Take a year out of studying, work on business. If it goes well, great, if not, go back to studies.
Ask yourself, why are you studying? what's it for? A good job?. Why do you want a good job/career? for money? Well here you have an opportunity to skip the qualification step and get straight to the end goal.
I say go for it. You'll learn more about yourself and your worth in one year of business then you ever will studying.
Without a process you're using correlation implies causation. Which can lead to a lot of wrong turns. Especially when that correlation is based on anecdotal non repeatable massively multi variate data like you said.
Could be true, could be a dead end, don't put as much weight as you did on it.
One of the biggest issues with identifying cause (and many other topics around autism) is that we apply the term "autism" to a wide range of individuals. You have some who are incredibly high-functioning that qualify primarily due to their lack of social ability.
On the other end, you have some who are entirely non-verbal and often non-communicative in any form, entirely unable to care for themselves, and often have accompanying medical issues (gastro, immunity, etc.).
We call both autism, yet they are entirely different other than a few shared characteristics. Is it likely that both groups have the same cause?
A lot of the talk lately has been linking older fathers to a rise in autism. The theory being that higher chance of mutations with sperm as you get older (and as you have been introduced to more radiation, carcinogens, etc).
The underlying causes of autism are still not well understood, and are likely multifactorial and complex. Autism is fundamentally a disruption of the brain's neurological processes. This can occur within the neurons themselves, at the neural synapses (connections between neurons), or at a more structural/neural organizational level. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the diversity of autism is very great and this is certainly recapitulated at even the most basic neurobiological levels. Despite the high prevalence of autism, the complexity and diversity of the disorder has made it hard to study autism in labs, in epidemiological settings, and in treatment settings.
Nonetheless, it's possible to break out the causes of autism into two main groups:
1. Genetics. Based on large twin studies and family studies, it is believe that the underlying between 50 and 80% of autism cases are due to a genetic mutation, set of genetic mutations or otherwise influenced by genetics. The advance of sequencing technology in the past five years has made possible to sequence the genes in the human genome across thousands individuals with autism and their families. This has given rise to the idea that "de novo" mutations, new mutations which arise in the child, are a primary cause of autism. Every newborn has a set of new mutations, which are mostly benign or inconsequential. However, a small fraction of new mutations are detrimental to the production of key molecules or proteins needed by neurons to function properly. Researchers have identified that perhaps 20-30% of cases of autism have a new mutation which could plausibly underly autism. However, these mutations are incredible diverse-- the same de novo mutation is seen more than once only very rarely, and the top 5-10 most commonly mutated genes account for only ~1% of autism. The long tail makes it necessary to sequence tens of thousands of individuals to pick up signal. A second set.
2. Environment. It's thought (but poorly understood) that certain environmental factors, especially during pregnancy, could also underly autism. Alcohol, for example, can cause Fetal Alcohol Syndrome which can present with autism-like features. Unfortunately, this half of the equation is not my subject expertise so I'll leave it at that.
As a note about searching for information: While google can be unreliable, Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) can be quite helpful.
Interesting, wonder if Google's algorithm is even prepared to rank "there is no good answer" as a good result. I mean it's optimized to provide good answers, if there is no good answer perhaps the algorithm just breaks apart completely.
I mean, there has to be pages that say: there are no good answers (but we also can't say it's vaccines).
Also, I wonder why I'm being downvoted. Google meddling with search results is nothing new, sometimes they're even legally/politically forced to do so. Assuming we get unfiltered results is very naive.
Not to detract from your observation, but just as an aside, I wanted to mention that less than an hour after your comment, googling for "cow thiophenol romanesque establishment" (with or without quotes) lists this very page as the first result. Google must be indexing certain sites (like HN) very frequently.
I have a question that maybe you can help me with.
Why do people care that other people's children aren't vaccinated? If your children are vaccinated they're protected, period. Who cares about other people's children, especially if they have all sorts of unfounded ideas about vaccination? Why not live and let live? Why do people want to force other people to vaccinate their children? I never understood that but I'm sure I'm missing something hugely obvious.
I would vaccinate my children but I don't understand why I should also join some movement that is trying to force other people to do something they don't want.
Because it's not, "your children are vaccinated they're protected, period." The vaccines are not 100% effective, and an extremely small portion of the population shouldn't be vaccinated. For the sake of the people who aren't immune, it's best if the vast majority of people around them are immune.
> For the sake of the people who aren't immune, it's best if the vast majority of people around them are immune.
And what is the plan to go about that?
Just force-vaccinate these folks' children, something they vehemently oppose, thus traumatizing both parents and children in the process? What is the proposed plan to go about this in a way that is acceptable to both sides? Or is it the case that these anti-vaxxers shouldn't be respected and should have no rights just because they believe a fantasy? Because if that's going to be the new standard we'll have to have a giant conversation about gods.
Why isn't archive.org distributed P2P at this point? Instant, massive, redundancy.
Let me download some software and allocate how much of my drive space i'd like to help them with. The software would then intelligently use that space as their distributed backup system. Then they can focus on collection and collation with one less thing to worry about.
Let's guess that the average person can contribute some 300GB of their disk space. If IA wants to keep a minimum of 5 copies on the network (probably a safe number given how many people will be constantly dropping out), they need (20x1024x1024x5)/300 = 349,525 people contributing their disk space. That doesn't seem even close to attainable.
If you burn out it's gonna take you YEARS to recover, not months. Do your 40-50 hours and stop. The app and startup will be there for a few years but you will need your body, health, and mind for the rest of your life.
Avoid burnout at all costs. Nothing is worse for a software engineer. It will destroy your career and cost you a fortune over your lifetime.
The new EU rules are only for digital products right? So how about selling a "magic bean" that comes with a free download of whatever you're selling? Or sell a "planting of a seed" service that has a user area that contains special bonuses, like a download of whatever.
Maybe. Some countries have all sorts of anti avoidance rules when it comes to tax.
As a small company, do you really want to go to court because you're selling beans instead of downloads? I assume this will be spotted relatively quickly when authorities do an audit. Also, the larger players, they would never use this.
The rules apply to digital products AND services (e.g. memberships, cloud storage ...). You'd need to physically ship something to avoid the rules, but then, other burdens (import/export/customs/taxes) come in place.
you also have to pay VAT on physical products when you import them. When I receive a package from the US, I have to pay VAT and customs fees on delivery (unless the sender declares it as a "present", but that's illegal)
One workaround is to change your business model and accept donations instead. That obviously won't work for everyone, obviously.
This works because tips and gratuities are not considered taxable consideration for VAT purposes and therefore outside the scope of VAT. It has to be a genuine tip though - i.e. voluntary, no minimum or recommended amount and not a condition of purchase.
There is a platform out there that lets you sell things under this model but I can't remember it's name.
I've seen reports of people arguing along those lines to circumvent the new rules for now, e.g., selling software on CD that is posted to the purchaser with a free accompanying download. Some are trying a similar strategy without any physical element involved, but instead relying on the presence of some manual step, such as attaching a PDF to an e-mail sent by a real person rather than being a fully automated download.
I haven't seen anyone challenge the validity of the physical product workarounds so far, but note that similar rules are due to apply to physical sales as well as digital ones from next year, so this is probably a temporary reprieve at best.
For now, I'm trusting the comments from the various trade and campaign groups on that point. They've been in meetings I haven't with organisations like HMRC, and they all seem to be telling a similar story, though also with a similar lack of detail so far.
I completely agree that some official guidance we can all see and act on is well overdue on this point. There are several issues connected to the new EU VAT rules that are being widely reported but I'm having trouble finding official citations; probably the most important one I've come across is the legality or otherwise of declining to sell to customers in the EU but outside your home nation in an attempt to avoid the whole mess.
Have a lot of content and "pull" users to the site to experience it.
Part of that is having Yelp-style merchant pages with reviews on them, part is having a lot more editorial and blogger content and part is building in search so you can find, say, "things to do in San Francisco" or whatever more easily.