I think the in-person element is crucial to the future of education. While there are many people who live in rural areas or internationally who benefit immensely from online platforms like Coursera, there are also a ton of people who live close enough to a city that it's worth it to pay more for the opportunity to learn in a physical environment. That's why GA is great - it takes the best of both, and can provide online education that is greatly bolstered by an in-person experience. Excited for them.
Now I'm not taking either class, but going to be very hard for GA to compete with things like this (and not to mention the outrageous quality codeschool.com pumps out). Let alone the rent they must pay for their awesome spaces.
Spanish, Chemistry, EE, Woodworking, Gross Anatomy and other classes with a serious lab component need an offline element for sure. But they are teaching things that most people usually pick up better from blogs, coursera, etc. (IMHO).
Wow, the Data Science course in NYC is taught by MBAs?? That's bullshit. I'm attending (on my company's dime, since they actively encourage any and all training) the DS course in DC. I had met both the instructors in the past and seen their work. They are real deal industry stat/ML experts with full time jobs in the field. Had they been MBAs, I would NEVER have signed up.
Regarding the online stuff like Johns Hopkins, I'm a self-learner. I love doing the online courses, but there is something that is fun, engaging, and advantageous to meeting classmates in person. Unlike University of Phoenix, this is a class where people are actively building shit. You can clearly and objectively see who is and is not competent among your classmates. This makes identifying people you would want to work with a lot easier. This won't happen in an online class.
But let me add: 4000 is a lot. I probably couldn't have swung it without my company picking up the tab.
I think the key to this is what University of Phoenix directly illustrates in their commercials. They claim to have a huge alumni network which will help you get a job. So basically if they are able to get enough people to go through their program early on, they can turn around and leverage that to recruit new students. All of the previous graduates have to take the degree seriously when looking to hire. Otherwise they would be admitting that their own degree is a joke, which they are unlikely to do.
I don't know them personally, but there are many thousands of them: the people who pay to pay to take University of Phoenix classes, and who forked over about $1B dollars in each of the last two quarters.
I agree that live interaction is important to the quality and results of education, but as far as making money from it, I believe many will choose the option that requires the least possible effort on their behalf.
Look at fad diets, get rich quick schemes, "one strange trick to perfect x," all those hilarious exercise machine informercials... people love the idea that they can get something for next to nothing, in terms of both effort and cost.
I imagine there's room for both (and for the middle ground, which apparently this is), but for many reasons, I don't see the online-only model going away (or even stalling).
If there is a double bed, single bed, and a couch, that accommodates 4 people.
Remember, Airbnb is a marketplace so it is your responsibility as the guest to clarify the exact sleeping arrangements. If you want a higher level of service, go to a hotel. You'll pay a lot more, but if you require great service then it's probably a better option.
One isn't likely to clarify that with the host prior to arrival given that it's on the listing. AirBNB needs to take responsibility for this kind of thing given that you pay about 15% as AirBNB fees and 3% is also paid by the host. Refunding just the fees isn't what you pay the fees for. It is to take care of situations such as this.
No, that indicates that you're not renting just a couch in someone's apartment (a la couchsurfing). In the vacation rental world, that max accommodation figure almost always includes the couches (especially if it's a pullout couch).
Did you visit the link provided? There is clearly a "Room type" classification, which would be used to indicate that you're renting a room in a house, a whole house, a bed in a room, or a couch in a room, for example. And there is also a "Bed type" classification to specify the type of bed you will be sleeping in.
"Bed Type" doesn't mean it's uniformly that type, it's sort of the max of the class, so it's not terribly useful. It would be nice if it was broken down by number of beds (it is on some sites), but that's more of a nice to have than the norm.
That's beside the point - the point being that you asserted that the "Real Bed" qualifier was referring to not getting a couch in an apartment, like couch surfing. Judging from your post history, you will argue on any point possible, and won't cede a thing. Consider this my last reply.
That field is mostly useful for distinguishing between whether you're getting a couch or a bed in the case that you're just renting part of the apartment. It's not very useful in the event that you're renting a whole apartment. It means there's at least one real bed, it doesn't mean that everyone in the "Accommodates" number will get a real bed.
It's not perfect, it would be better if it were more explicit, but this is a pretty common on these sorts of listings.
As an early HN user I secured the username "amanda" before promptly ditching it after 2 weeks. While I don't hide that I am female in my bio, I have also found that the style of interactions changed significantly when I changed my username. Figuring out how to leave the kid-gloves off in real life has been a bigger challenge.
Weird, I wonder what percent of HN users are actually looking at a user name when posting a reply, I personally don't even read a username of a person who I reply to, never mind looking for any male/female meanings in it.
But because you posted this sort of comment I actually read your username for the first time :)
It is relevant to the subject of the post. (If nobody looks at usernames, then the issue cited in the post doesn't matter.)
Personally, I at least look at who I am responding to (especially when I disagree with them; sometimes the person you're responding to has readily-apparent expertise that you'd feel foolish disagreeing with.)
True. I also tend to look at usernames when a commenter annoys me, just to see if it's a troll who is camping out on a thread waiting to say the same things again. But... By then I've made up my mind what I'm going to say, and whether the troll's name is Jack or Jane isn't going to change that.
It would put some useful bounds on the behavior. If only 1% of people look at usernames when posting replies, she could conclude it's a very small subset of people generating this nonsense. If everyone does, we don't learn much at all.
Yeah. If I could get people to see me differently in real life without actually having to change anything about myself to do it, that'd be the real Jedi mind trick. ;-) As to the original topic, I worry everything I say is going to be taken the wrong way on HN: gender or otherwise -- HN's mods have touchy trigger fingers. :)
We have been using Zenefits for a couple months now and I have to say I am incredibly impressed. They are lightning-fast on customer support and their onboarding for new employees is super simple. They have saved me many hours and at least part of one tree.
1. Yahoo would rather spend cash than stock (possibly because they anticipate Yahoo stock going up in the future). If Yahoo thinks that $1 in stock today will be worth $2 in 3 years, it might make more sense to spend cash. This is a huge gamble, of course.
2. Cash is intrinsically more valuable than stock; in other words $1 cash != $1 stock. Yahoo may feel more comfortable spending $1 Billion cash than spending $2 Billion stock.
3. The obvious, but maybe too obvious, answer: Tumblr doesn't see a future in Yahoo stock.
This doesn't make sense. Which CEO doesn't believe that their stock won't go up in 3 years? If they don't believe it, they should be fired.
Cash is much more valuable than stock. Any CEO worth their salt would ALWAYS issue stock and never cash, since stock is essentially free (with some GAAP repercussions, but better that then spend cash). But it sounds like tumblr wanted cash instead of cash/stock.
It doesn't matter to the employees, they get paid out from the purchase, and then will all get YHOO retention stock options when they join.
Great deal for tumblr, terrible deal for YHOO, it's a waste of cash and as someone else pointed out last week, it's reminicient of Geocities from the dotcom days. Every employee from tumblr will start exiting, maybe after 2-3 years, and the entire thing will fall apart.
"This doesn't make sense. Which CEO doesn't believe that their stock won't go up in 3 years? If they don't believe it, they should be fired."
This is clearly untrue. Which moron CEO at the head of a newspaper anticipates anything more than a very modest increase in their stock over the next few years? Most newspapers are very much aware of their problems. Do you think a CEOs job is to bury their head in the sand and ignore all of the company's problems? Because that's the only way your statement could even come close to being true.
And 2.. as far as Yahoo.. keiferski is right.. it depends on how rapidly yahoo anticipates to grow. Obviously a stock growing at 50% is worth more than one growing at 10%.. and maybe Mayer is incredibly bullish on Yahoo, and believes Yahoo stock is worth more than what the market thinks it is.
A CEO's job is to increase shareholder value. End of story.
This means increasing the stock price. So yes, I do believe that this statement is absolutely true. The CEO needs to figure out a way to increase shareholder value, whether they are Yahoo, or Washington Post, or New York Times, or Groupon. They are not supposed to sit around and maintain dividends. Whether it's breaking into new businesses, selling their current underperforming businesses, etc, that is why they are CEO, to think of new ways to make money and increase stock price. Not to sit on their laurels and collect their paycheck.
3 years is MORE than enough time for any CEO to execute a strategy that increases shareholder value. If they can't, then they should be fired.
So you're saying there were no CEOs at the end of 2008 that thought that even with all of the work they were doing to improve their company, that the recession would have net negative effect on their business. Do you really believe that?
And as this applies to Yahoo... we have no idea how bullish Mayer is on Yahoo.. maybe she thinks the company is going to grow very rapidly over the next few years, and doesnt want to give up a single share. If she is MORE bullish on Yahoo than the market, then Mayer would have considered Tumblr's demand for X number of shares unreasonable.
Cash is not always more valuable than stock. Complicated topic but I'll make one example related to this. As an investor would you rather have cash and pay taxes today on all of your gains or would you rather have stock in a reorganization where you could continue to hold and decide when and how to trigger the income?
The investors here chose cash and since I'm not part of the process I don't know why for certain, lots and lots of complicated factors at play.
this claim is indefensible. It depends on the valuation of the company. For example, at IPO MSFT had 25M shares outstanding @ $21, total market cap of $525M. Obviously 5M shares of MSFT stock (market value of $100M) in 1986 was worth far more than $100M of cash.
On the flip side, $100M in cash would have been worth more than $100M in Groupon stock (at the IPO valuation).
More valuable than stock ex ante, obviously not always ex post.
Since the price of a publicly traded stock reflects expectations about future valuations, but also has some additional risk, the cash is usually going to be valued more. "indefensible" is too strong, "not true in every single possible case" might be more accurate. Even then, your examples aren't that helpful; an example of a publicly traded company whose shares were widely thought to be underpriced would be better.
Cash is much more valuable than stock. Any CEO worth their salt would ALWAYS issue stock and never cash
Here's the entire quote. Steven2012's claim is that cash is always more valuable than stock. He's dead wrong. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe Buffett on how Dexter Shoes was one of his worst deals ever.
What I had assessed as durable competitive advantage vanished within a few years," Buffett wrote on Friday. "By using Berkshire stock, I compounded this error hugely. That move made the cost to Berkshire shareholders not $400 million, but rather $3.5 billion. In essence, I gave away 1.6 percent of a wonderful business -- one now valued at $220 billion -- to buy a worthless business."
here's a more general discussion from Buffett on cash versus stock
Instead, our problem has been that we own a truly marvelous collection of businesses, which means that trading away a portion of them for something new almost never makes sense. When we issue shares in a merger, we reduce your ownership in all of our businesses -- partly-owned companies such as Coca-Cola, Gillette and American Express, and all of our terrific operating companies as well. An example from sports will illustrate the difficulty we face: For a baseball team, acquiring a player who can be expected to bat .350 is almost always a wonderful event -- except when the team must trade a .380 hitter to make the deal.
Because our roster is filled with .380 hitters, we have tried to pay cash for acquisitions, and here our record has been far better.
"This doesn't make sense. Which CEO doesn't believe that their stock won't go up in 3 years? If they don't believe it, they should be fired."
Yes, they should be fired, but that's not how business works. In reality executives are self-dealing all of the time and corporations survive due to the constant small wins and losses between large groups of self-dealing people.
The CEO, as an insider, has the best knowledge of a company's financial position and estimates of the coming year. Additionally, executives can manipulate earnings and costs by a degree to achieve the outcome they want.
Issuing stock signals to investors that insiders expect the price to go down just as buybacks signal that it will go up. Issuing stock will send the stock lower whether or not the actual numbers show losses in the future.
Maybe they wanted to put some excess cash to work.
Cash is important when you don't have it. But once you have it, it's a dead asset that produces no meaningful return. Excess cash is important as an option on future opportunity. Apparently, Yahoo found their opportunity.
Or, maybe they didn't want to revise EPS estimates down.
An extra $1B worth of $YHOO out in the marketplace would dilutes EPS by about 3% until the revenue starts flowing.
From the acquiree side:
Opportunity vs sure thing + choice of opportunities.
$1.1B in $YAHOO today will be worth something else tomorrow. Maybe more. Maybe less. Maybe $0. Cash is guaranteed to go down in value at the rate of inflation. But not more. And they get to decide on some other opportunity(ies) to go after.
I am a backer of this project, and after reading this post I am still very happy to be involved.
There is so much involved in this project that simply isn't financial.
Going through the process of putting up the Kickstarter project creates accountability and motivation for Mackenzie to actually build and finish the game because she now has a group of people cheering her on from the sidelines.
To me this is exactly what Kickstarter is about: supporting creative endeavors. The financial aspect of it is secondary...don't you think Kirsten Bell could just bankroll the $2m Veronica Mars movie herself? Probably. But with Kickstarter you get the benefit of a built-in support group, and I am just as happy to support Mackenzie whether she's from a rich or poor family.
This mom previously tried to raise $20k to make...capes. How much of this $20k+ do you think the 9 yr. old is getting? She's also spamming celebs and women's groups on twitter - http://i.imgur.com/b4l2fI2.png.
...don't you think Kirsten Bell could just bankroll the $2m Veronica Mars movie herself?
Why on earth would anyone think that? It isn't hard to find out what work she's done : on that page, I see a bunch of guest appearances on TV, roles in a few movies I've never heard of, and a starring role on one TV series, to which she was signed when absolutely unknown. (Unknown actors signed to new programs are typically locked in for years of low pay, because they're "lucky to be working at all".) Also she is listed as producer of one minor movie and one planned movie.
I certainly hope Ms. Bell has good financial habits, but I don't see how she could have saved $.2M from this body of work, let alone $2M, especially while living in Hollywood.
"Going through the process of putting up the Kickstarter project creates accountability and motivation for Mackenzie to actually build and finish the game because she now has a group of people cheering her on from the sidelines."
Guess you missed the part that originally, there was absolutely no mention of a game or result in the rewards - that was only added after the tornado touched down.
I live in NYC and have been following the city's technology initiatives closely. The silver lining here is that the city has come to terms with the fact that they are le suck at making awesomely designed consumer apps, and releasing the data to the public will be beneficial for all. My favorite part of this post is the "Commitment to Open Data".
Someone out there will make something amazing with this data, it's practically inevitable.
the downside comes when you need to raise money from VCs. if the larger VC -- which made a proxy investment via the angel scout -- does not invest in you again, it becomes a red flag for other investors. this grants the larger VC more leverage during negotiations because you effectively need the VC to participate, or else risk scaring away other VCs. this assumes the other VCs know the angel scout is a proxy for the larger VC.