COMPLETELY unrelated, but I do wonder - is this the most upmodded submission here on HN? I know reddit has the /top/ modifier you can add to links (e.g. http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/top/), but I was unable to find anything similar here.
Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
291–300 of 313 posts
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#292> What _is_ true is that for a VC's business model to work, it's necessary for _you_ to give up _your_ life in order for _him_ to become richer. Isn't this more or less the case for any profits-go-to-owners business model? Or rather, any business model where employees are viewed as calculated costs and not owners worthy of a commiserate portion of the profit? I've often wondered how a different ownership model would…
This might be applicable. A software co-operative: http://www.plausible.coop/blog/?p=25 The biggest problem with the model is financing. You need capital to build something big, and the easiest way to raise a lot of capital is to sell partial ownership of your company.
We http://www.atomised.coop are a worker's co-operative too and a startup. There are ways to raise finance in the UK certainly because co-ops can have almost any legal structure. e.g we are a limited company with the ability to issue Class B shares (the class A ones are the worker/owner equity). You also get multi-stakeholder co-ops where equity can be divided between investors, workers, customers even. It's called the 'somerset rules' or more commonly multi-stakeholder co-operatives. See http://somerset.coop/somersetrules A firsthand example I know is a train company startup. They divided equity between investors 25%, workers 50% and consumers 25%. I've always thought co-ops could really marry well with open-source & startups but startups know nothing about coops and coops know little about startups.
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#293"Those who work hard make good" is a profoundly American theme that dates back to Horatio Alger and before - it can hardly be said to originate from a cabal of VCs trying to "put one over" on hapless founders and startup employees in Silicon Valley. No doubt Mr. Arrington adds his peculiarly abrasive touch to the debate (toughen up, don't whine, and let's applaud Zynga for what it did to its employees), but he did so…
Very well said. I wanted to comment along those lines but couldn't quite put it into words. As much as I dislike Arrington for being the dick that he is, I don't thing he's trying to "sell a con" or even to tell people to work hard. If anything, he's asking the whiners -- who's sole motivation is (supposedly) money -- to either stop whining or get out of the valley. His point is this: doing a startup is brutal; to survive you have to want building something more than anything, or you will not be able to stand the pain. It's a fair point.
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#294I'm glad he finished with a note for the people who actually get something out of hard work on their personal project because I doubt I'm alone in getting a lot of personal satisfaction in performing like that. It's not all the time that I pull an all-nighter or a couple of weeks of hard slog, but I often feel better for them. And I'd rather be doing that for myself on a side project or in the start-up lottery or wit…
"And I'd rather be doing that for myself on a side project or in the start-up lottery or within my own business than for someone else. If that isn't possible, then even for someone up the chain. If someone else (VC, client of mine, landlord, etc) also profits from this endeavour, so be it." Other people profiting off your work is fine. But if you did the bulk of the work, why shouldn't you get the bulk of the reward?…
Because I might not be able to do it without them?
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
...stupid. I really don't think name calling is necessary. I mostly try to read HN without reading names, but some people, like grellas, earn a reputation by repeatedly making insightful comments. Plus, I don't think any of us here deserve to have our opinions called "stupid." You've been here a bit longer than I have, so I know I don't have to remind you, but in case others are reading, let's try to be slightly more…
1 - you'll note I didn't call grellas stupid, so watch your accusations 2 - some opinions are stupid 3 - This has nothing to do w/ standards or whose side I'm on, except that running around looking after 4 - grellas believes everyone should be free to express his or her core beliefs "without being accused of nefarious motives". Sorry, bs. Some people are looking out for number one, are in a position to exploit others…
After quitting work and tussling with the dog, I'd like to emphasize that I don't think grellas is stupid, but I do think that opinion is. : shrug : Hopefully he won't take take it as an insult.
Also, some people -- and I don't know Arrington -- have a deep conviction in nothing more than whatever gets them ahead. Being sincerely self serving shouldn't get you a pass.
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't some highschool debate wankery. The arrington/jwz/arrington exchange is exactly as jwz characterized it: Arrington plus vcs in general selling a story to engineers that is pretty damn unlikely (a lottery, in fact) in order to enrich primarily themselves. jwz doesn't stand to benefit from people following his advice, while Arrington certainly does. Further, the fact that you don't include Arrington giving a…
...stupid. I really don't think name calling is necessary. I mostly try to read HN without reading names, but some people, like grellas, earn a reputation by repeatedly making insightful comments. Plus, I don't think any of us here deserve to have our opinions called "stupid." You've been here a bit longer than I have, so I know I don't have to remind you, but in case others are reading, let's try to be slightly more…
I welcome calling stupid attitudes just that — stupid.
Your comment reminds me this saying by Asimov:
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding
its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured
by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance
is just as good as your knowledge.Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I wasn't sure of how to approach the mental aspect - I didn't mean to say construction or other physical labor required little mental ability, because I've done enough of it to know that's just not the case. I think coding is different for two reasons - and please do excuse me, because while I've _done_ physical work, I don't do it for a living, so I'm coming at this slanted: First, with physical work, you're d…
You didn't offend me, and I could tell you weren't meaning to demean physical labour. > I'm not sure if there's a corresponding mental equivalent to muscle memory. Have you ever driven to walmart, or work, or your girlfriends (someones) house when you was slightly distracted when driving. You don't drive dangerously, you're not swerving of being stupid like if you was drunk or distracted, you're just not thinking and…
I've had a couple of experiences where I've almost driven on the wrong side of the road in the UK after driving in Europe or the US for a while.
Note that I've never even got close to driving on the wrong side when abroad - only after I return home.
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't some highschool debate wankery. The arrington/jwz/arrington exchange is exactly as jwz characterized it: Arrington plus vcs in general selling a story to engineers that is pretty damn unlikely (a lottery, in fact) in order to enrich primarily themselves. jwz doesn't stand to benefit from people following his advice, while Arrington certainly does. Further, the fact that you don't include Arrington giving a…
...stupid. I really don't think name calling is necessary. I mostly try to read HN without reading names, but some people, like grellas, earn a reputation by repeatedly making insightful comments. Plus, I don't think any of us here deserve to have our opinions called "stupid." You've been here a bit longer than I have, so I know I don't have to remind you, but in case others are reading, let's try to be slightly more…
>I really don't think name calling is necessary.
And I don't think a whole paragraph of riding your high horse is necessary for what could have been a quick "lets keep it above board" tacked onto the end of a post.
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already mentioned in one of the threads below. Our work as software professionals today is more dependent on productivity not intelligence. We are quickly assimilating in to normal crowd. We may even be judged by the same metrics they are.
For all those people who are not getting it. Today success of most software shops is about business innovation not technology innovation. Yes there are instances of Google and other big web giants innovating greatly in the technology area. But they amount to less than 1% of the software crowd. We are all writing software to solve business problems. We are not writing software for Software innovation. Unless you are d…
> All you need is a little semantic awareness. And there are solutions to nearly every problem you are likely to run into a software shop. There are libraries, API's and frameworks that have understood and defined your problems as a generic case and solved them. There are forums to help you out on edge cases.
Wow, I'm glad I do more interesting work than that drek.
Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con
#300Working consistent long hours does not mean you're getting more done. I believe RescueTime has data showing the average person at work 8-hours a day is only working 2-4 hours. The people I know who are consistently first in and last out are not getting more done - in fact they're usually doing it to make up for something. One theory on productivity says procrastinators and workaholics have the same core issue - but respond to it in opposite ways.
This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when George Castanza leaves his car at work so his boss thinks he's always there.
We need to stop measuring productivity by hours worked. Instead, productivity should be about finishing what you set out to do. If that only takes 4 hours, GO HOME. Plan the next day. Get some rest. Your output will be higher, and you'll be healthier and happier.