diana_coman: BingoBoingo: hm, might need some trumpets too for proper presentation! but lacking trumpets - can haz link at least?
diana_coman: whaack: lmao, tone it DOWN, man; expression if nothing else!
diana_coman: trinque: lolz, the contemplating rabbits' den.
diana_coman: whaack: if I end up asking you a question about the point of the previous question that was on why an even earlier question was needed, I'll just as soon go get my key and negrate, save some time; seriously now, do you want to *do* something or do you enjoy my conversation only?
whaack: diana_coman: Yes I want to do something. I enjoy your conversation very much but it will get dull absent work to talk about. (Should it not cease to exist altogethr)
jfw: diana_coman: I use them, yes. (Though I've made some changes to my clock program since the one posted there.)
dorion: diana_coman yea, I use both.
dorion: started to use it for personal finances in 2015ish because supports arbitrary symbols and precision and thus facilitated bitcoin accounting
jfw: whaack: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/trilema/2020-03-01#1958708 in case you missed it
ossabot: (trilema) 2020-03-01 mp_en_viaje: speaking of which, where in cr are you whaack ? i dun remember
dorion: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-02-28#1019730 - on the selling oneself short thread, seems like it'd be more accurate to say something like, "Hola! A transaction I signed in the wallet I wrote in the language I implemented installed on the Linux distro I implemented was inserted into the block chain to rule them all after I carefully transferred it over the optical data diode I
dorion: devised, love jfw."
ossabot: Logged on 2020-02-28 16:45:27 jfw: In other news, a gbw transaction escapes into the wild: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/7386679d841bdca0b7c412d09d936627e7310597542be8f7d75cb39811d799b1
diana_coman: dorion: eh, he doesn't need to sell himself to tmsr now, lolz.
jfw: dorion, this may underscore your point but first thing coming to mind was the objection, "well I wasn't actually ferrying data across an airgap just for that test, plus the diode wasn't really my design, and what does 'carefully' transfer mean, like without spilling any soup?"
diana_coman: jfw dorion re clock & ledger - did you genesis them both properly then? because esp the ledger thing, when I just had a look at it earlier today, it's a monster; perhaps you still have at least some less-of-a-monstrosity version?
diana_coman: let me cite for logs & the innocent from the the horse's mouth: "Over the last twelve months, Ledger has seen a substantial increase in activity. This may be a sign that interest in this project is rising, and that the open source community has embraced this project."
diana_coman: and further horses speaking: "has had 6,397 commits made by 171 contributors representing 46,976 lines of code"
jfw: diana_coman: I have not stolen Ledger to the extent of a genesis. I'm running a version 3.1.1 from 2016, perhaps it's less-bad
jfw: it's c++ and dependencies per my notes are boost, cmake, gmp, mpfr
diana_coman: jfw: well, tbh even if I went past the above, the practical test failed miserably because it not only wanted all sorts I did not have, but even after installing those (yeah, boost, cmake etc), it still failed and by that time I really had ran out of patience, time and all that.
diana_coman: (most probably "old versions" etc)
diana_coman: anyways, the *idea* of ledger looked fine and proper to me, hence the attempt; the reality ofc fucked the idea in the head with everything it got so yeah, practically my old, old <100lines of bash still work fine but anyways, since you use it and like it and so on, there's no point to not genesising them.
jfw: There's a long list of things I use but don't have genesis, but might as well chip away.
diana_coman: jfw: it will force by necessity a review of that list and in itself that's not a bad thing at all anyway.
diana_coman: funnily enough, I find that I really use fewer and fewer things and even so - I'd much rather use ..fewer; lolz.
jfw: I suppose one must know of many things to get by with fewer things.
diana_coman: jfw: can be, indeed.
diana_coman: whaack: look here, I already specifically and explicitly asked you to stop doing the bare minimum and properly use those questions for the tools they are; as a result, you did what manages to be even below the bare possible minimum given the questions; and ...
diana_coman: ... when I point it out to you with a helping question, you answer *that* only without fixing anything at all; and on and on this goes - you'll say the right thing because yes, you are not stupid at all; you'll then still not DO the actual thing anywhere beyond its surface because way too much work and it's enough if it *seems* like it, right?
dorion: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-03#1019866 - fair enough. I used it to push on the underlying.
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-03 15:20:05 diana_coman: dorion: eh, he doesn't need to sell himself to tmsr now, lolz.
diana_coman: whaack: so I'll stop commenting on those bare minimum and below wordy soups you can easily produce, as it's just a waste of time anyway; start actually doing the work properly and I might look at it again; preferably you start that some time before I get around to do a full review of this yh project too as by that time I'll certainly cut it short and be done with it.
dorion: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-03#1019867 - ok, I was imagining the final use rather than testing. I suppose I overcompensated.
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-03 15:20:31 jfw: dorion, this may underscore your point but first thing coming to mind was the objection, "well I wasn't actually ferrying data across an airgap just for that test, plus the diode wasn't really my design, and what does 'carefully' transfer mean, like without spilling any soup?"
diana_coman: dorion: yes; still, context matters too, even for amount and type of presentation, that was my point.
jfw: I should report that yesterday I did a bunch of wallet work, though not quite what I'd planned. I found my actual priority was scratching an old itch / paying an old debt. Last year I had stupidly got some coin locked up: my PRB node was running low on disk space, I took the chance to stand back up a TRB, but nuked the PRB chain before sweeping funds on the naive assumption that the wallet.dat
jfw: would transfer over.
jfw: I've now managed to dump the keys therein and sweep using a lightly modified gbw (the incompability is use of compressed rather than uncompressed pubkey encoding).
jfw: On the writing front, I pretty much didn't make the time to push myself, blissfully letting other things take priority. Now I'm finally making headway there again.
diana_coman: jfw: basically you need some itching powder for the writing process, lolz.
jfw: I could go look for some of the mosquitos they don't quite manage to eliminate around here...
diana_coman: dorion: when's your current eta for that feb tmsr-os report to be done and out of the way? because yes, medicine and all that, but the sooner out, the more time to get through the backlog anyway so the better for next month at least.
dorion: jfw , diana_coman continuing the thread in a different context, we've not yet decided what to do on group rates. this has come up with a prospect asking for a discount if he brings in friends/contacts.
diana_coman: jfw: or you can write on how you avoid writing :D
dorion: diana_coman today.
diana_coman: dorion: excellent eta.
diana_coman: dorion: what that prospect suggests falls under your referal rates though, doesn't it?
diana_coman: so presumably you already have those set or what am I not getting there?
diana_coman: re group rates as such - does it being a group otherwise make it any cheaper/easier for you? (ie is there any reducing of your expenses - time included - if "group") or what? because the way I understood it, you are doing one to one anyway so I don't know if "group" means at least less of your time spent on it or what exactly?
jfw: right, group means multiple people in same room on same schedule, so less time for us (though still some extra time most likely).
diana_coman: BingoBoingo: at readership growth, do add positives too; while fights might attract more people, you can't rule out positive reporting (as in reporting of what happened well and as it should be, even if they are within tmsr, what) *also* attracting people, what.
dorion: diana_coman it does fall under the referral offering, though he had in mind that the referrals would get the same rate he gets.
diana_coman: jfw: ahaha, so how's that less time though still some extra time? it's quite important to weigh that properly; (and from my tutoring experience, there's further a max limit you'd probably want on any group numbers because it matters)
diana_coman: dorion: so what's your setup for referral? (I don't recall it, if you wrote it already just give the link)
jfw: diana_coman: if t is time spent for one pupil, and n the number of pupils, total time spent on group is > t but < t*n, is all I mean
BingoBoingo: diana_coman: Thank you. Will get on it.
diana_coman: BingoBoingo: at venues - I really strongly suggest you start thinking and planning your own meetups as such really
dorion: diana_coman I didn't say it specifically in the business plan, 15% as of now, which is half of what goes to sales.
diana_coman: it doesn't have to start with a full blown whatever,but you need to build up your reporters basically, the way I see it.
jfw: dorion: perhaps I misunderstood though, is he asking about such a group or just referrals?
dorion: jfw he wants to do it.
diana_coman is still going through BingoBoingo's draft
BingoBoingo: diana_coman: Point taken
diana_coman: BingoBoingo: why is automation apparently only for the blogs part?
jfw: dorion: I don't quite follow. Wants to do which?
BingoBoingo: diana_coman: I haven't sketched out how to automate the other things in much detail yet.
dorion: jfw he wants to go through the program and reduce his costs by doing it in a group.
diana_coman: BingoBoingo: the rest seems to pass at this stage; there's still a lot of unclarity as to "what do" exactly and that's potentially troublesome.
diana_coman: dorion: so let me try and figure out what you have there exactly as it's still unclear to me so far; 1. your standard offer is explicitly one to one training 2. you have referral program that means precisely that the referred people pay the standard rate and the one who referred them gets 15% of that 3. you have a prospect who is asking for what discounts are available for group training
diana_coman: dorion: can you comment on 1,2,3 as to what's correct, what not?
BingoBoingo: diana_coman: Thank you. I'll get back on it, hit these points, and try to bring still more clarity.
dorion: diana_coman that's all correct.
diana_coman: BingoBoingo: listen, on some parts the clarity will come from/with practice; if you *are* going to do that rather than flail afterwards because "not clear", you can just add what I pointed above that is missing and consider it done for now; my point re lack of clarity in parts is to be addressed by a. looking at why, namely is this because not yet started on it or because not really thought it through b. make sure you will get ...
diana_coman: ... started on them *somehow*
diana_coman: dorion: ok, so your first thing to figure out with jfw is whether you want to offer group training as well and in what exact format/what does that mean for you; only from there you can decide on discount anyway.
BingoBoingo: diana_coman: Alright. Thank you for the elaboration.
diana_coman: jfw: would your training even work directly for a group? how big/
jfw: diana_coman: we did start off with a group of two (with substantial guinea-pig discount). It certainly gets less efficient & customized with more people. With a helper I could see doing three, maybe four; beyond that more formally structured lab activities would have to be designed I think.
diana_coman: jfw: from what I gathered your usual lesson is quite practical; the trouble with a group (beyond the obvious less closer supervision/direction of the learner) is the potential differences in speed & approaches; if you plan to target relatively large organisations, I'd say it's likely you'll get group-training requests anyway so it's possibly worth to plan it and have it part of your offer anyway but it is indeed not exactly just the ...
diana_coman: ... same thing.
diana_coman: jfw: I don't even know how much/what structure you have for the lessons, huh.
diana_coman: if you say with a helper for 3-4, that just means 2 lessons in the same room, heh
diana_coman: ie you still do it one on 2 max but yeah, both of you at the same time sort of thing , so that's not going to be any less effort or time for you
diana_coman: and I doubt that's what is had in mind for group either, hm.
jfw: There's some lecture style presentation of new material going from outlines, followed by interaction / practice which indeed doesn't scale as is.
dorion: I've been attending the pilot courses to take notes, provide support if/when I see fit. essentially to help forge the service. though I also tried leading 1 or 2 of the earlier sessions.
jfw: dorion: it strengthened your own knowledge too, don't you think?
diana_coman: jfw: to be fully clear re structure and all that - at one extreme you can certainly go full blown lesson plan and preparation; at the other extreme you can have a loose outline of topics you follow and then take them through it and/or adjust as they go; I doubt either extreme is what you need, so somewhere in between but for a group I'd say you do need to have a clear structure and you can't adjust as much - you should probably make ...
dorion: jfw for sure.
diana_coman: ... this clear too and as a downside ie sure, they'll get a discount but also less support
diana_coman remembers the full lesson plans + detailed objectives and whatnots and shudders (though still FULLY remembers the darned content so yeah, it works)
jfw: right, and it's in between at present
diana_coman: dorion: do you have any idea what the size of the group would be /this prospect is thinking of?
diana_coman: dorion: also, do you plan to/is it likely to target organisations large enough to have /want groups?
dorion: diana_coman my sense was this would be in the 3-4 range. and if he actually has more to refer, we can have multiple groups.
dorion: re the target, we've been primarily focused on individuals for now, but I don't see what it hurts to try the bigger organizations.
jfw: what potentially hurts is that more written content needs developed to partially substitute instructor attention
diana_coman: dorion: btw, re discounts, one annoying-but-it-works approach is to basically have baked in the price a % you can graciously "discount" - some people can't take it if it's not discounted; this can ofc backfire if you do it to people who don't have that sort of must-discount shitty approach but actually do a valuation but anyways.
diana_coman: hm, the 3-4 range sounds like the worst for you really - not big enough to move it to "classroom style" but too big to keep it the same and gain from it, ugh; jfw would what you currently have work for a group of 3 (just you though, no helper)? maybe with a few extra lessons at most?
diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-03#1019950 - this is why I asked if this is something you'll likely get a lot more of - basically if it's worth it and not ending up doing it just for this prospect.
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-03 16:33:30 jfw: what potentially hurts is that more written content needs developed to partially substitute instructor attention
diana_coman: jfw: re group of 3, dunno, put them in a circle so you can see all their screens and then work them through the same stuff with whatever inevitable delays might come from your 3-ways multitasking, pretty much.
jfw: I suppose it's possible.
jfw: Can get the faster ones to help the others to some extent too, but it can get chaotic
diana_coman: jfw, dorion since you are looking at this now anyway, might as well look at it fully so do the maths for groups of 3 as above; and at the very least with larger groups (dunno, 8-10?) but more classroom style.
diana_coman: jfw: eh, how do you manage to make chaos out of 3 adults? lolz
diana_coman: I mean: you are there the anti-chaos anyway and supposedly they won't start throwing paper balls behind your back, right?
jfw: There is that.
dorion pictures jfw breaking out ruler to strike ball throwers and restore order.
diana_coman: jfw: and you don't need to get the "help the others thing" anyway, it's possibly way easier for you to just have alternative/additional tasks for the faster ones; it's probably not that hard for you to even make them on the spot I'd think and it doesn't have to show as "not in the program" otherwise -it's just "more practice"
diana_coman: dorion: you know, that's the poorest approach,lolz
dorion: diana_coman we have a 0.2 discount for paying upfront instead of 1/2 upfront half halfway through.
dorion: diana_coman I know it is, but allowed the streotype to play in mind while also considering jfw's personality.
diana_coman: dorion: presumably your prospect knew of that already but is still looking for the group-thing on top?
dorion: diana_coman yes.
diana_coman: dorion: heh, you might be...surprised.
diana_coman: tbh it really sounds like one of those that must-get-a-special-discount but anyways; might as well calculate and figure out what group-options you can offer anyway.
jfw: diana_coman: I like the extra-practice-problems route, especially remembering my own time served in classroom
dorion: this prospect is not an ideal client, but see him more as a potential part of the team. he left private banking at a rather well reputed private bank here autumn last year. is trading and brokering insurance and real estate independently.
diana_coman: dorion: sure; and honestly, don't take it as any problem with it, there probably won't be "the ideal client" much anywhere; the point is just to have as few...surprises let's say as possible, pretty much.
diana_coman: jfw: so have some proper thinking and come up with what you think is needed /what it means giving group lessons + what are the sizes that would work and in what timeframe; review those with dorion so he can then run his calcs on them and come out with the business' pov and resulting offer for the prospect(s)
diana_coman: does that make sense?
jfw: this is for larger groups, smaller groups, both?
dorion: jfw I say start with smaller since that's what's on the table.
diana_coman: jfw: but you come with what means "small group" really; because they may want 4 people, but if that's not working for you, you can still say groups of 3 and we can make 2 groups or whatever
diana_coman: at low numbers it can make a big difference; and for this reason I'd say do get that out as soon as you can but then do the further thinking for higher numbers too because you'll probably get asked anyway
jfw: I'm uncertain (you know me and uncertainty, heh...) how I'd start on this thinking or calculation
diana_coman: jfw: basically the separation there is that you can think of the practical delivery of the lesson only and so do the plan on that; then dorion can take that as input and think of the sales part.
diana_coman: jfw: you start with your experience so far; as it is - how do you see it stretching to 3 people, to 4 people to what would be the max you think it would still work as it is (+ those extra exercise but not much more than that)?
jfw: ok, think I get it.
diana_coman: what padding of extra lessons would you think is needed (if any) to give you some room if it turns out slower than you thought (but do keep this at a minimum as you don't want to double the time or something, obviously)
diana_coman: then from there: above that max number, since you go to classroom style, what additional materials & structuring would you need; list those and other changes;
diana_coman: that's about it.
diana_coman: and what's the max for classroom style too, anyway.
diana_coman: jfw: with any group though, I suppose you'll want to have clear a. some matching upfront so you don't get too wildly different levels b. some way to enforce keeping-up on the way if you rely otherwise a lot on what they do on their own
diana_coman: ie so you don't end up with a huge gap on the way even if they started at similar levels.
jfw: quite so, and the placement test is supposed to be a start for a.
jfw: for b there's evaluation of homework (we were a bit slack so far), perhaps some of those "learning objectives" checkboxes during class
jfw: and thanks for the pointers on planning.
dorion: diana_coman I had been thinking the bigger organizations are more difficult to approach because they're more likely to be stuck in bureaucracy. recently it seems 'ai' is being pushed as a pill for that, amongst other things. whereas we could present our training as a cost savings investment to cure the blindness of the top performers that
dorion: think the company needs to be big in head count and/or invest in complex tech they don't understand to grow. I first read about intelligence amplification from asciilifeform. what do you think about positioning our service as 'ia' ?
ossabot: (trilema) 2020-01-24 mircea_popescu: the fundamental problems are that cli-iliteracy is a serious, life-changing disability. in terms of severity, blindness compares, deafness does not. obviously the afflicted are scarcely aware, but this doesn't mean they're not afflicted.
diana_coman: jfw: yw; dorion iirc IA has been around for a while and recently (like it usually goes it would seem) grabbed on as a not-yet-shittied-on term; so first of all, I think you might want to be fully aware of what IA goes for exactly those days (because you might mean one thing but those hearing you might take it for another thing entirely); second, in my (limited, admitedly) experience with bigger organisations the trouble may be that ...
diana_coman: ... they *are* bureaucracy basically so it's not as much about what you do or don't but about what fits their desired-shapes anyway (after all, all those excel-powered departments could be replaced but that's exactly not desired and from solid underlying cause); third, "positioning as x" as such doesn't say all that much to me really, ie the practical thing may mean anything really so dunno what to say on it at that level.
diana_coman: I suppose you can claim the term and aim to restore its original meaning if you think that is proper and fitting, why not.
diana_coman: but I'd say the logical consideration flows from there - is it proper and fitting or isn't it.
diana_coman will be back tomorrow.
dorion: makes sense, thanks diana_coman.
jfw: been thinking over here that the only true intelligence amplifier is knowledge - well structured and balanced and all that - with computers only making that all the more so. Then there's the theme around here that what people mostly need isn't more intelligence but less counterbalancing stupidity.
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-03 15:43:48 diana_coman: whaack: so I'll stop commenting on those bare minimum and below wordy soups you can easily produce, as it's just a waste of time anyway; start actually doing the work properly and I might look at it again; preferably you start that some time before I get around to do a full review of this yh project too as by that time I'll certainly cut it short and be done with it.
whaack: jfw: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2020-03-03#1019861 thank you. I had responded but I did not realize that I had lost +v, and thus the message did not get sent. Will resend shortly.
ossabot: Logged on 2020-03-03 12:22:27 jfw: whaack: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/trilema/2020-03-01#1958708 in case you missed it
jfw: whaack: in that circumstance I've gotten a response code 404 from the server, "Cannot send to nick/channel". Might poke around your client to see if that went somewhere you weren't aware of.