.
Edit: downvoted for proposing that people put effort into educating themselves? Downvoters, YOU are the entitled problem-people.
I mean, I self taught a ton and see the value in it, but seriously?
You pay to attend a university for the sole purpose of having people teach you, that is what they are selling. The idea you should go to a university and only self-teach is insane, at that point, why attend at all?
It's not entitled to want the thing you paid for. Those people are literally there to provide that service.
> The idea you should go to a university and only self-teach is insane, at that point, why attend at all?
Because they give you a piece of paper with a prestigious name on the top of it at the end.
There's no reason why I couldn't have learned everything I learned in college on the internet, or at a well-stocked public library, but that piece of parchment written in Latin with the fancy seal on it is worth a thousand times it's weight in gold.
Getting taught by a teacher or helped by a teaching assistant is not 'passively learning without effort'. It is getting the help you need at the time. The job names literally include the word 'teach' - it is their job to teach you.
Yes, self-learning is a part of any degree, but sometimes people need help. Sometimes people learn more quickly and easily with help, and that's why they pay someone to help them do it.
I, personally, did not need or want that help. If I had, however, I was paying for it, and have the right to that education, as does everyone who does so.
You may not have said 'only', but you did say people shouldn't expect to have a degree given to them after being given an example of someone asking for help a couple of times. You implied that people should never need to ask for help, and should instead self-teach.
Actually this is an opportunity for left-pad.io. Previously they had to maintain custom code, but now they can interface through to the kernel which is much faster and allows them to scale.
Many people are on older kernels and might not be able to upgrade, or for convenience or other reasons simply prefer to use an api for their critical business logic.
