tachudda

Not sure about now, but I was a musician with a variety of instruments for about a decade in my youth. In my experience, private instruction was always locally advertised. For instance, I had lessons on oboe, violin and piano. The piano teacher was a friend of my mothers, oboe and violin I had a class at school where the instructor suggested where to get tutors, typically either former students in the local orchestra or students at the local college music program. To me, an app would have to improve upon this relatively convenient method of finding instructors. Typically these instructors come with the implicit approval of a trusted person as well.

A tunnel would need to be large enough to be maintained by humans when all the pallets crashed into each other and someone had to unjam it. We'd have a new kind of plumber

I suspect that with teachers teaching to a test, it improves bad teachers and holds good teachers back a little.

This is such a hard thing to measure, since programming isn't about how many widgets. Even how fast you complete a project. Often the team is making decisions about interface and data design that impact the project down the line. With 2 teams working, you would get 2 different products and I think it would be hard to see which is the better product without significant time. You could also have the exact same team make the same product 5 times and get 5 different products. Experiments with humans are hard

Where are you working that everyones a grown up?

Its really the density argument. Do you go for public transport and hope the density then follows to make it more worthwhile? The alternate of getting a dense place and then trying to add good transit options seems just as likely to fail. I'm sure theres some middle ground I'm missing. But busses using the same clogged roads, or trying to find space for more rail/bus/bike lanes in already overcrowded areas seems like an expensive problem to fix. I obviously don't know the answer either way. I gotta think that we can't just do sprawl forever though.

I assume the shell and racks will still be worthwhile in 5 years

I've seen 41% of first marriages end in divorce.

I'm curious if theres an industry that you think has figured out hiring, at least from a lying on resume standpoint I'm not sure which that would be.

Often times when I've seen this discussed, the reasoning behind straight cash vs just necessities, it often has to do with overhead. If you just give people money, its easier to administer, everyone in the program gets the same cash, theres no inventory to administer, theres nothing to check. The other thing often discussed in the same manner is help that has certain "morality" clauses, such as welfare or help, but only if the poor person makes certain decisions. As far as total impact, you can do more by just giving money, and not spending any of it policing behavior.