Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

blog.bench.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 101 posts

Re: Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

#11

Post by andy_adams »

fixxer wrote: post #8

$30k/week? Would love to read more about how that worked. I thought my $180/hour with $1k per diem for on-site was phenomenal. Jeez, I need to charge more.

FYI, $180/hour is phenomenal by nearly anyone's standards.

Nothing wrong with pushing for higher, just don't get worked up trying to keep up with the McKenzies.

Re: Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

#13

Post by rawnlq »

fixxer wrote: post #8

$30k/week? Would love to read more about how that worked. I thought my $180/hour with $1k per diem for on-site was phenomenal. Jeez, I need to charge more.

He does a year-in-review blog post every year where he publishes his financials publicly. They are very informative.

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/12/22/kalzumeus-software-year-...

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/01/06/kalzumeus-software-year-...

http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/12/29/bingo-card-creator-and-o...

Re: Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

#15

Post by mijoharas »

"Another thing—be clear with your clients in terms of what their expectations are, and provide falsifiable success metrics"

I'm going to assume that that is a typo (and they meant unfalsifiable) as it doesn't really make sense in the context of what I've heard about Patrick before.

Re: Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

#16

Post by kd5bjo »

mijoharas wrote: post #15

"Another thing—be clear with your clients in terms of what their expectations are, and provide falsifiable success metrics" I'm going to assume that that is a typo (and they meant unfalsifiable) as it doesn't really make sense in the context of what I've heard about Patrick before.

"verifiable" is probably a better replacement; the intention is that everyone can agree on whether or not the expectations were met.

Re: Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

#17

Post by tim333 »

mijoharas wrote: post #15

"Another thing—be clear with your clients in terms of what their expectations are, and provide falsifiable success metrics" I'm going to assume that that is a typo (and they meant unfalsifiable) as it doesn't really make sense in the context of what I've heard about Patrick before.

They mean metrics you can check such as "sales increased 50%" as opposed to things like "we reinvigorated the sales paradigms" which you can't prove true or false.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability)

Re: Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

#19

Post by pjmorris »

mijoharas wrote: post #15

"Another thing—be clear with your clients in terms of what their expectations are, and provide falsifiable success metrics" I'm going to assume that that is a typo (and they meant unfalsifiable) as it doesn't really make sense in the context of what I've heard about Patrick before.

I think they're referring to the philosopher Karl Popper's notion of 'falsifiability', the idea that a claim must be possible to proven false to be admissible in a scientific theory.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Re: Building an Empire with a Single Brick: Meet Patrick McKenzie

#20

Post by mijoharas »

pjmorris wrote: post #19
mijoharas wrote: post #15

"Another thing—be clear with your clients in terms of what their expectations are, and provide falsifiable success metrics" I'm going to assume that that is a typo (and they meant unfalsifiable) as it doesn't really make sense in the context of what I've heard about Patrick before.

I think they're referring to the philosopher Karl Popper's notion of 'falsifiability', the idea that a claim must be possible to proven false to be admissible in a scientific theory. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

ok, this makes lot of sense, I guess I somewhat misparsed the text.

EDIT: I wonder if it counts as misreading or misunderstanding, to not notice that a word is an auto-antonym?

Post reply on HN