Thanks, :)
the English language has serious limitations in how meaning can be molded to convey multiple-entendres, unlike some Asian/Oriental languages where one line can have at least 4 to 5 differing, contradictory-yet-supporting senses, which in the end causes an intellectual high that makes one stop--you cannot digest more than one line a day--and even so it makes you think about it all day long. :)
Thank you. There is a well-known sociological theory that things that matter cannot be gotten directly because you think they matter; rather because you want them, aside from their importance, then you can get them. Say you want to date a hot girl. You cannot say: "I want to be your boyfriend, because you are hot."
You acquire something important because you like it, you want it for intrinsic reasons.
You will go far in any field if you like it and want to excel in it. The ugliest man with the right amount of passion and intrinsic liking, and enough preparation can melt a beautiful girl's heart.
Taken to a logical extreme, someone very good at nothing, is notable, because he is "very good" first. In other words, the most boring person can also be interesting because of being "most boring".
The future of CS work increasingly looks like truly passionate programmers building things (like at YC). Companies have a shortage because of this, in the main, since the pay and conditions for real programmers is not good enough, and a real programmer can earn (by building stuff) even without doing a 9to5.
The problem can be addressed by removing the "employee mindset" from potential programmers.
If you do it for the money, well, you will neither get very good, nor will you enjoy the money, assuming you become good enough to get any.
Companies that have rubbish HR practices eventually lose out to firms that appreciate that the Japanese hiring system: hire someone who has shown excellence in any field, and they are bound to repeat it.
Simply fishing for talent in existing companies is a failed and flawed strategy. Yes, you will end up with a senior developer doing 5 juniors' work, for less than half of their pay--until another firm offers him more money and he leaves, leaving you out in the open again.
By contrast, hiring a junior and teaching them the ropes on condition of their not leaving for n years is a better and an all around win strategy.
Another word: I have seen most CS program curriculums and with certain exceptions, most are not teaching what would make them marketable employees.
For instance, SICP should be a must in any CS program, but in some, it is not. How can they afford not to teach from the best CS text in the world?
You get a developer with a resume. And a degree. Big deal. How about one with a remarkable portfolio of projects demonstrating real understanding and passion?
I doubt if a company would bin the resumes of someone with interesting projects to their credit. Simply a degree with a few nominal github repos is not going to cut it.
Although, if Racket is for educational uses only, if you see their main website you will notice that it is actively preparing itself to become the next Python.
You are falling into the "build it and they will buy" trap. Supply-side marketing only when the product is disruptive, like an IPad, or smart phone.
Otherwise, you need very compelling reasons than just liking to create customers. This is because when people say they "like" something, they are mostly not sure exactly why. It could be an emergent effect from various causes.
If they use it but don't convert to buyers, the problem maybe that they don't think your product is valuable enough to warrant money expenditure. Either your marketing message is weak, or there are too many rivals offering similar value; or in a less likely case, your product doesn't solve the problem it was designed to solve.
It is hard to know what to do next given limited information in your question, but a general solution would be survey your customers for what would make them pay for it...and if not, why. You could also keep reaching audiences and hodl while improving and tinkering. Sometimes these things take time.
Especially on YouTube, there are quite a lot of people whose opinions are not calculated, fact-backed and experience-baked, who merely say things because they gotta say it.
I identify with that part, so I will explain my interpretation of it:
If you do things the way they all do, you go on the path well-traveled. But if you dare to do what your heart tells you to do, even though it is outside of the "standard" way of doing things, then you stop being a commoner and become special.
If you didnt dare to be special, you will never know what you will have missed. True courage is living your life the way you want it (without harming others in anyway, of course) and not by the socially constructed dictates that are ephemeral anyway.
A good question! Although I wonder why the timeline is set at 12 months....
This is what I learned:
1- amateurs try to hard sell and persuade with much energy. That is how you know they are amateurs. They make up for competence by inflating their confidence.
2- true experts are those who can explain things patiently and completely (and sometimes enigmatically and paradoxically so that it makes sense on a lower level that we understand even though its seems like there is more to it than our understanding allows) and dont feel threatened by your learning them, too. All the rest "experts" are bozos.
3- I learned that the limit of my achievement is the limit of what I don't know that I don't know. Which in turn can be expanded by directionless search in random directions, kinda like how probabilistic methods solve deterministic equations in higher math.
4- I learned that the ancient saying "women lack reasoning" is false, because women have a different kind of reasoning machinery. And it works on a different wavelength than is normally assumed. It is not important to know exactly what wavelength a woman's reasoning systems operate (you won't ever find out) but you gain some advantage knowing that it is DIFFERENT and always CHANGING.
5- Body language is approximately 10 times more powerful than verbal communication. It includes tone of voice, the way your eyes look on to the world, silence, and even how you socialize. It is the ultimate tool to prevent people from getting fresh with you. Ignore the nasty ones, and it hurts them way more than engaging them.
6- I learned that small differences (and issues and squabbles) dont smoothen out with time. They become bigger and worse. Prevention is 100 times more effective than cure.
7- I learned that the most intelligent and wisest writer born in UK is Robert Burton, not the moronic Shakespeare.
8- I found out that all the smart cats (and some wannabes like me) hang out on news.ycombinator.
9- I learned that deadlines are necessary but they should be quantity-based, not temporal. "I have to finish reading two chapters today" sounds like an ideal deadline than, saying "I must finish this book in 2 months".
10- I learned the best way to learn something is by reading books, not watching lectures or videos. They put me to sleep, videos do.
11- I finally managed to create a site such that the buttons turn on like a light bulb. Www.jans.surge.sh
12- I realized that optimism wins even when failure is guaranteed. Better to lose a game you enjoyed than to win one you didn't.
I could go on. I will stop because I have more things to learn!