Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

iism.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 365 posts

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#281

Post by asdfman123 »

aeoleonn wrote: post #267
asdfman123 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not an expert, but my feeling is you'd need just three things to get back into Big Tech: 1) At least a year or two of experience at another programming job, 2) MONTHS of time studying whiteboarding, and maybe 3) A few good referrals. I know, because I'm 34 and I have 9 years of enterprise experience. I'm trying to get into Big Tech right now (I've interviewed with Google and Amazon and I'm about to do Facebook).…

>rich people can afford to study for months for free. Poor people can't. No offense but I laugh at this thought. Because most people don't realize what they are actually capable of-- they'd rather make excuses. Excuses are easier to make than to sit down, intensely study, and build projects, in a public library, while living in a tent. And, I think a lot of people in the "special snowflake" mentality are afraid to re…

Obviously, none of this is black and white. It's definitely possible for the less well-off to devote resources to passing meritocracy tests. It's just harder.

It's not either or: 1) people should take more accountability for their own lives, but at the same time, 2) it should be easier to raise yourself up if you're less fortunate.

If you're willing to overcome the obstacles you can accomplish nearly anything. I'm just in favor of fewer obstacles.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#282

Post by fchu »

bawolff wrote: post #4

Wow, talk about assuming correlation implies causation. I think the obvious lesson here is when society becomes reoriented around a new field (in this case software), people with experience in that field are going to do well.

Totally agree. One redeeming truth is that software is similar to finance in that it gives an outsized advantage to a business vs one that doesn't get it. Unlike finance though, "softwarizing" a company is a much more drastic transformation than having a finance team and most business can't level up. It so happens that we're still at the early ages of that process and thus the "tech company" distinction still exists. In the future all big companies will be "tech companies" in that sense. (Marc was right)

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#283

Post by alistairSH »

What a ridiculous question.

The article itself explains it: software is swallowing the world. 7 of the top 10 companies by market cap are software companies (or closely related).

Do bankers tend to lead banking companies? A cursory glance at the top-5 banks in the US indicates that to be the case. They were largely founded by, and are currently run by, bankers.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#284

Post by aeoleonn »

asdfman123 wrote: post #281
aeoleonn wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>rich people can afford to study for months for free. Poor people can't. No offense but I laugh at this thought. Because most people don't realize what they are actually capable of-- they'd rather make excuses. Excuses are easier to make than to sit down, intensely study, and build projects, in a public library, while living in a tent. And, I think a lot of people in the "special snowflake" mentality are afraid to re…

Obviously, none of this is black and white. It's definitely possible for the less well-off to devote resources to passing meritocracy tests. It's just harder. It's not either or: 1) people should take more accountability for their own lives, but at the same time, 2) it should be easier to raise yourself up if you're less fortunate. If you're willing to overcome the obstacles you can accomplish nearly anything. I'm ju…

I agree with ya.

But this statement:

>" it should be easier "

applies to literally everything in existence :P

challenges are good-- they result in growth.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#285

Post by mlcrypto »

walto2 wrote: post #260
jbroson wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously? I mean if true that says a lot more about the SWE interviews than it does about Stanford PhDs. I mean there are Yale JDs that fail the bar exam but no one would claim that the average Yale JD couldn't get hired as a Big Law associate or judicial clerk.

In a very literal sense, that's exactly what's broken about the interview process in the software industry. The philosophy is to avoid false positives at all costs, so a high rate of false negatives is seen as OK. The prevailing advice is, just try your luck again in six months.

That's the good thing about Bitcoin. I don't have to prove anything to anyone anymore. It doesn't matter where you work if you convert your fiat to the superior store of value

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#286

Post by gamblor956 »

jbroson wrote: post #258
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming a lot. Many stanford phd's fail the google interview. I'd guess larry, sergey and zuckerberg had a pretty good chance of failing their own swe interviews...

What? You honestly think the Stanford PhDs who created Google couldn't get hired as basic SWEs? Seriously? I mean if true that says a lot more about the SWE interviews than it does about Stanford PhDs. I mean there are Yale JDs that fail the bar exam but no one would claim that the average Yale JD couldn't get hired as a Big Law associate or judicial clerk.

Google famously refused to hire Max Howell, the programmer who wrote Homebrew, which (based on Google's own statements) was used by 90% of Google's engineers at the time of his interview, because he couldn't invert a binary tree in the specific (but unstated) manner that the interviewer wanted. So it's definitely possible, indeed likely, that Serge and Larry wouldn't get hired at the Google of today.

The "average Yale JD" would not get hired as a judicial clerk. Competition for clerkships is fierce, and generally only the top students get them. Any judge would probably take a "top" Yale JD, but unless the judge is a Yale graduate they'll all pass on the "average Yale JD," in favor of a better-performing graduate from another law school (usually their own).

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#287

Post by pvarangot »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #176
isamuel wrote: post #109

All of the people on this list are "software engineers" in the sense that they have some rudimentary education in the field. Almost none of them could get a job as a software engineer at their own company, if they had to, because they would be completely unqualified. And I'm not looking down my nose at anyone: I have an undergraduate degree in CS, but I got it 16 years ago and then went to law school, and there is no…

> I have an undergraduate degree in CS, but I got it 16 years ago and then went to law school, and there is not a serious place on earth that would let me touch their codebase Interestingly, you might be wrong. There's a continuing push to get people in the industry who can code for startups wanting to disrupt the space. You'd probably be the lawyer who can code and any lawyer-adjacent tech company would love you. Wh…

> There's a continuing push to get people in the industry who can code for startups wanting to disrupt the space.

In my experience disrupting spaces it's easier to find software engineers that are open minded when working with other professionals. Not like, super easy, most of the SWEs I've worked with can't do it, even on embedded when working with EEs... but open minded SWEs are out there, albeit usually more expensive or with good pay and job security by working on a less-softwarey company than "Big Tech".

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#288

Post by missedthecue »

draklor40 wrote: post #93

The classic selection bias. If the list of "top" companies is mostly software companies (which is FAANG++ at the moment), then how is it uncommon for a software engg. to lead the company ?

My thought as well. The last two CEOs of ExxonMobil were engineers, the last CEO of Boeing was an engineer, and the CEO of General Motors is an engineer. Of course, all in mechanical or electrical engineering rather than software.

Not sure why it's so insightful that people who understand the business also run the business.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#289

Post by r0s »

They touch on it, but I think one crucial benefit is the ability to see the scope of software work in general, which in turn drives and defines modern business.

Unrealistic scope expectations are a huge problem for business people without the technical background to intuit pitfalls.

Re: Why are so many successful founding CEOs software engineers?

#290

Post by UnpossibleJim »

Alex3917 wrote: post #189
onion2k wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost none of them could get a job as a software engineer at their own company, if they had to, because they would be completely unqualified. There are 10 CEO level people mentioned. Woz could certainly get a job at Apple. He's clearly brilliant and capable. Larry & Sergey could definitely get jobs at Google. They were PhD CS students at Stanford (how on Earth is that "unqualified" to you?). Zuckerberg could get a j…

> Zuckerberg could get a job at Facebook. He obviously wrote a lot of Facebook's early code. That doesn't mean he could do leetcode problems.

Not to be "that guy", but he'd have to get past the HR filter first and if I remember correctly, Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard. Without a college degree, it's very difficult to get past the HR filter in and of itself to even get to the interview to solve those problems.
Post reply on HN