51–60 of 81 posts
it can augment existing, core skills. haven't gotten/seen a candidate where an MBA was the core of his/her skillset.
if you get an MBA at very expensive institutions, you also get access to a network of likely-minded, rather rich people.
personnally, if you're already in tech and love it, getting an MBA seems like a giant waste of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you are just trolling, but I'm pretty convinced that ~100% of startups are developing 'breakthrough' products. For various reasons only ~1% turn out to be very successful at it. From an after-the-fact standpoint it's easy to point at the losers and say all kinds of nasty things about them. But since you can't reliably pick the winners of tomorrow, nor can the losers reliably pick themselves (they are usua…
5 minutes of browsing on producthunt should change your opinion that 100% of startups are developing breakthrough products.
Stanford MBAs in tech are fucking weird. I worked with a few, and had one for a CEO for 2 years. The gist of it is that they all sucked at tech but thought they didn't (trying to manage engineering teams in ridiculous micromanagy self important ways), were all very self centered, and all came from very wealthy families, being able to raise a few hundred thousands from "friends and family" (!?) and spending 4 day week…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as an angel investor, mba founders is a big warning sign. so there's that.
On that note, why does YC let so many MBA founders in?
It seems people are making a category error with respect to YC. YC's purpose is not to foster a cradle of technical innovation with an engineer focus; it's to maximize returns on high-risk investments in what happen to be technology companies. Engineers in the startup world are like engineers everywhere else in technology work: second-class workers who exist to expend their life in the form of labor for (relatively) token compensation in return, with lots of ego stroking to help deflect attention from that.
Stanford MBAs in tech are fucking weird. I worked with a few, and had one for a CEO for 2 years. The gist of it is that they all sucked at tech but thought they didn't (trying to manage engineering teams in ridiculous micromanagy self important ways), were all very self centered, and all came from very wealthy families, being able to raise a few hundred thousands from "friends and family" (!?) and spending 4 day week…
as an angel investor, mba founders is a big warning sign. so there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, it's not like those useless folks on Wall Street have ever helped manufacturers or tech companies. Oh wait[1][2]. [1] http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-firm/progress/titan/ [2] http://fortune.com/2014/10/08/wellington-management-gets-int...
Help me out here, because I have a very tough time imagining a world where society is worse off because financial companies didn't exist. Is it really the case that if Goldman Sachs didn't exist, Titan International somehow can't exist either?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that it does bring the economy to the brink of collapse every 10 years or so (and requires massive bailouts), I'd say there's more wrong with the finance industry than a little extra fat.
A 3-4% dip in GDP and a doubling of unemployment is nothing compared to what would happen without a finance industry. It's one of the bedrocks of civilization. If you want a historical perspective, research how England's finance industry was closely linked to its rise as a world power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highly unlikely. There is fat that can be trimmed, but the modern economy would collapse without the finance industry.
Given that it does bring the economy to the brink of collapse every 10 years or so (and requires massive bailouts), I'd say there's more wrong with the finance industry than a little extra fat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By definition, profit benefits society. Customers voluntarily buy products which companies sell voluntarily (at least in the typical case there are corner cases of course). Both parties profit which is evident by the exchange taking place. Society is made up of individuals, if individuals profit so does society. Companies exist because there's opportunities for profit. So I'd argue they do indeed exist to improve soc…
> By definition, profit benefits society. No. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v4zI8gKuFug/T-vpFAjdXeI/AAAAAAAAB-... More formally, Nash equilibria != global optima. It is not uncommon for companies to spend money destroying value for their customer -- and to profit from doing so! See: keurig DRM, speed grading in the semiconductor industry, Goldman Sachs cornering the Aluminum market, Enron shutting off power to create the…