81–90 of 112 posts
All advice is a two-way street. I think at this point, the proverbial "advice market" is saturated with this idea that "doing" is far superior to "thinking". This is because, traditionally, hackers tend to lie squarely on the "thinking too much" end of the spectrum. I'm interested to read at least one post on the opposite advice -- what happens when you're too heavy on the "doing" end of the spectrum? Are there examp…
> As a rough guideline, it’s good to stay in roles where you’re close to the doing. Why? It seems to me like the further you are from the doing, the more likely your role is to be prestigious and highly paid.
All advice is a two-way street. I think at this point, the proverbial "advice market" is saturated with this idea that "doing" is far superior to "thinking". This is because, traditionally, hackers tend to lie squarely on the "thinking too much" end of the spectrum. I'm interested to read at least one post on the opposite advice -- what happens when you're too heavy on the "doing" end of the spectrum? Are there examp…
> what happens when you're too heavy on the "doing" end of the spectrum? technical debt
Technical Debt = When you coded without thinking AND your project is successful and growing. It's debt because now you have to go back and fix/change the code.
Technical Grant = When you coded without thinking BUT your project is NOT successful and fails. It's a grant because it saved you time.
Most projects / startups fail so for most people "Just Do It" works better. Plus the product you envision is almost never the product you end up with. So all that thinking you invested can be a waste of time.
I realize this is pointed out in the original post but it's important to state for those of us who only read comments and headlines. The longer I do this the more I believe that value isn't created by doing. It's created by selling. As hackers and engineers the idea of "creating value by doing" resonates with us. We're happy to hole up in a dark room and create. It feels great. Wish I could do that for the rest of my…
The longer I do this the more I believe that value isn't created by doing. It's created by selling. You can't sell something that doesn't have value to the buyer. Therefore, if someone buys a thing from you, it already had value before you sold it. But don't get me wrong here, effective sales is an essential part of the value-creation process. It's the other side of the coin. Like the old tree-in-a-forest adage, if s…
I like PG's distinction of wealth (i.e. value) and money: http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
So, while selling realizes a monetary gain, it does not necessarily create wealth also.
Here is why I still think it does create wealth:
* there is economic value in allocating resources efficiently
* (non-monetary) user acquisition increases the value of network effect driven products
* money goes to work when infused into a productive company (instead of being idle, money is invested in wealth creating assets)
For example, I find nothing more valuable than clean air and water.
Off topic, but I believe this should be the basis for funding society rather than appropriating a portion of people's productive labor.
Land is valuable. But you don't really "own" it because no one made it. Likewise the Aluminum in a can or the steel in your car. You just borrow them for a time. When we are all dead and gone these things will still be here and people will likely use them.
Society should charge for the use of what really belongs to everyone instead of this part time modern indentured servant hood called payroll taxes. It seems much more just.
As a side benefit... consumption is discouraged and production rewarded. What better for society than that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technical debt is like real debt. In the grand scheme of things it's bad, but there are times when it makes sense to borrow from your future.
I used to think that way, then I realized that I should worry about building a product people will pay for before worrying too much about technical debt. It's almost a Maserati problem when you think about it.
Had the technical debt been paid up front, the iteration rate might have been much faster (e.g., good encapsulation and abstraction allows you to switch out things quickly to test different mechanics in a game), leading to a better end product that people will pay for.
I agree, although this makes me think of the great number of people who have the potential to create value but cannot, because their ability to "do" is blocked. Most people I know who cannot create value have an issue of time. Most everyone is locked into their job with rent payments, student loans, and other debts. Its frustrating to see that those with wealth can also purchase time for themselves to use to get more…
This is an incredibly important point. I think when people talk about "universal basic income", the traditional narrative concerns the social injustice of poverty, hunger, etc. For me, all I really want is the space to work on the projects I care about and learn the skills to let me accomplish my goals. For now, it looks like I'm going to be working for a while to pay off my student debt and save money before I can e…
The idea that people should be allowed to work on their own projects but is funded by "others" (say, via taxes) is made to look like leeching off the group. The benefits are, while still theoretical, never talked about.
The value i see in a BI scheme is that the natural geniuses of the world gets to do what they are a genius at doing (e.g., somebody might be a really genius teacher), instead of doing the thing that earns maximal amount of money. I know somebody who is a great teacher, and he, at a great financial sacrifice, quit his job to be a teacher instead. He raised so many good students, which go on to bring priceless value to society, and yet the money he recieves is a pittance. He would've made at least a 6 figure income easily, working less hours had he remained in industry.
some people might call me a communist, but i really do believe they had some good ideas about equality (just that i don't see a way of governing such that corruption and inequality doesn't proliferate...).
Imagine a world where necessities of life is produced enmass by the government, in such a way that the cost is so low as to allow it to be provided to each citizen for free. Then BI would become possible. But i don't see it comeing any time soon.
I've never agreed with the idea that labor is the "sole" or even "primary", source of value. For example, I find nothing more valuable than clean air and water. Off topic, but I believe this should be the basis for funding society rather than appropriating a portion of people's productive labor. Land is valuable. But you don't really "own" it because no one made it. Likewise the Aluminum in a can or the steel in your…
how can this both be true? if consumption is discouraged, then what would be the reward for production? if it is something that is to be consumed, then by definition consumption is desirable. If the reward is not something that is consumed, the what is that reward?