= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (131)
Heads up about the business side of this: selling to primary & secondary schools, esp outside of the US, is 8/10 difficult.
Specifically, even if the teachers are fully championing your solution, they do not wield any sort of purchasing authority (and sure as hell won't pay from their own wallet). Purchasing authority's incentive-structure does not align with "teacher happiness", "optimal schedule", or most things one would imagine being the mission of the school. It is, however, critical for them to control all sw used inside the school, and might actively discourage using non-approved vendors.
Pure economically driven decisions should win eventually.
For example we have once reduced the number of school buses from 4 to 3. 20% or 160 students come with a bus. That's 3 full buses or 4 not so full buses. It's important however, that every arriving student has a class right away. Otherwise he may want to come with a later bus, overcrowding it.
Just on time arriving of those students with just 3 buses was a logistical nightmare. But just a constrain for the digital evolution of the school schedule.
Another big saving is to eliminate the afternoon school shift. We have 2 such cases already evolved.
Only in the realm of spherical cows in vacuum.
Also known as "The markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent".