What's Actually Wrong with Yahoo's Purchase of Summly

Define "success." Being born into a rich family and going to an Ivy league school won't get you an instant $30m in the bank, but unless the apple really falls far from the tree, you won't have to try very hard to get into the top 5% in a country where even below-median people live pretty well. Not a bad ROI on simply choosing your parents well.

I know that the OP did take it off the table. I'm not doing so. It's important, and here's why.

I'm sure he's extremely talented. Most 17-year-olds aren't programming at all. However, this is an HR acquisition (they're shutting Summly down). What exactly does a 17-year-old have that merits a $30m hiring bonus?

I'm not ragging on him, at all. I think it's great for him. He had the opportunity and took it. That's awesome. But... what are Yahoo's executives thinking?

When DE Shaw hires Putnam Fellows, they start them at $150-200k. Not $30 million. They have to work their way up to that.

I'm not asking this out of resentment, because I don't care. Yahoo could have acquired him for $500m and I wouldn't care. I'm asking that out of honest curiosity. If you're that desperate for talent that you're hiring 17-year-olds (very good 17-year-olds, no doubt) with a $30m hiring bonus instead of a much more reasonable, I don't know, $500k, then what did you do so wrong as to get there?

See, I'm sure there are economic reasons for large companies to buy goofy startups for $7 million per engineer. But that's a sign that either (a) they're all seriously underpaying their people, and it's systemic across the Valley, or (b) their internal cultures are so stifling of creativity that they're desperate for innovation, and the only thing they can come up with is to massively overpay "credible" people from the outside instead of developing internal talent.

I suspect that it's both (a) and (b). In fact, I've been inside enough short-sighted, badly-run companies to know that it is.

It's of personal interest to me. Companies are literally in headline-making death throes because they can't get people like me, and when one of us shows up-- we aren't that rare, maybe 1 in ~100 software engineers-- they treat us like shit. It's bizarre.

Here's a proposal to all the large corporations out there. For a mere $2500 per hour I, Michael O. Church, will tell you how to unfuck your inefficient, talent-stifling culture. CEO of a megalith that can't hire good people without a 5-million-per-engineer acq-hire? (Actually, you probably have good people-- some much better than I am-- but the dopey middle managers keep you from seeing their talents. Fire them. That'll be $175.) I will help you change that. All you have to do is listen to me. After 200 hours (that's a mere $500k) you will no longer to acq-hire at $5-10m per engineer to get good teams. You'll be able to do it for $3m per engineer because people will actually want to work for you. Or, better yet, you'll be able to get good people the old-fashioned way.

Mark Zuckerberg is young and rich, but he actually built a free-standing company. So it's not as ridiculous that he's worth billions, given that the work (possibly not the code, but the ongoing business process) is still in use.

First: Je viens en paix. So, please, don't turn this into a mud-slinging competition.

Also, because of the ambiguity that exists in the English language I should clarify that this is addressed to the general HN audience rather than to api. In other words, when I use "you" it is generally meant as the plural "you".

I have a genuine problem understanding where anti-capitalism sentiment, particularly in HN, comes from. I also have a huge problem with pro-government sentiment bordering on socialism and even going as far as having a communist undertone. I keep seeing this come up again and again on HN and I just don't get it. I don't understand it.

So, this is me asking for help. Why do you (plural) think this way?

Again, please, I am looking for a respectful conversation. This is about you, not me. I want to understand you. I have lots of questions. Some might sound dumb and maybe even off-base. Go with me, if you will, humor me, and see if you can help me --and others-- understand where you are coming from.

How far back in human history do we have to go until you would concede we don't owe what existed at that point in time to state-funded research? Fire? Hunting? The wheel? Agriculture? Making clothes? Making boats? Domestication of animals? Medieval time? Industrial revolution?

And, when feudal lords enslaved the population, was that population to be thankful because of the developments that came from such "state-funded" efforts?

Communism funded lots of things. Not sure anything of use to the world at large came out of any communist country. Do you think communism is better than capitalism? Why? How about socialist ideas? Better than capitalism?

The Nazi's funded a lot of medical research in the context of killing millions of Jews. Are you suggesting that we all benefit from that today? Are there a few million people somewhere in the world you would be willing to kill today in order to do some state-funded research that would benefit us all?

I know this is a ridiculous and grotesque question to ask, but it is a valid question. If you are deriving any benefit whatsoever from what the Nazi's did then you either have to reject all technology derived from that research --even if it costs your own life or that of your loved ones-- or be willing to do the same in the name of progress. I am not proposing, for even an instant, that what they did was acceptable.

Where do you stop singing the praises of state-funded research? How many people did ARPANET help kill? If we owe the modern Internet to all the military programs between 1960 and 199x or so and you recognize this as good; what's the difference between that and the various Nazi programs. Killing is killing, isn't it?

Well, virtually all state-funded research is motivated by war. War means killing people. Sometimes by the millions. Certainly by the thousands. And, in that regard --in terms of the mass killings-- it is no different from genocide.

How about nuclear power? A great result of state-funded research? Killed millions.

So, in embracing your belief system, do we ever fault governments or do we always look at the rosy side of state-funded research and ignore the ugly parts. As I asked before, how many people did ARPANET help kill? Is that ever a consideration? I am not sure Compuserve and other civilian BBS's helped kill nearly as many people --if any-- as the various means of communication resulting from state-funded research.

When I was younger the realities of war never really hit my radar. As I got older it really started to turn my stomach. And that's why I developed this idea that we should limit our government to throwing fancy dinners for visiting dignitaries and pull ALL non essential funding from their hands. All they do is kill people, one way or the other. The research would be done far better, cheaper, faster and with less violent purposes in the private sector.

I prefer capitalism and profit-driven entrepreneurship than war-driven state-sponsored research who's aim is to kill millions. Do you see the difference? How does that align with your pro-state belief system?

That aside, on the assumption a rare state-funded project produces something of note, for how many decades or centuries should we be thankful?

Do advancements ever become part of human culture and intellectual property upon which we can build without being labeled as having taken advantage of those before us?

Are you of this opinion because you have studied the subject or because you were indoctrinated into this manner of thinking at school or at home?

It's an honest question. Please don't be offended by it.

As an example, most religions folks were indoctrinated into their religion. I don't know anyone who grew up without any kind of religion shoveled at them as a kid, only to choose one independently as an adult.

It is a fair question: Are you pro state/government/communism/socialism because you chose to believe this way or because the thoughts were shoveled into your head? Can you remove yourself from your mind far enough to even make that evaluation?

All forms of governments, from democratic to communist seem to be great at devising ways to kill people. If WW1 and WW2 --with over a hundred million people dead-- did not prove that, I don't know what would.

It is also interesting to note that governments seem to need war as a motivator to invent anything. Why? Is that the only goal they understand?

Can you reconcile your "more government is good" view of the world with the fact that governments --not people-- have started all known wars and that they have caused the death of hundreds of millions of people throughout history? People don't start wars. Governments do.

I sincerely reject the idea that "All this stuff we're gluing together is the product of state-funded research". There are countless innovations that originated far, far away from government. Too many examples to list, but such things as flying machines, the telegraph and the light bulb come to mind.

Now, it is natural for entrepreneurs to look for markets for their inventions. Governments are flush with cash. In the US, if you can mold your idea or invention into something that can be of benefit to our mighty armed forces you can get tons of money for further development and even hugely profitable contracts through programs such as SBIR.

Entrepreneurs look for markets where they can make money. This means that while I am sure someone is going to claim that aviation was funded by government, I will propose the opposite: Aviation entrepreneurs went where the money was: Military contracts.

I could go on, but it is time to listen. There are a lot of questions above. I ask you to think, really think about them and then give me your perspective. And, again, I mean this with the utmost respect. I truly want to understand. I have seen enough pro socialist/communist/government/state posts on HN to cause me pause. I don't know if these are coming from outside the US (or outside democratic/capitalistic cultures) or from within. Don't know. Please, help me understand you.

I am going to give Yahoo the benefit of the doubt. I have a hard time believing that they'd pay $30M to gain five programmers. There's a lot more to this than we are aware of. C'mon folks, if you think the math doesn't add-up (as an acqui-hire) don't you think the folks at Yahoo can do basic arithmetic as well.

I've also read a few posts on this thread saying as much as "there are no smart people at Yahoo" or "everyone at Yahoo is an idiot" (paraphrasing). Coming from folks at HN I think these kinds of statements are really unbecoming. Of course there are a lot of amazing people at Yahoo. Tons of them.

Here's a bit of news for detractors: Business is hard. No, it is fucking hard. And, at their size and scale it is even harder. And, at the break-neck competitive speed of the internet, even harder still.

Mere humans make mistakes. We can read the tea-leaves wrong and take the wrong road --or one that is less than ideal. In business this can cost you years before you regain your prior position. What matters is that you do not give up.

I like Yahoo very much. They've been around for a long time and hopefully they'll be around a lot longer. They might eventually find a groove to fall into and light-up the afterburners. Stupid they are not. What they are doing is hard. What all of us are doing is hard, at any scale.

I think you took his comment a bit too far: the point is that the government is an institution that is meant to mitigate risks that cannot efficiently be dealt with otherwise.

The risk of going to the moon before anyone else is such a risk (political motivations aside).

Stating that the government can be an effective tool for mitigating risks associated with research is not an endorsement of everything the government does. This is not an endorsement of everything governments have done in the past. This isn't even an endorsement of government at all in its current form.

It is a statement of what our government ought to be doing more of. It is a statement that our current system has disproportionately distributed rewards -- aren't we supposed to reward those who create the most value?