Recent orders
The goal
Fundraising
Name:
Institution:
The goal
Starting a business is one of the most fulfilling yet challenging things that a person can do. A business allows a person to be self-employed, meaning they are more in control of their lives than they would be when employed. However, many people get into business with the idea that they will devote a few hours to their business and have the rest of their time free. This should not be the case at all. Businesses are perhaps even more demanding than being employed. During the early stages, especially, business owners will find that they have to devote a lot of time and effort into launching operations (Aronson 2019). Some businesses may not be quite as profitable during the first few weeks or months, but this is mainly due to the costs of setting up a business. With all these in mind, a team of two colleagues and I have come up with the idea of starting a cleaning business.
Finances lie at the core of any business. We plan to start a small cleaning company with three employees, then get more as the business grows. Before settling on the cleaning business, we explored a variety of other businesses but settled on this one because it is quite cheap to set up. We estimated our starting costs at $5000 for the first year. This is the amount that we need to raise to cover the first three months of operation before our company begins to make a profit. This is, therefore, the goal of our first fundraising that will cover basic things such as permits, purchasing equipment, insurance, and labor costs. Over the next four years, we project significant growth in our business; therefore we shall need a lot more money. For example, in the second year of business, we estimate costs of $20000, but the revenues from the business will cover these and leave us with some profit.
The mission
The mission of our organization is to make homes and commercial spaces as hygienic as possible for their occupant. In the case of homes, most working people have very little time in their schedules to thoroughly clean their homes as frequently as they would like. This is why our cleaning company comes in to make the lives of such people easier. Everyone dreams of a clean and organized home, but some may not have the time to make this dream a reality on their own.
To begin, we will register a limited liability company to reduce liability on the owners of the company. Another reason why we chose an LLC is that there are several partners in the business, and that puts a sole proprietorship out of the question. The first cost is the registration of the company and getting the necessary permits (Hofreiter & Huemer 2005). The average cost of licenses and permits is roughly $400. Insurance is also an essential part of any business, considering there might be damages to property during the cleaning exercise. Monthly insurance costs amount to$400, given the small number of employees as well. Cleaning products are the core of the cleaning company, and these include mops, dusting supplies, brooms, cleaning solutions, gloves, cleaning uniforms, disinfectants, paper towels, among others, these will be purchased from a local janitorial store at an estimated monthly cost of $1000. Estimating average weekly hours at fifteen for each employee, labor costs amount to $1500 per month using hourly wages of $12.Advertising is another crucial area, and we will devote $400 monthly towards advertising using posters, flyers, and online ads. Estimated monthly revenues for the first three months are $5000, leaving the company with a profit of $1300. With an increase in the number of working hours, profit margins will increase as revenues grow more as costs rise marginally.
The Tactics
The main ways that we will use to raise funds for our business are personal savings, as well as donations from family and friends. My two partners and I have been saving up for the cleaning business for six months, and each of us has managed to come up with $500. This leaves us with a $3500 deficit to finance our business plan. Saving money to start a business is vital for various reasons. The first reason is that the business owners take their business seriously, knowing that they devoted their own money to start the venture. It also shows potential investors that we believe in our own idea, and we are willing to put our own money into it.
Participatory fundraisings will be our primary means of getting our friends and family to contribute towards our business idea (Ley & Weaven 2011). To do this, we plan to hold a cook-off at one of my partner’s homes. Everyone loves food, and most people believe that they are the best cooks ever. A chili cook-off is sure to attract a sizeable crowd, and we will have an entry fee for each of the contestants. One of our friends who owns a restaurant offered a reward of a dinner for two for the winner of the contest. This prize will be a motivator, although everyone knows that the main purpose of the whole exercise is to raise money for our business. Other attendants can also drop off their donations during the cook-off. We also spoke to our parents and other people we consider to be major donors to our efforts, and they agreed to make up for what remains after the chili cook-off. An advantage of the cook-off is that it does not require much resources.
The Timeline
We plan to launch our business in the fall, on the first of September 2020. This gives us ample time to plan and get everything in order. The cook-out will happen on the fifteenth of June; therefore, we will need to inform people about it a month before that. Because most of the attendees will be friends and family, spreading the word will be quite easy. We will send out texts to each person we want to invite, tell them about the exercise and ask them to bring other people who might be interested in supporting us as well.
The venue for the cook-off will be one of our business partner’s homes, and he already spoke to his family, who gave the okay. We will need some chairs and tents for the event, and these will be hired from a local company. We already set up a tentative date with the company, and we will make the final confirmation two weeks to the events on the first of June. For entertainment, one of our friends, who is a DJ, agreed to render his services for free as part of his donation towards our business idea. The music will keep the crowd entertained during the cook-off. Entrants to the cooking competition will register with one of the partners by the end of May. With the goals, mission, tactics, and timelines covered, the fundraising is well-organized, and we can keep up to speed with all developments.
ReferencesAronson, R. L. (2019). Self employment: A labor market perspective. Cornell University Press.
Hofreiter, B., & Huemer, C. (2005, October). Registering a business collaboration model in multiple business environments. In OTM Confederated International Conferences” On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” (pp. 408-420). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Ley, A., & Weaven, S. (2011). Exploring agency dynamics of crowdfunding in start-up capital financing. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 17(1), 85.
Property Testing Review
Property Testing Review
Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Introduction
In recent years, property-based testing has grown in popularity in the functional world. It gained popularity in Haskell due to the usage of the QuickCheck framework, which gives a fresh approach to software testing. It encompasses the whole scope of example-based testing, from unit tests to integration tests and everything in between. Properties are used while undertaking property-based testing. Before passing the test, it ensures that a function, program, or whatever system is being tested meets a set of requirements. In the vast majority of cases, properties do not need to reveal a lot of information about the output. All that is left is for them to look for differentiating features in the output. Using property-based tests, you may make assertions about your code’s output that are reliant on the input, and these statements can be validated over a wide range of inputs. A kind of generative testing is property-based testing. In contrast to unit tests, you do not supply explicit sample inputs with projected outputs. Another technique would be to offer code characteristics and then use a generative testing engine (such as QuickCheck) to generate randomized inputs to validate that the supplied characteristics are valid. Furthermore, property-based testing allows for a more in-depth understanding of the function being tested. In general, property testers are algorithms that discriminate between inputs that fulfill and those that do not satisfy a specific characteristic.
Motivation
The goal of this section is to show the rationale for doing this research project. Testing a graph property is a relaxation of the process of determining whether or not a graph has the characteristic. Furthermore, a precise judgment technique is required in order to accept or reject any graph that has the attribute. In order to be valid, a testing method must accept every graph that has the attribute while rejecting only those graphs that do not possess it. We anticipate that the algorithm will only observe a smaller fraction of the network and that it will run quicker than any other accurate judgment approach available. We want to spend time in a manner that is sub-linear or even independent of the size of the graph. There are algorithms for “fixing” the graph (e.g., connectedness) (that is, modifying it so that it will have the property). If the graph is accepted, we may be sure that the number of required edge modifications is not too huge, and that the total cost is not too high. If the graph is too large to scan, make a choice without seeing the whole graph. Exact answers may be NP-hard, therefore approximations are inevitable (even if scanning the network is doable).
Related Work
Property testing is the study of ultra-fast (randomized) procedures for approximation decision making in the context of approximation decision making. When given direct access to objects in a large data collection, these algorithms must determine whether or not the data set has a preset (global) attribute or if the item in question is remote from it. Contrary to expectations, this approximate assessment is based on a small percentage of the data set, which is surprising. It is possible to apply some commonly occurring mathematical aspects to specific desired functionality if you correlate software functions with mathematical functions. Certain properties, on the other hand, are less obvious in applications that are not mathematical in nature. Property testing is a subset of decision problems that focuses on algorithms that are capable of reading just parts of the input to determine the properties of the input. This results in an input that is represented as a function to which the tester has oracle access. As a result of this, the tester must accept functions that possess a specified property (i.e., those that belong to a predefined set) and reject any function that is “distant” from the set of functions that possess the property. Defining distances between functions as the proportion of the domain on which they disagree, and providing the tester with a proximity parameter that determines the threshold for assessing how far apart they are from each other is the goal.
Results
Aspects of property testing are focused with approximations, with the issue of distinguishing between things that contain a specific feature and those that are “far” from possessing that trait. In many cases, objects and functions are represented as functions, and the distance between them may be measured in terms of the fraction of the domain on which they differ. Here, the aim is to investigate (randomized) algorithms that are capable of querying the function with any parameters they choose, and we are looking for methods with very low complexity (i.e., considerably less than the domain size of the function). Ideally, the different strategies for evaluating graph attributes and how they differ from one another will be tested in this report. The methodologies that are employed are determined by the representation. The adjacency-matrix representation is based on random sampling, which is a critical component.
When the method is run, it picks a little subgraph of the graph G at random, discovers the edges connecting the vertices, and determines whether the property is true (or “nearly holds”). After that, the algorithm approves. If this is not the case, it rejects. It is typically self-evident that any graph that has the attribute is acceptable (always, or with high probability). The evidence is based on demonstrating that a graph without the property is more likely to be rejected than one that does. When attempting to establish a claim, this general analytical approach is widely used. Each section of the sample is separated into two halves. For simplicity, let’s pretend that the first sample constrains all of the remaining graph vertices. If the graph does not possess this quality, many vertices (or pairs of vertices) will fail to comply with the restrictions imposed on them. The unmet constraints are shown in the second half of the sample. The incidence-list representation necessitates the development of a new set of techniques. Due to the limited number of edges in graphs, a tiny random sample of vertices will often include no internal edges, resulting in an empty graph. In this case, algorithms use tactics other than pure random sampling to get their results. Some algorithms do exhaustive local search, whereas others do not (such as a breadth-first search until a certain number of vertices is found). A random walk technique makes use of vertices that are picked at random.
Approach
The problem is that the vast majority of test engineers write example-based tests that only look at one input situation. Property testing is an excellent addition to your test suite since it repeats a single line hundreds of times with different inputs. Property testing frameworks employ virtually every conceivable input that may harm your code, such as empty lists, negative values, and excessively extended lists or strings. If your code passes a property test, you may be confident that it is ready for production. Property-based tests ensure that specific aspects of a property are always true. They let you to create and test several inputs in a single test, rather than having to write separate tests for each value you want to test. A shopping website, for example, may have an items attribute with a value that must always be more than zero but less than 10. A single property-based test for the items property may be constructed to test for a negative value, numerous values within the range, and a few values more than 10. Another, more complex example is medical software with a heart rate characteristic. If the heart rate is outside the usual range, a warning message should be presented, according to business needs. Because unit tests only investigate a section of the code, many tests would be required to validate each value that is contained inside, outside of, valid, or invalid. Property-based tests, on the other hand, allow for the testing of all necessary inputs that should result in a certain result in a single test, resulting in more efficient test preparation and execution, as well as faster test execution.
Contribution
The issue of property testing and the problems addressed herein are quite complex. As expected, tis was a team effort. Members of the team were all involved in meeting the goals of the entire project. The first group member dealt with providing discussion materials for familiarity with the concepts. The second and third members focused on collecting only relevant materials and distribution of roles. Other group members were each assigned reference materials to underline key words and highlight what the report would use. We then focused on making the report together beginning from the introduction to the description of roles and the actual report writing. The entire time we were working together to ensure that no group member was left behind. We tried to be cohesive and to solve all emerging issues with speed and understanding.
therefore. Our acts sometimes go so far as to persuade us that we do what we do all the time. Often this is a face-saving technique
which is often embraced by most people. Face-saving conduct leads to people going to lengths just to make sure things stay stable