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

Stop Speaking in Bullshit

blog.danilocampos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 71 posts

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#11

Post by danilocampos »

InfinityX0 wrote: post #7

The strange thing about this article is I read the first patch of job descriptions and I thought you were poised to make fun of them - not the latter one. Those first descriptions make me wonder if it's really OK to run the same startup template again and again, even if you say that it makes you "human". I expect to read that first job description amongst a million three-person startups - besides maybe the profitable…

They pretty much had me at profitable.

The way I read it: You're not a bozo, you know what you want your candidate to do, you make money. Pretty good to me. There isn't perfect clarity on the product, but they're keeping that under wraps for a reason.

That posting gives you a better idea for your prospective gig than 99% of posts for launched companies.

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#12

Post by redcap »

jolie wrote: post #5

As someone who reads scores of pitches a week from tech startups, I can't say how much I agree with this. Most of the pitches I get these days force me to wade through swamps of buzzwords that have become absolutely meaningless. It's enough of a turn-off that I pretty much ignore those pitches -- I figure that if the company had something really exciting to tell me, they'd figure out a way to tell me so within a coup…

Completely agree - brevity of thought make for a punchy article that is better to read and more likely to have an impact.

The three main killers are (1) passive voice, (2) long words and (3) jargon.

If you can write something that avoids the above (except when necessary), you're on your way to reducing any waffle that your reader may have to wade through, and if polished enough can turn into prose that shines.

Looking at the Microsoft article I can't help but think that they've said nothing at all, but the Google article has just the facts ma'am and leaves you the better for it.

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#14

Post by gommm »

lionhearted wrote: post #2

Good piece. The second job description is written by a manager-type that only vaguely understands the technology. Actually, a place like that would be okay to work if they gave you high enough levels of authority. If you were to inquire about the position, you could say something like, "Hi, I'm interested in your posting, I fit your desired qualifications and skills quite well, but I was wondering who I'd directly re…

I can't agree more with that... As a software development company, my best customers have been people who didn't understand the technology. The best ones accepted that it was my job to understand it and take care of it for them and would stay out of the way...

Customers who understand a bit about technology (because they've programmed a small Visual Basic software to help them before) are the most micro-managing people I've had and are a hell to work with...

So, the simple thing is that in any working relationships, you need to respect the other otherwise you're not going to go anywhere. The same goes with business and technical cofounders (and way too many tecnical cofounders don't respect enough the amount of work needed on the business side of things).

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#15

Post by nostrademons »

danilocampos wrote: post #11
InfinityX0 wrote: post #7

The strange thing about this article is I read the first patch of job descriptions and I thought you were poised to make fun of them - not the latter one. Those first descriptions make me wonder if it's really OK to run the same startup template again and again, even if you say that it makes you "human". I expect to read that first job description amongst a million three-person startups - besides maybe the profitable…

They pretty much had me at profitable. The way I read it: You're not a bozo, you know what you want your candidate to do, you make money. Pretty good to me. There isn't perfect clarity on the product, but they're keeping that under wraps for a reason. That posting gives you a better idea for your prospective gig than 99% of posts for launched companies.

See, I read the "we're profitable" as "we make enough money to keep ourselves alive with ramen noodles and maybe hopefully pay rent". Perhaps I've just grown cynical in my old age...

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#16

Post by pg »

nostrademons wrote: post #15
danilocampos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pretty much had me at profitable. The way I read it: You're not a bozo, you know what you want your candidate to do, you make money. Pretty good to me. There isn't perfect clarity on the product, but they're keeping that under wraps for a reason. That posting gives you a better idea for your prospective gig than 99% of posts for launched companies.

See, I read the "we're profitable" as "we make enough money to keep ourselves alive with ramen noodles and maybe hopefully pay rent". Perhaps I've just grown cynical in my old age...

This particular startup is more profitable than that.

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#17

Post by cperciva »

InfinityX0 wrote: post #7

The strange thing about this article is I read the first patch of job descriptions and I thought you were poised to make fun of them - not the latter one. Those first descriptions make me wonder if it's really OK to run the same startup template again and again, even if you say that it makes you "human". I expect to read that first job description amongst a million three-person startups - besides maybe the profitable…

The strange thing about this article is I read the first patch of job descriptions and I thought you were poised to make fun of them

Me too. This bit could describe the local transit system: "We’re profitable, make the lives of hundreds of thousands of people better every month, have a rapidly expanding user base, and napping is an encouraged part of our corporate culture."

Maybe I'm unusual, but my idea of a perfect job posting is one which says something about the job. Don't write platitudes about how you're looking for people who think outside the box; say "we think the most exciting thing in the world is designing algorithms to target advertising better, and that's what you'll be doing if you get this job".

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#18

Post by strebler »

InfinityX0 wrote: post #7

The strange thing about this article is I read the first patch of job descriptions and I thought you were poised to make fun of them - not the latter one. Those first descriptions make me wonder if it's really OK to run the same startup template again and again, even if you say that it makes you "human". I expect to read that first job description amongst a million three-person startups - besides maybe the profitable…

Agreed. After reading the first job description, I know almost nothing about the company or the product. I feel the opposite from his rant about that description.

The second job description (once you read the full thing) is actually quite reasonable. They describe their product, responsibilities, their financing, company size, languages in use, etc. It's not stellar, but it's far from bullshit.

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#19

Post by strebler »

nostrademons wrote: post #15
danilocampos wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They pretty much had me at profitable. The way I read it: You're not a bozo, you know what you want your candidate to do, you make money. Pretty good to me. There isn't perfect clarity on the product, but they're keeping that under wraps for a reason. That posting gives you a better idea for your prospective gig than 99% of posts for launched companies.

See, I read the "we're profitable" as "we make enough money to keep ourselves alive with ramen noodles and maybe hopefully pay rent". Perhaps I've just grown cynical in my old age...

"Ramen profitable" would be the term for that :)

Re: Stop Speaking in Bullshit

#20

Post by danilocampos »

cperciva wrote: post #17
InfinityX0 wrote: post #7

The strange thing about this article is I read the first patch of job descriptions and I thought you were poised to make fun of them - not the latter one. Those first descriptions make me wonder if it's really OK to run the same startup template again and again, even if you say that it makes you "human". I expect to read that first job description amongst a million three-person startups - besides maybe the profitable…

The strange thing about this article is I read the first patch of job descriptions and I thought you were poised to make fun of them Me too. This bit could describe the local transit system: " We’re profitable, make the lives of hundreds of thousands of people better every month, have a rapidly expanding user base, and napping is an encouraged part of our corporate culture. " Maybe I'm unusual, but my idea of a perfe…

In fairness to the original posting, there are concrete examples of what you'd be doing (as their programming generalist) that I omitted in the original draft of the post:

"Depending on the task, we program in Ruby (on Rails), Javascript (a lot of this), PHP, Python, Objective-C (iPhone), and Java (Android). Flexibility is a plus."

Updated now.

Post reply on HN