kerno
[1]https://futurefeednews.com/the-science-behind-futurefeed-asp... [2]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293800275_The_red_m...
Australian welfare recipient’s data released to counter public criticism
Sonoa Health's Plans to Take on Dr Google
http://www.amazon.com/The-Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/014312...
"This is always how the conversation would go:
PM: What kind of discount are you offering?
Me: We don’t discount; instead we put our pricing on our website so there’s no misunderstanding.
PM: Well I’m going to need some kind of discount. How about 30%?
Me: As it says on our website, we don’t discount.
PM: But I’m buying 400 seats!"
http://blog.asmartbear.com/startups-emotionally-draining.htm...
But, what's with the robot and spaceships blowing up a city in the background of your site?
I wasn't trying to claim that we can immediately shift these resources, but that this shift won't happen en masse until services has a bigger profile and more to offer than mining.
However, before the industrial revolution we were all toiling in fields, so I think perhaps labour is more fungible that you give it credit.
With Silicon Beach on and off, Startup Grind, lots of small meetups, and Fishburners in Sydney, there are certainly groups to build this community around but I still think we are years behind the critical mass of something like HN London. And that's just to talk about forums for people to gather in - it says nothing about our skills shortage.
I agree with Matt's points regarding our reliance on the resources industry. So many people head off to the mines on a fly-in-fly-out basis, and make incredible coin - but it won't last long-term and then our skill base will be incompatible with value-adding services industries.
However, I think we need successes before a great weight of people will shift towards STEM disciplines, in the same way that the dot-com frenzy saw Web Development course demand explode.
Google keyword advertising is waste of money, says eBay report
The implicit and even explicit backing of a government of a private institution, forced as a result of that bank's size and market impact, allows that institution to take larger risks and to privatise profits that are generated as a result of the public's support.
This is a major unintended consequence of saving big banks during the financial crisis.
If we just mean to break them up into smaller banks, it is hard to say whether negating the benefits of scale will raise costs higher than the competitive pressure of no longer having dominant institutions effectively being able to set prices.
If we mean to break up securities trading and deposit-taking divisions into separate institutions (as Glass-Stegall was meant to enforce until repealed) then we may see a return to a more stable Wall Street, as the house would be forced to play it's own money instead of yours, and 'banking' will be pure and boring again.
"I’m starting another content company, and I plan to make a fortune"
>online hub that will make mucho money (business model is solid!) AND help millions of children & adults be happier
my bullshit detector just goes nuts.
I can see that you have actually raised capital and worked in the field so that helps with credibility but it all gets washed out, in my mind, by the earlier tenor of your claims.
[Edit] found the link to the article (paywalled) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/have-kids-will...