I agree with the sentiment that the best course of action would be to focus on your own work and not get caught up in the coworker's performance.
If you take the founder at face value, he's basically saying that keeping the coworker maximizes the chances of raising money. So another way to look at it is, would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars today to maximize your chances of raising millions tomorrow?
And I definitely do think there are situations where that could be the case. The founder might have sold the investors on your coworker being a valuable part of the core team during a tumultuous period where the company let go of two engineers and had to rewrite the code.
While you may believe that getting rid of your coworker would maximize the chances of success, the reality might be completely opposite, regardless of how much weight the coworker is or is not pulling.
I want to say that developers and smaller Saas companies might have played a role in this. Smaller businesses are not as big on ensuring everything works across browsers. Most developers use Chrome, so the likelihood of an issue popping up in Chrome is less than other browsers. When an issue does come up with someone using IE and the customer just wants it to work, the easiest solution is to just get them to download Chrome. Many of these customers don't really care what browser they're using and will gladly listen to whatever instructions customer support tells them.
I feel like this really depends on how the question is asked, how the interviewee is guided through the question, and the interviewer's expectations. If I was the interviewer, this would basically be a fizzbuzz question. The reason is that I'm pretty sure I'd have to basically tell the interviewee that I want a higher order function that takes in a predicate function.
If the question is simply phrased, "Group the values by odds and evens ...; and please create an appropriate abstraction" without any more details, it would explain your results. I wouldn't be able to hold it against the interviewee that they couldn't reach the proper abstraction without more context.
If I wanted to gauge an interviewee's ability with abstraction and code organization, my preference would probably be to engage in a higher level discussion, because it's difficult to construct a code test that tests this well.
It's easy to see if someone has a broken leg or test them for cancer. For most back pain, you can't even prove that person is actually suffering from it.
> For most back pain, you can't even prove that person is actually suffering from it.
Why does this matter? You ask the patient to report on their subjective experience the same way you would in studies about cures for depression and headaches.
My point is that 1) only when no surefire scientifically backed cure exists will most people take alternative therapies seriously and 2) problems that can resolve on their own (self-limiting) are very susceptible to generating unreliable anecdotes about cures. Back pain fits these two so generates many unreliable anecdotes which you should be highly skeptical about.
Why? No one is telling anyone to stop chemotherapy and use acupuncture to treat their cancer. In the context of back pain, so what if acupuncture isn't better than a placebo? We know placebo works for making people feel better. That's the whole reason why we need to control for them.
I feel like your pricing is too low, and you needed to be closer to Audible prices.
I feel like your marketing plan relied on too many perfect things to happen. You should also consider that the more you exploit a specific marketing channel, the less it tends to work. I think it's a tough sell to convince investors to put money into something that will only get you to your targets if your conversion and share rates improve.
- Most fruits in the US are bred to last longer and picked earlier so that they can survive long trips from the farm to the grocery store.
- Take a closer look at the ingredients in your bread. You're most likely buying bread with preservatives. There are bread makers that make bread without them and those will go bad sooner. Look for sprouted bread. Those can go bad within a couple days of the sell by and the sell by itself is only like 3 days from when they get it in.
- Why would a customer want to pay more for less versus your competitors?
- Ingredients are tasteless because same as with breeding fruits for transport, we do not optimize for flavor but quantity and cost. Good meat is a function of what the animal eats and if they exercise. What you're looking for can be most likely found at your local farmers market.
No one really knows the long-term effects of basic income, so it's all a bit of speculation and it's certainly possible that what you think will happen actually does. I personally think some costs would go up while others will not, largely determined by competition and supply/demand.
For example, if we look at food, it's a competitive industry and prices tend to only rise when costs (labor, food supply, rent) increase. I don't see why this will change under basic income. People aren't going to want to start spending $20 at McDonald's just b/c they can afford to do so and if Carl's Jr can undercut McDonald's at $15 w/o taking a loss, they will.
I can see housing costs increasing. Everyone wants to live in the same areas, so the supply of good housing is constrained. This is reflected in housing increasing in proportion of a person's income over the last couple of decades while food and clothes have fallen. But I also believe alternatives will start appearing to meet the demand for basic income level housing. It won't be as nice, but at least people can have a roof over their head. As an example, dormitory style living or elderly care facilities.
Lastly, what are the alternatives? If you agree that the problem is that automation is going to make a lot of ppl unemployed while concentrating wealth to the few, what other solutions exist besides wealth redistribution? If we have to redistribute wealth, how else would we do it?
I think with Dishero, the issue is product-market fit, and without it, none of the other stuff matters. My guess is the restaurants understand your product better and can more easily see how they can make money with it.
Whether you prefer the city or the suburbs is value-based. I value a low crime rate very highly. I don't know how you can claim to be objective and brush aside crime rate as an irrational fear when there are published crime rate statistics. And there is no objective way to say that my valuing a lower crime rate is less reasonable than all the other things you value.
If you take the founder at face value, he's basically saying that keeping the coworker maximizes the chances of raising money. So another way to look at it is, would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars today to maximize your chances of raising millions tomorrow?
And I definitely do think there are situations where that could be the case. The founder might have sold the investors on your coworker being a valuable part of the core team during a tumultuous period where the company let go of two engineers and had to rewrite the code.
While you may believe that getting rid of your coworker would maximize the chances of success, the reality might be completely opposite, regardless of how much weight the coworker is or is not pulling.