Is this a good place to ask why the title of this link was changed? It was originally the same as the title of the blog post, including "(YC/2014)". I've noticed this kind of alteration a number of times on stories about YC-backed companies, and I don't recall ever seeing it when the story was positive. EDIT: And now the post is getting rapidly demoted on the front page, below links that are older and have fewer vote…
I thought the policy was to use the title exactly as it appears on the article?
I feel for you. I made a similar leap from an OK-paying regional job at an established niche cashcow to a London start-up. The perks: a coffee machine, senior pay cheque. The reality: a shit coffee machine, low moral, no realistic prospect of a profit and no willingness to pivot. 80% of costs have been sunk on a Facebook clone 'with a spin' while the owners try to sell snake oil to investors. We operate like the bad…
... the last lead dev couldn't understand the immeasurable benefits of model binding So if the benefits can't be measured, you're suggesting that the front-end should be rewritten as a matter of pure faith in model binding? (Honestly, that's my impression of how most people decide to adopt a JavaScript framework. "Yeah, we don't really understand the whole, and there are all these edge cases where you have to work ag…
Not to change topics, but FINALLY a note of sanity in the cacophony of JS framework fandom! Could you tell me what you recommend?
What I find is that each framework works really well for about 80% of a project, and then the last 20% get really painful. I haven't found anything that's elegant, flexible, simple, and native.
I've often wondered why incubators like YC don't have sessions that say 'from experience, these are the sort of behaviors that are counterproductive for your startup - watch out for and avoid them.'
I know that as a first-time founder I screwed the pooch in all sorts of ways I could've avoided with a little more guidance.
I don't know about European labor laws or your contract, but by US standards I don't think they did anything wrong and a blog post such as this would be perceived negatively. edit: I mean no offense but just wanted to make you aware how this would be perceived by US readers potentially. US is lacking in a lot of labor protections.
Well, "being a jerk" is not a legal concept; there are many things that are perfectly legal, and still something - to quote Eric Naggum - "that you do not do if you want to be a moral being and feel proud of what you have accomplished".
There was a great piece of advice I was given about 20 years ago by the South African guru of franchising, Eric Parker: "Run your small business as if it was a large business", or, "Start as you mean to go on". There is a great deal of bullshit in the tech industry; that chaos is somehow normal and that planning and the principles of good management can wait "till we're big". It should be painfully obvious that once…
>>"Run your small business as if it was a large business"
So basically, several layers of approvals for every $10 expense report? :)
Is this a good place to ask why the title of this link was changed? It was originally the same as the title of the blog post, including "(YC/2014)". I've noticed this kind of alteration a number of times on stories about YC-backed companies, and I don't recall ever seeing it when the story was positive. EDIT: And now the post is getting rapidly demoted on the front page, below links that are older and have fewer vote…
I thought the policy was to use the title exactly as it appears on the article?
A really big problem for startups lies in attracting high quality coding talent. There aren't many experienced developers who're in a position to take the necessary risk joining a startup and working for a reduced income for a while. Consequently any startup that screws over a developer isn't just hurting their own rep, but they're damaging the chance of success of every other startup by reducing the size of the tale…
Actually, this is only a problem for un-founded startups - but if you don't have the money, you should at least have the technical expertise necessary to create the software for your start-up for the next 6 months or so (before you get to a Proof-Of-Concept stage, and can get investors). When you get the money, it's almost always a problem of just offering enough money to offset the risk of a startup failing/the team…
That's typically not done because it means your burning cash at a rate that adds "unnecessary" risk to the business. This is why early employees are paid $75k instead of $150k and are given equity in the business. It greatly increases the probability of a successful outcome. Paying $150k will most often lead to a 12 month run then winding down the company. That's not really in anyone's interest.
I hate to say this but whenever you relocate that is your decision. The company isn't really in any obligations to keep you or pay your move back unless you pre-negotiate that either with a signing bonus or as a clause in your contract. Generally a relocation is offset with a signing bonus and higher salary which is why the risk is worth it, but never doubt that it's a risk you have to take. I know because I've done…
OP had a 3 month contract which was not honored (according to this side of the story). That's why he lost his deposit on the apartment that he'd let for 3 months.
Actually, this is only a problem for un-founded startups - but if you don't have the money, you should at least have the technical expertise necessary to create the software for your start-up for the next 6 months or so (before you get to a Proof-Of-Concept stage, and can get investors). When you get the money, it's almost always a problem of just offering enough money to offset the risk of a startup failing/the team…
That's typically not done because it means your burning cash at a rate that adds "unnecessary" risk to the business. This is why early employees are paid $75k instead of $150k and are given equity in the business. It greatly increases the probability of a successful outcome. Paying $150k will most often lead to a 12 month run then winding down the company. That's not really in anyone's interest.
That's a very good idea... as long as there's enough equity (there usually isn't). For 75k/year, I want at least 10%, and even better, co-founder status. While 75k and 1% is in the founders' interest, it certainly isn't in the employees'.
There was a great piece of advice I was given about 20 years ago by the South African guru of franchising, Eric Parker: "Run your small business as if it was a large business", or, "Start as you mean to go on". There is a great deal of bullshit in the tech industry; that chaos is somehow normal and that planning and the principles of good management can wait "till we're big". It should be painfully obvious that once…
>>"Run your small business as if it was a large business" So basically, several layers of approvals for every $10 expense report? :)
Nope, small companies with bad processes grow up to be big companies with terrible processes. Precisely because you hope to be a big company (or mature into a profitable one), get your processes right from the beginning. I'm definitely not saying "run your small company like the big companies you hate" ... I am saying, start as you mean to go on.