Finding Time to Invest in Yourself • Hacker News Board

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#31

Post by dang » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

alexpetralia wrote: post #28

dang wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, you guys. HN comments need to be better than this—much better. Please read and follow the guidelines: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " " Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidel…

On the other hand, I feel Hitchens' razor is useful here: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." In other words, the "low quality" of comments may actually reflect a patent and blithe dismissal of a perceived "low quality" post. I think you must acknowledge, given the community's reaction, that this is potentially a low quality post. In that case, such a reaction seems appropr…

Ok, but the substantive way to dismiss something low-quality is to ignore it, and maybe also flag it. It's not to add something even more low-quality.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#32

Post by SandersAK » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #19

SandersAK wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn’t a shallow dismissal. I’m literally quoting a part of the piece that is absurdly bad. Would it be edifying for you and others if I explained why I think suggesting that a smart startup employee should not be doing the CEO’s laundry?

It's not edifying to cherry-pick the most sensational detail in an article in order to hammer it. What you wrote is shallow because you haven't engaged with the core idea of the post at all. That's exactly what that guideline is supposed to discourage. You seized on "CEO's laundry" because it sounds absurd; no doubt the fact that it sounds absurd is exactly why he included it. If you reduce his argument to that, you'…

It's hard to edify and spend that time when you routinely flag and kill my comments.

You claim that HN is "better than this" but Naval's post is totally devoid of insight. It is hackneyed and the commentary responding to it is a reflection of that. If you want better commentary on the front page, then do a better job of making the front page articles worth talking about.

As to me claiming to know how Naval got rich - that's easy - he's a person who cashed in on a golden era of startups when it was easy to sell off bad properties for big money. Instead of realizing that he was extremely lucky to be at the right place and right time, with the privilege of having enough personal wealth to take those risks, he instead spends the rest of his career trying to justify his wealth and position. That's why all his advice and "insight" are the sort of trite self-help aphorisms that anyone can say and make it sound true.

You always ask others to be better on HN, but maybe take a step back and ask yourself if maybe the state of HN is a reflection not of the community but of the guidelines and leadership that drives it today.

as for me? I gotta get back to my day job ;)

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#33

Post by dang » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:33 PM UTC

SandersAK wrote: post #32

dang wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not edifying to cherry-pick the most sensational detail in an article in order to hammer it. What you wrote is shallow because you haven't engaged with the core idea of the post at all. That's exactly what that guideline is supposed to discourage. You seized on "CEO's laundry" because it sounds absurd; no doubt the fact that it sounds absurd is exactly why he included it. If you reduce his argument to that, you'…

It's hard to edify and spend that time when you routinely flag and kill my comments. You claim that HN is "better than this" but Naval's post is totally devoid of insight. It is hackneyed and the commentary responding to it is a reflection of that. If you want better commentary on the front page, then do a better job of making the front page articles worth talking about. As to me claiming to know how Naval got rich -…

The last comment of yours that was flagged and killed was six months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20348091. It was done by users, and rightly so.

I have no opinion about Naval one way or the other, but your argument there is flawed. There were tons of people trying to do the same thing at the time. Plenty had privilege and money. Why didn't they all succeed too? To just say "luck" is a non-answer; that's assuming your conclusion. A real argument would need to show how it wasn't anything else.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#34

Post by brenden2 » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

alexpetralia wrote: post #28

dang wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, you guys. HN comments need to be better than this—much better. Please read and follow the guidelines: " Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " " Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidel…

On the other hand, I feel Hitchens' razor is useful here: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." In other words, the "low quality" of comments may actually reflect a patent and blithe dismissal of a perceived "low quality" post. I think you must acknowledge, given the community's reaction, that this is potentially a low quality post. In that case, such a reaction seems appropr…

Thanks for this.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#35

Post by brenden2 » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:36 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #16

ditonal wrote: post #3

Founders want employees to have the founder mentality without giving them founder equity. AngelList (which this author is shilling) salaries and equity grants are pathetically low. So they write fluff pieces about how you’ll learn so much doing a founders laundry. I learned a lot more, faster, as an employee at big tech than at early stage startups. Startup VCs and company need to get out of the business of writing f…

I've been wondering about this for a long time. On average, what equity level would you say counts as "pathetically low" and what range would you say counts as fair? It seems to me that early employees are underpriced these days, the way that founders used to be, so a correction is probably inevitable. At the same time, there's no way seed-stage startups can match FB levels of compensation—the math just doesn't work.…

FWIW my Airbnb stock was worth about $1mm/year when I joined (in 2013 as a IC SWE). To be fair, the starting salary was well below market, but I got a raise to bring it up to the market rate about 1 year in. I've since never seen a startup that generous, only FAANGs come close.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#36

Post by SandersAK » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

"Now, persuasion is a generic skill—it’s probably not enough to build a career on. You need to combine it in a skill stack, as Scott Adams writes."

Naval quotes Scott Adams, dilbert creator who has on the record said things like this:

"But in general, society is organized as a virtual prison for men's natural desires. I don't have a solution in mind. It's a zero sum game. If men get everything they want, women lose, and vice versa. And there's no real middle ground because that would look like tweeting a picture of your junk with your underpants still on. Some things just don't have a compromise solution."

"Naval: Tony Soprano was a businessman who had to enforce his own contracts. That’s a very complicated business."

Just for others' edification, I'd like to point out that Tony Soprano is not a real person.

source: https://jezebel.com/dilbert-creator-scott-adams-weighs-in-on...

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#37

Post by sethammons » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #21

throw_14JAS wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally see At least, that's what it would take for me to join a startup as first engineer versus starting my own business.

When you say 'first engineer' do you mean literally the first employee, or early (say 1 thru 5)? If the former, what do you think would be appropriate levels for, say, employees 2 thru 5? If the latter, are you arguing that the first 5 employees should be offered 50% of the company? Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the point and don't have a strong opinion. I'm curious where HN users—who include many prospective e…

I land on the idea that the percent is not as important as the raw value if the company hits the targets. 1%? 5%? Of what? If the company plans to get to a $1B valuation, that is different than a company that wants to exit at ~$10M. And since we all know that equity is usually worthless anyway, I think the real way that smaller companies should compete for talent is with other perks. More time off, less days per week, more control over the product's direction, better perks, etc. Oh, and better liquidation preferences that favor employees at the same level as investors because employees _are_ investors if they are taking a pay cut.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#38

Post by auston » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:42 PM UTC

I think the takeaway here is that no matter your circumstance, you should find a way to gain "specific knowledge". It boils down to:

- If you can afford to apprentice / intern under someone success or on a trajectory to success, do it. - If you can't, then work your paying job, whatever that is, but feel around for opportunities that no one else is looking to own yourself.

Not bad advice, but IMO, not exactly "finding the time to invest in yourself". I actually think finding the time to invest in yourself is getting better at time management:

1. Instead of reading tweets, opening instagram, swiping on tinder, etc - go start an essay, article, etc.

2. That time you'd normally zone out and listen to music on the bus/train - read or watch something that you learn from in a big way.

3. Instead of staying in and watching netflix, hulu, etc get out to a meetup of people that are interested in the same thing you are.

But these - I think - are all obvious things to people that are reading this. ️

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#39

Post by dang » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

brenden2 wrote: post #35

dang wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been wondering about this for a long time. On average, what equity level would you say counts as "pathetically low" and what range would you say counts as fair? It seems to me that early employees are underpriced these days, the way that founders used to be, so a correction is probably inevitable. At the same time, there's no way seed-stage startups can match FB levels of compensation—the math just doesn't work.…

FWIW my Airbnb stock was worth about $1mm/year when I joined (in 2013 as a IC SWE). To be fair, the starting salary was well below market, but I got a raise to bring it up to the market rate about 1 year in. I've since never seen a startup that generous, only FAANGs come close.

That's super interesting, but Airbnb in 2013 was long past the seed stage, and when we talk about early engineers that's what we mean, no? Those are the startups that have the chicken/egg problem with hiring.

Not that it's a minor point if Airbnb was that far ahead in employee compensation.

Re: Finding Time to Invest in Yourself

#40

Post by dang » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:49 PM UTC

sethammons wrote: post #37

dang wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say 'first engineer' do you mean literally the first employee, or early (say 1 thru 5)? If the former, what do you think would be appropriate levels for, say, employees 2 thru 5? If the latter, are you arguing that the first 5 employees should be offered 50% of the company? Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the point and don't have a strong opinion. I'm curious where HN users—who include many prospective e…

I land on the idea that the percent is not as important as the raw value if the company hits the targets. 1%? 5%? Of what? If the company plans to get to a $1B valuation, that is different than a company that wants to exit at ~$10M. And since we all know that equity is usually worthless anyway, I think the real way that smaller companies should compete for talent is with other perks. More time off, less days per week…

Of those, it seems to me that more time off and less days per week are mostly out-of-scope for seed-stage startups—it's just too hard for them to survive even when people are working full time and focusing hard. More control over the product's direction (relative to BigCos and large teams) seems already to be part of the startup deal, no? As for better perks, I don't know what you have in mind, but the ones that come to my mind are just fiddling with the margins, and I know a lot of cynical HN users who would argue that's why companies offer "perks" in the first place.

This bit, however:

better liquidation preferences that favor employees at the same level as investors because employees _are_ investors if they are taking a pay cut

seems serious and fair to me, and perhaps something that startups could actually do to stand out. I don't know how doable that is vs. what barriers there might be to it, but I'll ask.