Immigrants to any country are a unique slice of the population because they chose to migrate for a better life. Hence immigrants in most countries tend to do well economically (sometimes after a generation). Uncertain that cultural differences are the reason for different economic outcomes you observe.
Wow, thanks for taking the time to share all this data with such clear points. Much appreciated, especially the personal anecdote to make all this be less academic.
"a pricing model based on seats, a product roadmap built around features rather than outcomes [is outdated]"
I disagree with this.
On pricing, I get that agents and tokens can scale in a way that's unrelated to # of users. But for much SaaS software, AI remains helpful to a human and the human remains the receiver of value. Seat-based pricing is easy to understand and you can always layer in token/agent costs thresholds.
On features vs. outcomes, the latter is hard to define and measure in many industries. In marketing SaaS, which I know well, you can't often tell what outcome to expect. You have to try a lot of ideas and some will hit. No way a SaaS vendor can guarantee that.
Ha! Same for me: 286 in 9th grade (1990) for about $2k CAD. 286 was a bad call though as I think it was harder to expand compared with 386. I remember 1MB RAM but really only 640k usable. Had to change some BIOS settings to get to about ~700 kB?
This. I feel this all the time. I love 3Blue1Brown's videos and when I watch them I feel like I really get a concept. But I don't retain it as well as I do things I learned in school.
It's possible my brain is not as elastic now in my 40s. Or maybe there's no substitute for doing something yourself (practice problems) and that's the missing part.
Yeah, much of LinkedIn is performative nonsense. However, with such a large B2B audience there, it offers a sizable opportunity for people who actually publish useful information and are honest rather than posing.
We have an "influencer" recommendation engine that is decent at finding such thoughtful folks, but it varies by industry. But yeah, it's not easy and I wish there were more thoughtful posters on LinkedIn.
We built an editor for creating posts on LinkedIn where - to avoid the "all AI output is similar/boring" issue - it operates more like a muse than a writer. i.e. it asks questions, pushes you to have deeper insights, connects the dots with what others are writing about etc.
Users appear to be happy but it's early. And while we do scrub the writing of typical AI writing patterns there's no denying that it all probably sounds somewhat similar, even as we apply a unique style guide for each user.
I think this may be ok if the piece is actually insightful. Fingers crossed.
Mine was a referral from the VP of sales (the coach was his dad and many of the reps in our team had been coached by him). Fwiw, his name is Rick Roberge. I think he still coaches. He's can be a bit antagonistic but he's very good at what he does and I'm glad I hired him.
My coach has a max timeline of 6 months so you are forced to swim on your own. I felt like I had the hang of it after about 4 months so stopped about then.
(sorry for delayed reply; I don't think HN notifies you of replies?)
Yes I think possible.
1. sales aptitude assessment tools like Objective Management Group (the one I took) help you identify core weaknesses that are critical to understand and work on.
2. Recording your sales calls (assuming you're on the phone) and then asking AI to critique it and coach you, with the above assessment as context, could be very helpful.
If you're disciplined I think the above approach may be a pretty good stand-in for a real coach. Or at least help you evaluate a coach better should you choose to pony up for one later.
As a co-founder (tech background but haven't coded in a while), I got comfortable with sales best when I hired a sales coach. There are so many things to learn in sales and a coach is often the fastest way to assess your inherent weaknesses and address them head on.
I paid $2k/mth about 10 yrs ago; at the time I felt scared to spend so much but once I realized it was an investment in me, and I put in the time to learn, I can safely say it continues to pay off even now. I quite enjoy sales now. Not saying I'm good at it but certainly a far way from "I hate sales and would much rather code".
I'm torn on this. No doubt money is important but how much is needed? I've been thinking about this for a while [1] and I think more important to drive innovation is to change our culture to admire people who dedicate themselves to solving big problems over a long period of time. And a close second would be a culture that prizes modesty and eschews material wealth.
I realize this may be a pipe-dream but it feels like a better long-term strategy than "pay researchers more than FAANG".