Historic begins with a hard h consonant sound. The h isn't silent. "A historic" is correct.
With that said, I don't personally have a problem with "an historic." I recognize it as a convention adopted by people whose dialect favors the silent h historic.
The difference in accent in relation to the written word between the old and new world is tied to the geographic and religious histories of the two cultures. North American english strives to mirror spoken and written language, whereas the older cultures in the UK see little problem with such differences.
My firm is working to improve the social determinants of health/health equity through better data and analytics. Broadband access risk is of central interest.
We’ve incorporated this specific FCC data into our Equity Data Geo Explorer, which gives a visual of broadband risk (among others) down to the neighborhood level. [1]
I welcome a conversation with anyone else who is working in this space. Email in bio.
I'll be very interested to see whether this interpretation comes to bear. The more likely explanation, I think, is that something unexpected is happening, and markets don't like uncertainty. A little reductionist? Maybe. But maybe not.
To offer a counterpoint to fit2rule's comment, I'm probably smack in the middle of your target demo (currently employed as a business analyst, technically competent but not a programmer, have entrepreneurial ambitions, etc...) and I think your price point and subscription model are abundantly fair. I've paid a lot more for a lot less over the years. Don't see myself shirking at $25/mo when it's (potentially) core to my business.
I haven't tried PencilCase yet, but it looks like a great product with solid implementation. Good luck to you guys.
Hey, I'm another one of the developers, thanks so much for the kind words! I agree, it sounds like PencilCase would be a perfect fit :) We definitely want anybody to be able to use PencilCase: Studio, even if you aren't a programmer.
Anyone interested in reading more on this topic should check out Adam Grant's Give and Take.
Incidentally, one of the interesting takeaways from the book is that if you look at plot of people mapped to career success, you'll find that benevolent givers dominate -both- ends of the distribution. The theory goes that those who are in the left tail got there by being too preoccupied with others' needs, to the exclusion of their own success. Conversely those in the right tail got to where they are both by helping others and by consistently asking others to help them. In the latter scenario these folks have harnessed benevolence as a strategy for career growth, and the collective goodwill "out there in the ether" nets out to measurable success over the long-run.
Excellent summary and thank-you for the book recommendation.
The first chapter is conveniently available as a free PDF from the book's site.
It seems like something for those people who are grinding away, doing good work at a great value for their investor/employer/client/customer, but remain underpaid and undervalued; a sort of self-defeating benevolence.
I realize what's right for one isn't necessarily right for all, but to my mind this is a recipe for trouble. Especially in light of multiple endorsements that read "Owing so much in student loans, I wouldn't be able to pursue my dreams if it weren't for this investment."
Move back home (if it's an option) and spend a year or two working 9-5 until you can finance your dreams with no strings attached. There are countless mentors who will help you find your way, and it won't require a stake in your future earnings to get where you want to go.
Maybe my industry (consulting) is different but yes, absolutely yes, this is a tactic with nice ROI. I can't think of a single good reason not to leverage your existing contacts.
References and testimonials, LinkedIn, Zerply, Github, et al? Maybe I'm too suspicious; if after an initial interview I got a stream of emails from an applicant's buddies/colleagues that I didn't ask for, I'd wonder why he felt he needed to coerce them to do so. I also think it's a bit dangerous to latch someone's technical skills to their social aptitude. Everyone has friends, not everyone thinks it is professional to sweet-talk a founder on your friend's behalf. I'd love to hear what others think, though.
I think it comes down to discretion. I would never recommend flooding an interviewer with internal email, but one helpful nudge from a respected colleague who vouches for you won't hurt.
I can think of a good reason: it's a negative sum game, because willingness to proxy-spam a potential employer has no positive correlation with the ability to do the job; if people start doing this, everyone will be worse off. So if you're an employer and you don't want to end up on the receiving end of this kind of spam every time you hire and under pressure to send it every time one of your friends is looking for a job, you should reject anyone who tries this tactic.
With that said, I don't personally have a problem with "an historic." I recognize it as a convention adopted by people whose dialect favors the silent h historic.