Live data from Hacker News

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

hackingdistributed.com

241–250 of 288 posts

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

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking forward to the compilation entitled "How to succeed at Yahoo".

Well, first they'd have to acq-hire me. I'm cheaper than $30 million, though. I am seriously considering considering going into business as an "unfuck your culture" consultant. If you're at the point where you're paying $6 million per head for talent, then I'm a fucking steal at $2500 per hour [0]. Sure, I will talk your ear off for 200-400 hours over two months and bill you for almost a million, but I will solve you…

"I am seriously considering considering going into business as an "unfuck your culture" consultant."

After only six months and two gigs as a contract software engineer, I'm thinking about this too. So far I'm appalled at the state of play in the small software houses I've seen.

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

#242

I'm sure a lot of people are resentful or disgusted that a 17-year-old was acquired for $30 million. I just find it fucking hilarious. It's awesome, not in some dipshit "American Dream" sort of way, but in the "holy shit, this world is on crack" sense of it. I say, go him! The next time I am looking for work I am seriously considering getting rid of the resume and coming up with a bullshit startup name. It's pretty r…

In large corporations new hires and acquisitions are handled by different teams. Both teams may be working for the same set of goals, but in ways that are often conflicting in a practical sense.

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

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aweso…

It's hard to say this without sounding insulting or belittling, but I'm genuinely curious... What are your credentials? You don't have to justify yourself to some random guy on the internet (me), but a few of your comments mention you're in the "1 in a 100" category, so I'm wondering what you've done that would be so valuable to Yahoo. Is it that you're a talented engineer or more? I probably sound like a complete di…

This is a really good question. If you're looking to assess personal software skill, here's where I defined the software scale: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/the-trajector...

It's from 0.0 to 3.0, but the majority of professional software engineers are between 1.0 and 2.0. Average is about 1.1-1.2, and 1.5 is seriously good; it means you're starting to have sound multiplier, infrastructural contributions.

I'm probably at 1.8, which is about 97th percentile. I promoted to "1 in ~100" because I have a lot of creative talents, cultural insight, and design experience. That's just a ballpark. I'm somewhere between 1-in-10 and 1-in-1000 (among software engineers). It's highly subjective and has a lot to do with tool fit, project/person coherence, and peoples' motivations. In some companies, I'm the absolute last guy you want to hire. In others, I'm a 4-sigma catch. Especially at the upper end, it depends a lot more on fit than anything objective.

My point with "1 in ~100" was that, while I won't claim to be average, if you're at Yahoo's size you almost certainly have people who think like me. If you can't find them through normal methods and have to acq-hire to get top talent, that's on you, but I think you're spilling money on the floor. It'd be cheaper, in the long run, to develop what you have internally.

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

#244
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, first they'd have to acq-hire me. I'm cheaper than $30 million, though. I am seriously considering considering going into business as an "unfuck your culture" consultant. If you're at the point where you're paying $6 million per head for talent, then I'm a fucking steal at $2500 per hour [0]. Sure, I will talk your ear off for 200-400 hours over two months and bill you for almost a million, but I will solve you…

"I am seriously considering considering going into business as an "unfuck your culture" consultant." After only six months and two gigs as a contract software engineer, I'm thinking about this too. So far I'm appalled at the state of play in the small software houses I've seen.

Many years ago I watched a tv documentary (probably BBC with the Open University) about business consultants.

There was a small - medium engineering company. These firms tend to be split between white collar office and management work, and blue collar shop floor work.

The consultant went in, had a bit of a chat with the management, and then went onto the shop floor. After a bit of resistance he got a lot of great information. When someone is sitting at a machine pushing a button for 8 hours a day one thing they know is what makes that harder and what might make it easier.

He got all these suggestions and put together a plan. All the blue collar staff were energised, active, keen to be involved. He then told them he was going to make a presentation to management. He asked the shop-floor workers what they thought would happen.

"They'll ignore you" was the reply. "No!" he said, "They'll see the work we're put in, and they'll see the benefits to them, and they'll put in some changes!"

He called the meeting. He gave his presentation. All the management sat, waiting for someone else to make a first move.

Obviously they did not agree with any of the suggested changes. They heard the story about the car factory worker who saved his company thousands with a simple bag over the licence plate suggestion. They didn't care.

"What you don't seem to realise is that we've already thought about all of this before we put the machines in" - it's like kaizen never existed.

There's a reason many work cultures are fucked.

But, you know, it is a good idea and I wish you luck if you try it!

PS: obviously the point is not "shop floor great, management bad", because I've met many lazy shop floor workers.

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

#245
post #222
post #74

What this really underscores is that conventional capitalism provides little incentive for fundamental innovation. All this stuff we're gluing together is the product of state-funded research, mostly from the cold war era. DARPANet, the web (CERN), DARPA research on "augmented human intelligence," etc. Stuff like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY (I bet you thought Xerox PARC invented that stuff, right? Or…

I think you're being a little unfair. I work in quantum computing. I'll probably work in the public sector for most of my life. I have every incentive to plug government-funded research, and oh by the way, you guys all need to vote for politicians who will increase my puny grad student stipend. Researchers in the private sector publish a healthy amount of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The elephant in the room is…

I think you're being a little unfair. I work in quantum computing. I'll probably work in the public sector for most of my life. I have every incentive to plug government-funded research, and oh by the way, you guys all need to vote for politicians who will increase my puny grad student stipend.

Quantum computing is fucking cool. Very intellectually challenging stuff. Props for that.

I agree on public funding for basic research. Politicians who say "these guys aren't earning their keep" are idiots, and we're worse (as a populace) for not firing these assholes. The mechanism is right there, it's unambiguously legal. Let's fucking use it. Anyway, how is a PhD who makes $85,000 per year while advancing the state of science, who is giving all the work away for the public good, not earning her keep? It makes no damn sense.

Researchers in the private sector publish a healthy amount of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The elephant in the room is drug design. Many of the drugs on the market today were indeed developed and funded by pharmaceutical companies; yes, pharma companies do occasionally push bullshit products. But imatinib works. It's a trillion-dollar industry for a reason.

My issue with the drug industry is that the profit motive seems to be generating 20 variations on the same theme (e.g. statins) and underfunding a lot of greater advancements.

The US spends a paltry portion of its budget on research

Damn right. It's pathetic. We spend more on this "war on terror" in one year than on cancer research in 50. Yet cancer kills orders of magnitude more people than terrorism.

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

#246

I'm sure a lot of people are resentful or disgusted that a 17-year-old was acquired for $30 million. I just find it fucking hilarious. It's awesome, not in some dipshit "American Dream" sort of way, but in the "holy shit, this world is on crack" sense of it. I say, go him! The next time I am looking for work I am seriously considering getting rid of the resume and coming up with a bullshit startup name. It's pretty r…

Haters gonna hate. When you were 17, did you have the opportunity to do such a thing? No, this is why you are jealous. It's thing to celebrate.

It's not the fact he's 17. There are 25 year olds in startups, as recently as yesterday's Demo Day at YC, who've been given multi-million dollar investment and acquisition offers.

It's the fact that they paid $30m, for what essentially a lot of people here could build. Heck, Yahoo has talented hires, they could create a similar app from scratch for significantly less.

But they instead chose to buy it, at the stupidly high figure that they chose. That is why people just don't understand.

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

#247
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any attempt to innovate in corporation is potential career killer. That is how companies work. So many smart engineers are just quiet and they just do what they are told (make they boss happy).

Absolutely, pure innovators dilemma. Seems Yahoo! tried to solve this with their "brickhouse" program, a new product incubator, but ultimately it seems that was too disruptive and got axed.

As a cynic who is constantly looking for ways for human structures to fall to pieces, I'd be very worried about the large-company politics of a center-of-excellence/"honors college". When you set up a CoE, the rest of the organization feels put out.

If you put some set of people into R&D roles where they have full autonomy, then everyone wants it. The "Real Googler" issue (~10% of engineers have 20%T and the freedom to move around the company; the rest have manager-as-SPOF bullshit) is definitely a source of resentment at the Big G.

If you're going to do that, then have open allocation for all engineers. It's a much ballsier step, but it avoids resentment of the "special friends club" that gets to do cool R&D and that the rest of the company ends up undermining.

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

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's that easy why don't you do it? Surely a self-proclaimed 1 in a 100 programmer could bang out a product ripe for aquihire in the time it took to write all these "don't care, but still" posts?

I never said that it's easy . We both know that it's not "easy" to get acq-hired for $30 million. It's also not easy to win the Powerball, even if any idiot has a chance. It is, however, a sign of something wrong in the economy. When a $6-million-per-engineer acq-hire (the team, not the product, is being bought) is going down, the company is paying about 50 years of an engineer's salary for an employment relationship…

Maybe it's not just about talent, you could certainly hire amazing talent for a lot less than $30 million.

I imagine this kid will disappear into Yahoo and emerge again in 3 years time more mature and having been groomed for a leadership role by Mayer etc.

He will be the "lead developer" for some new product they have spent $serious_R&D_budget on and will make another promotional video where he talks in a charming British accent and drinks cups of tea with Stephen Fry.

In other words "The wonderkid who turned the crusty old dotcom around".

Technology is a celebrity culture and Mayer knows this. Liken to manufactured "boy bands".

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haters gonna hate. When you were 17, did you have the opportunity to do such a thing? No, this is why you are jealous. It's thing to celebrate.

It's not the fact he's 17. There are 25 year olds in startups, as recently as yesterday's Demo Day at YC, who've been given multi-million dollar investment and acquisition offers. It's the fact that they paid $30m, for what essentially a lot of people here could build. Heck, Yahoo has talented hires, they could create a similar app from scratch for significantly less. But they instead chose to buy it, at the stupidly…

>It's the fact that they paid $30m, for what essentially a lot of people here could build. Heck, Yahoo has talented hires, they could create a similar app from scratch for significantly less.

Ok, I think get your point. Still I have to disagree. The thing is this, many successful ideas don't need lots of genuine innovation and creativity. Instead they need to be 1. realized, 2. at the right time and 3. targetted towards the right people.

IMHO Facebook is a prime example for this. When you look at the history of communities, Facebook was by no means innovative. There have been plenty communities already and the world of communities progressed towards continuous improvements. In fact I used to be a vivid user of many Web 1.0 communities and watched with great excitement the transition from tech-people dominated communities towards general audience communities. Why did Yahoo not create Facebook? Well, it's the same reason small startups can drive big elephants out of business. I think there have been enough posts about this thing on HN in the past.

>But they instead chose to buy it, at the stupidly high figure that they chose. That is why people just don't understand. 1. The authors did put a lot of time in it (yes, multiple people worked on that, check out the website's About) 2. A great number of users are using it 3. Yahoo is not the only company interested in taking over a working website. Market mechanics.

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

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said that it's easy . We both know that it's not "easy" to get acq-hired for $30 million. It's also not easy to win the Powerball, even if any idiot has a chance. It is, however, a sign of something wrong in the economy. When a $6-million-per-engineer acq-hire (the team, not the product, is being bought) is going down, the company is paying about 50 years of an engineer's salary for an employment relationship…

Maybe it's not just about talent, you could certainly hire amazing talent for a lot less than $30 million. I imagine this kid will disappear into Yahoo and emerge again in 3 years time more mature and having been groomed for a leadership role by Mayer etc. He will be the "lead developer" for some new product they have spent $serious_R&D_budget on and will make another promotional video where he talks in a charming Br…

I'm an old fart (29) and don't have a British accent, but I'll do the three-year CEO-protege thing for a mere $10 million and kick it's ass (as long as you listen to me; if not, then you're wasting money).

Bidding war's on! (If you say $9.99 million, then you are a fucking asshole.)

Post reply on HN