887 karma · joined May 15, 2012
One thing I was looking for and didn't see were maps. I love maps. I'd love to see maps of Native American tribes populations, be it current or historical (or both!). It gives context as to where tribes are currently located and the land masses they once controlled years ago.
Anyway, great resource. Thanks for putting it together.
#1 I don't know enough about the content. I love when I have this problem because it means I get to have unique (to me) experiences that will help me flesh out my idea. I also realize that I'm not in a position to write anything, which relieves some pressure.
Unfortunately, "not enough experience" is not one of my common hangups. Which leads me to....
#2 I have a mechanical problem. Uh, I hate these, because they come in all forms. It could be that I'm writing in a style that I'm not used to. Or that I'm trying to write about a topic in a blog post that is meant for a book. Or my first draft is a dumpster fire. Or I can't get through a first draft because I'm worried about said dumpster fire. Or my idea isn't organized. Or coherent. Or maybe I'm a terrible writer and should give up.
And on and on and on goes the spinning top if self loathing.
To combat it, I do a few things. First I make sure the idea and the medium align. You wouldn't want to write a blog post about the geo political tensions the Syrian refugee crisis has caused much like you wouldn't want to write a book about your mom's famous beef stroganoff recipe.
Once you feel they align, tell yourself you're not a genius. Really, do it. What you're about to write will be derivative and boring. It's going to be the steamy turd you wish you never wrote.
Then polish the turd. Revise your writing the best you can. And finally have someone (with some sort of credentials) critique it. Or if you're feeling daring, set it off in the wild. After you do all that, put that piece out of your head and start something else.
This advice, in and of itself, isn't novel. Hell, someone on this thread's handle is FailMore. But that's all it is. Reps, fucking up and learning from it.
And remember you're not the smartest guy in the room. So don't pretend to be. But you can be interesting to some people, so work on that.
But you still do. And you are susceptible to advertising signaling.
You buy toilet paper, shampoo and soap (I hope), laundry detergent, gas, coffee (presumably), personal ailment products and so forth. There is no way anyone could possibly research every category products they buy. So you will use what information you have available to you...and that is probably the memory of certain brands spending a dump truck's worth of money on advertising.
- In five to ten years, 20 and 30 somethings of today who have mostly flocked to metropolitan areas don't leave when they are at the age of starting a family. The lack of space is still trumped by the a near zero commute and the cultural landscape that surrounds them.
- Right around that time, self-driving car services (Uber sans drivers) have started making serious headway in metropolitan areas. Traffic within the cities have drastically reduced due to less cars on the road and less need for parking. (So that cab ride across town that once took 35 minutes, now takes nine).
- With the reduction in traffic, corporations never changing urn to save a buck, and the next crop of 20 and 30 somethings that want to create their own identity, businesses start snatching up these industrial park cemetaries. More space, less money, room to grow. They no longer have to worry about employee parking. The commute out to the building is only 15 minutes (where it used to be a full hour +). AND YOU GET YOUR OWN OFFICE!!!!
In a sea of community work spaces, "YOUR OWN OFFICE" is the shiney fish.
- And of course, once one business successfully implements this strategy, the rest of sure to follow.
Brass tacks, these office parks are dying because of increasing traffic and fuel costs...and that's really it. If we do wind up living in a world where people don't own cars and the self-driving car startups of today eliminate tomorrow's traffic, no doubt these cemeteries will see a second coming. If I had the funds, I'd wait for the industrial park real estate market to bottom and then start snatching up property.
Now, before others start piling on, this book is misogynistic and juvenile. Most of the pick-up examples the author uses probably have a better success rate with college co-eds than late 20 early 30's female working professionals. But there are some good lessons you can extrapolate out of the swill of a story:
1. Outward appearance matters. Nobody wants to engage a slob.
2. Self-Confidence matters. Eye contact, a smile, a positive outlook, etc. You don't have to be a douche, but most people tend to gravitate to those with self-confidence (even if the self-confidence is misplaced).
3. The only way to get better at talking to people is by talking to people. Networking and personal social interaction only gets easier with practice. So the moral of this story is you will look like a fool in the beginning. Don't take yourself too seriously, and keep in mind the failed social interactions you have today will help you tomorrow.
And also, get the notion of finding your "soul mate" out of your head. Chances are, the person you fall in love with won't check off the "soul mate" boxes you've concocted. Date freely, give everyone a shot and keep an open mind.
Good luck.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secre...
[1] I haven't read the book in over a decade, so there is a good chance a lot of the material is dated. But I still stand by the lessons I learned from it.
Edit: General Clean Up
What the Yelp rep said was not clear. The Yelp rep didn't answer the question my former employer had. She avoided it. Does that mean Yelp was/is up to something nefarious? No. But it has that appearance.
And that's the point. Yelp can, in fact, be doing absolutely nothing wrong as far as their data is concerned. But small business owners don't see that. All they see is aggressive Yelp sales agents, and a better rating if they advertise through Yelp.
It's an image problem, not a data problem.
You're not going to use Tinder to date your friend. But you would use it to date your friend's friend. Smart move by them.
Two years ago I sat in on a call with a Yelp rep with a former employer of mine (small business connected to the real estate industry). The Yelp rep said "Advertising through Yelp will almost instantly increase you rating." My employer asked "Does that mean you'll manually fix my score?" To which the rep responded, "Your rating will get better if you advertise with us."
That was 2 years ago. I know Yelp has gotten flack since then, and maybe they cleaned up. But that stink of being a thug doesn't wash off quickly, especially in the small business community.
The 5th Amendment grants you the right not to incriminate yourself in legal proceedings. Diaries found with a proper warrant can totally be used against you.
I highly recommend the documentary Somm [0]. It's not an easy thing to become a master wine taster.
1. What will you do if something breaks? (As the saying goes, if a mover tells you he's never broken anything, he's either lying to you or it's his first day).
2. What will you do to protect yourself against mistaken/fraudulent damage claims? (i.e. Buyer/Seller claims you scratched the DR table, but you didn't).
3. How will you load your truck to maximize space efficiency? The more things you can store on the truck, the more things you can put up for auction. As a mover, the first thing I put into the truck is the last thing I take off [0]. But you can't do this as to the dynamic nature of your business. You always need access to everything on the truck...which is surprisingly harder than it seems.
4. What will you do with breakables (i.e. china, glasses, lamps etc)? Different animal than furniture.
5. If I'm selling a large ticket item, why would I use your service? For example, let's say I bought a couch for $2000 last year and now I want to sell it. I should be able to fetch $1000 for it. If I'm patient, I could probably get as much as $1700. You're taking half. $500-$850 is extremely expensive to list an item on the internet and move it across town.
That said, I wish you luck this weekend.
Edit: General Clean-Up
[0]: http://www.angieslist.com/files/packed-moving-truck.jpg
My concern is, this product seems to be more valuable to the buyers than the sellers. Yet the buyers don't pay anything for the service.
This went off the rails well before I started to write it. But let me push back on your thoughts.
If I am understanding Microsoft's argument correctly for this court case, they are trying to equate e-mails to letters. And, by extension, equate themselves to UPS/USPS/FedEx whathaveyou. E-mails are private correspondence, just like letters in the post. And please, correct me if I'm wrong in this assessment.
It is also a felony in the US to open someone's mail. So wouldn't that same protection exist in email? Which would mean nobody can look at an email correspondence unless they were either the sender or receiver of said email.
and...
>That said, I think they're ultimately going to win.
Warning: Total Conspiracy Theory Ahead
Could this be an end-around by Microsoft to eliminate one of Google's main revenue streams? Follow me for a second.
1. Let's assume Microsoft wins this court case. By doing so, e-mails will be afforded the same protection, under the law, as physical letters.
2. A Microsoft backed plaintiff sues Google for data-mining her email's content, arguing under the same 4th Amendment ruling.
3. After years of legal procedures and court battles, Google (and all other e-mail providers) are forced throw away their master keys. Essentially all email is blind to the providers.
4. Google loses one of their larger revenue streams.
Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory, so indulge me for the moment. Why would this not work (And for the record, I'm sure it wouldn't. But I would honestly like to know why.)?
Empty Nesters in their 50's and 60's is where this product needs to be focused. These people usually still work, tend to have more house than they need, have fewer monthly expenses, and aren't able to do run-o-the-mill house maintenance (even if they have the time). They could range anywhere between middle class and upwards.
My parents are firmly middle class, and I could see them wanting something like this.
Empty Nesters are your customers. And it's a growing market (in the US at least).
EDIT: Spelling and grammar.
However I have a few qualms with this.
1. Most shoppers on the internet are using the internet for three reasons; (A) they are looking for the lowest price possible, (B) they are minimizing their shopping time, or (C) they are looking for something they can't find locally at a brick and mortar. If I were an (A) or (B) shopper, this is a huge turn-off to me. It is neither explicitly giving me the lowest price possible nor is it time efficient.
It might work with the (C) shoppers but that that would require some testing. Do you think a Fab.com or Etsy retailers would use this? [Not being snaky, an actual question]
2. The emotion of bargaining does not translate with e-commerce. To me, e-commerce has always been an emotionless experience.
Whenever I was buying something in Ecuador there was a certain rush I got when I locked horns with a merchant. We developed a certain bond when we finally came to an agreement and each party has thought they had won. That rush is missing here (for me anyway). I'd be curious to hear how merchants feel who normally do business this way.
If you read the homepage, you'll see their tag line is "Fresh bread, snacks and coffee beans. Delivered in 18 minutes." Now, let's remove the baked goods accoutrement for a second and focus on the "delivered in 18 minutes or less". Isn't this the very real problem Amazon is trying to solve for themselves? Isn't there tremendous value to dynamic delivery logistics?
To be clear, I don't know these people, nor do I know if delivery logistics is their endgame. If they're bakers, then all the previous critique is warranted.
But if I lived in SF, I would sign up to see what they're up to.
This is true, however you can't dive into the nuances of Shakespeare without knowing what words are and how to spell them.
One thing to keep in mind when arguing theoretical vs mechanical education is children can't think like adults. In fact, children aren't even capable of abstract thought until they hit the 11 to 13 year old range [1] (and only the bright ones are able to think that way that young). So starting a deep dive with Computer Science with 7th and 8th graders is a fools errand.
But it is a worth while endeavour to show them the mechanical side of coding. They will eat that up. Once they have a handle on mechanical tasks, then you can start introducing the theoretical. More kids will pick up the concepts that way.
Walk before you run my friend.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget%27s_theory_of_cognitive_...
I've gone through the Massachusetts Health application process(the model for the ACA). To qualify for subsidised healthcare, your current income cannot be more than 300% of the poverty line. If you qualify for subsidized healthcare, you are told that you must notify Mass Health if your financial situation changes.
So, if you applied for Mass Health because you lost your job, you can't stay on Mass Health when you find another one.
The lovely Mass Health bureaucrat made it clear that I was susceptible to an audit and fraud charges if I didn't report an "income event" (I believe that's what she called it) in a timely matter.
Her explanation might shed light on the phrase "audit activities". But I haven't actually read the Obamacare legislation, so I can't say for certain.
This is the crux of the problem and why the OP makes a compelling argument.
We live in a world of "innovation" where the driving force behind it is a conglomerate of VC's whose primary concerns are their multiples and the next fund. They are people without long-term vision.
We also live in a world where political are small men and women proposing small ideas because their primary concern is the next election cycle.
What ever happen to greatness?
"We're putting a man on the moon in 10 years." "We're building a national highway system." "We're building a weapon that will end wars."
Where did the will go? Where are the cries of:
"We'll be free of fossil fuels in 10 years." "We're sending a person to Mars by 2020."
Or if you like wars on abstract combatants that never end:
"The war on ignorance"
Someone needs some vision. And right now, nobody has it.
Maybe if Google didn't fail pricing 101, they'd know something like 18.25% is more palatable to a consumer than a big round number like 20.
This type of post aggravates me. It's part of the reason why nothing ever gets fixed. Everyone thinks they're an expert when it comes to education. Yet no one understands the problems.
1. Education is not about employment.
If you teach a kid to be a great widget maker, his/her entire life hinges on the demand for widgets. If widgets become irrelevant, the skill set s/he has developed over 12+ years are useless. [a]
Can anyone, with any certainty, claim their skill set will create a livable income for them for the next 20 years? Probably not. So why would any k-12 school create a curriculum around todays job market?
2. The Education system is not broken (mostly).
Everyone likes to point to the fact that the US educational system is failing in comparison to the rest of the world.
Except...it isn't.
"While reading proficiency in Mississippi is comparable to Russia or Bulgaria, Massachusetts performs more like Singapore, Japan, or South Korea. Often better: Massachusetts students rank fifth in the world in reading, lapping Singapore and Japan, and needless to say, every state in the union." [1][2]
Our problem isn't that the system is broken. The problem is the most of the country isn't implementing the system correctly.[3] There are a lot of reasons for that, many of which have nothing to do with the educational system directly.
Now that's not to say there aren't problems with the current system:
a. Standardized tests only show how good kids are at taking a test. A skill that is wholly unneeded throughout the rest of society.
b. The US system is structured like a factory. The structure made sense when we lived in a time when we needed factory workers. Now we need people who can analyze, think and execute. We do not have a public school system that caters to that.
c. There is too much emphasis on employment and not enough on creating life long learning.
3. Education can't be solved with an algorithm.
Here's a personal anecdote.
I taught geometry in an urban [code for black, hispanic and immigrant] school system. Each year I taught, I had at least 2 kids who would leave school and go to McDonalds to work a 4-11 pm shift 3-4 nights a week. They did this so they could help feed themselves and their family [4].
They never did their homework. They never studies. They slept in the class frequently and most of them failed.
Do you think you can write some code to fix that problem?
4. Educate yourself before you fix the problem.
People who write posts like the OP have not spent any time talking to teachers or admins, let alone spending time in a classroom. Solving the education problem is incredibly complicated and, actually, doesn't have much to do with the schools.
[a]: Fun fact: My aunt graduated from college with a degree in Soviet Economics in 1987. She thought it guaranteed her a job in government for a long time. Hahaha!!!!!
[1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...
[2]: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG11-03_Globall...
[3]: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/01/10/16sos.h32.html?...
[4]: This is just one problem in particular. I also had a number of kids with drug problems, problems at home, safety issues walking/taking the bus to school and a slew of other non-school related issues. This problem stand out because nobody is actively doing the wrong thing.
> Citation needed.
My insinuation that terrorist attempts would become more frequent was IF our intelligence agencies opens up all its data to the public. I was not defending the competence of the US government's intelligence agencies.
Please read the opening post.
But I will ask you this. Is open government intelligence something that should be tested?
While I might be wrong with my claims, what's worrisome to most is that I'm not. And opening up intelligence as a test isn't exactly something that can be fixed with the next iteration.
With complete transparency comes little ability for security. Terrorist attempts become more frequent. Crime becomes more rampant and life become more unstable.
If you ask a typical American if they are willing to die for their freedom, very few would. They'd rather the security. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just true.