Live data from Hacker News

Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

jwz.org

141–150 of 313 posts

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#141
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because our dad was paid for every hour of work he put in. He invested his time by the hour and his risk was minimal. For a startup coder he or she is investing by the month or year, and to walk away from that with not much to show for it can be awful. These coders arent paid extra for all nighters, they aren't compensated for losing relationships, they aren't covered when they burnout, all for a realistically very s…

I already mentioned in one of the threads below. Our work as software professionals today is more dependent on productivity not intelligence. We are quickly assimilating in to normal crowd. We may even be judged by the same metrics they are.

For all those people who are not getting it. Today success of most software shops is about business innovation not technology innovation. Yes there are instances of Google and other big web giants innovating greatly in the technology area. But they amount to less than 1% of the software crowd.

We are all writing software to solve business problems. We are not writing software for Software innovation.

Unless you are doing something special. Most software today is written in IDE's. You don't have to remember syntax at all these days. The IDE will do it for you. It knows what libraries you want, it knows how many exceptions your code can run into. It knows how to compile, build and package your code. I can give you your code coverage. It can even do documentation for you. There is hardly anything IDE's can't do these days.

All you need is a little semantic awareness. And there are solutions to nearly every problem you are likely to run into a software shop. There are libraries, API's and frameworks that have understood and defined your problems as a generic case and solved them. There are forums to help you out on edge cases.

All you do these days is know a solution to a generic pattern of problems. You fundamentally pull out those logical solutions from your brain and parameterize them for the solution need at hand. And remaining is simply IDE play.

Very little or really a non quantifiable of highly intellectual work is happening in business based software shops today. Google, Facebook are exceptions, not the normal.

And this isn't surprising. We need armies of programmers to do all the bulk of the business job out there. If you are still thinking that as a software guy you are going to work with math theorems, then you have got it wrong.

Given all these, my success depends on only two things. How much aware of the reusable solutions. How quickly and how many problems can I solve using them. Which is productivity.

This is drag and drop programming demystified.

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#143
post #35
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The color theme make my eyes burn here is a readability link http://www.readability.com/articles/dirqhjff

So strange - I love the color scheme, so easy to read. (The human eye is most sensitive, and has highest resolution in green.)

I'll be honest, it killed my eyes too. I was reading it up close on my big monitor and by the time I was looking back at my laptop all I could see were lines!

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#144
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not seen eye to eye with PG on everything he has written. But this particular essay is one of my favourites of his. PG laid out an upper bound, which he later clarifies: "If $3 million a year seems high, remember that we're talking about the limit case: the case where you not only have zero leisure time but indeed work so hard that you endanger your health." And his upper limit for hours worked was 2x that of a…

I see it as an experiment in thinking about leverage. If you minimized all the corporate office bullshit, leveraged your work to the max, AND worked hard on top of that, how much could you earn? The baseline becomes your work earnings WITH corp-bullshit, poor leverage, and lackluster effort, and then he extrapolates from that. Leverage analogy: think schwerpunkt in blitzkrieg. If you amass all your tanks on one secto…

hm.. and I guess, if you're running in the wrong direction, you'll get there faster..

not sure if that's good or bad

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#145
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as an experiment in thinking about leverage. If you minimized all the corporate office bullshit, leveraged your work to the max, AND worked hard on top of that, how much could you earn? The baseline becomes your work earnings WITH corp-bullshit, poor leverage, and lackluster effort, and then he extrapolates from that. Leverage analogy: think schwerpunkt in blitzkrieg. If you amass all your tanks on one secto…

hm.. and I guess, if you're running in the wrong direction, you'll get there faster.. not sure if that's good or bad

Yeah if you amass your forces in the wrong place you will get slapped around like a cheap toy. Kursk salient.

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#146

>>Follow the fucking money. When a VC tells you what's good for you, check your wallet, then count your fingers. This is just gold.

Been thinking a lot about this statement, but still not sure exactly what he means by it. I could interpret it a few different ways, and I'm probably over-thinking it. How do you interpret this?

It just means that the VC doesn't have your best interest in mind, they only care about making money.

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#147
post #136

>>Follow the fucking money. When a VC tells you what's good for you, check your wallet, then count your fingers. This is just gold.

It struck me more as simple than gold. If a VC that invested in a company gives them advice then obviously his goal is to make more money... but that goal will, in turn make you more money too. If you don't like the fact that a VC has the potential to make more money than you, the solution is to not take investment from one, not to ignore them after they take investment. Also remember that yes, they're not putting in…

you aren't putting in a lot of money that you might lose, which they did.

VCs make money win or lose. Limited partners actually have capital risk.

People know this, right?

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#148
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not seen eye to eye with PG on everything he has written. But this particular essay is one of my favourites of his. PG laid out an upper bound, which he later clarifies: "If $3 million a year seems high, remember that we're talking about the limit case: the case where you not only have zero leisure time but indeed work so hard that you endanger your health." And his upper limit for hours worked was 2x that of a…

I see it as an experiment in thinking about leverage. If you minimized all the corporate office bullshit, leveraged your work to the max, AND worked hard on top of that, how much could you earn? The baseline becomes your work earnings WITH corp-bullshit, poor leverage, and lackluster effort, and then he extrapolates from that. Leverage analogy: think schwerpunkt in blitzkrieg. If you amass all your tanks on one secto…

I am not getting. You are going to end up being average in a large corporate. Your chances of succeeding in a start up are only 10%.

There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of this career problem.

There seems to be a problem with whatever you will do.

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#149
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One has to be a lot luckier to make fifty billion dollars than ten million dollars.

Yes, but I doubt it's, say, 50 times luckier. I'll wager it's a lot easier to go from 10 million to a billion than from zero to 10 million.

Why?

Re: Watch a VC use my name to sell a con

#150
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It struck me more as simple than gold. If a VC that invested in a company gives them advice then obviously his goal is to make more money... but that goal will, in turn make you more money too. If you don't like the fact that a VC has the potential to make more money than you, the solution is to not take investment from one, not to ignore them after they take investment. Also remember that yes, they're not putting in…

you aren't putting in a lot of money that you might lose, which they did. VCs make money win or lose. Limited partners actually have capital risk. People know this, right?

Afraid not (afraid I don't know, not you're wrong) - how does a VC make money if a company they invested in goes bust and shuts down?
Post reply on HN