Working for a startup makes less sense • Hacker News Board

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#211

Post by EdwardDiego » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:08 AM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #194

streetcat1 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there are actually three tech revolutions going on in parallel: 1) Kuberentes 2) Microservices. 3) AI All of them are based on open source, and all of them are permissionless (I.e. the startup does not need permission from a big company, e.g. an app store owner). They also erode the build-in advantages of big tech: 1) Kubernetes erode cloud lock-in on compute/storage. 2) AI is best serve on the edge. I would say t…

Kubernetes is a solution worse than the problem. Microservices are unix pipes but slower. AI is linear algebra that costs x1000 because of the brand name. There is no revolution in software. We are just building crud as high and as fast as we can because the quality of developers tends to zero as the number of developers increases.

> Kubernetes is a solution worse than the problem.

I disagree. Maybe it's because we haven't gone "full Kubernetes" where every cronjob is now a Kubernetes cronjob, or what have you, but for all the complexity we've had to overcome, we've seen substantial benefits.

For example, autoscaling instances of my data pipeline apps based on Kafka lag.

Was it complex? Yes. We had to expose Kafka topic lag as a metric to Prometheus, then configure the k8s metrics server that HPAs (Horizontal Pod Autoscalers) use to scale to pull that in from Prometheus using k8s-prometheus-adapter as a custom metric, then set reasonable scaling limits in the data pipeline apps HPAs.

Was it worth it? Fuck yes. We no longer have to worry about data arriving out of time at our data warehouse, because the scaling we've configured (in YAML, god rest its dirty soul) ensures that our data will always arrive at the data warehouse within 5 minutes, which is ideal for a near real time reporting product that greatly enables our end users.

Is Kubernetes worth it? For us, definitely. For anyone else? Really depends on your use case, don't cargo cult this shit.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#212

Post by senordevnyc » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:11 AM UTC

hadiz wrote: post #207

senordevnyc wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$220k cash, $200k equity (or whatever it’s worth in 12 months!)

where is this? also, how many years of experience?

Not going to disclose the company. Smaller public tech company. 10+ yoe.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#213

Post by echelon » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:14 AM UTC

buzzkillington wrote: post #194

streetcat1 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there are actually three tech revolutions going on in parallel: 1) Kuberentes 2) Microservices. 3) AI All of them are based on open source, and all of them are permissionless (I.e. the startup does not need permission from a big company, e.g. an app store owner). They also erode the build-in advantages of big tech: 1) Kubernetes erode cloud lock-in on compute/storage. 2) AI is best serve on the edge. I would say t…

Kubernetes is a solution worse than the problem. Microservices are unix pipes but slower. AI is linear algebra that costs x1000 because of the brand name. There is no revolution in software. We are just building crud as high and as fast as we can because the quality of developers tends to zero as the number of developers increases.

> Kubernetes is a solution worse than the problem.

Not if you're a 1,000+ engineer org with an SOA.

> Microservices are unix pipes but slower.

Humans are way more expensive than the machines running our code. You can always spend more on spinning up additional instances. In reality the overhead isn't that bad. The principles of immutable stateless deploys free up so much mental energy when it comes to thinking about how to get your code out and not break things that it more than pays for itself.

> AI is linear algebra that costs x1000 because of the brand name.

Tell that to my real time voice conversion system I just wrote. There's a lot of new magic happening right now.

> There is no revolution in software.

I'm on a fucking phone responding from hundreds of miles away. We're launching satellites that beam internet.

> We are just building crud

You can't speak for everyone here.

Are you in adtech or a social spyware company? Maybe don't work like that then.

Find meaningful work that speaks to you.

> quality of developers tends to zero as the number of developers increases.

I work with brilliant people.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#214

Post by senordevnyc » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:15 AM UTC

Ozzie_osman wrote: post #185

senordevnyc wrote: post #65

Strongly agree with this. I just did about seven weeks of interviewing in NYC for senior iOS roles, at both startups and big tech companies. To be frank, it was a total shitshow. Especially on the startup side. Here’s some of the bullshit I faced interviewing at early stage companies before accepting an offer literally 2.5x as high as the (multiple) offers that startups made. 1. Shitty equity: one startup wanted me t…

Sorry that was your experience. Just so everyone else reading this does not get the wrong idea, not all startups are like this. Many are, many are not. 10-year exercise windows are becoming more common. Flexible remote work is also more common (in fact, startup I'm at now as co-founder, we let people work from wherever the hell they want... while my friends at large tech co's have to work out of an office, even if th…

I hope these trends continue, but it’s not what I observed over the last couple months.

To be fair, I was specifically not interested in a remote job. Would rather work in an office.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#215

Post by echelon » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:19 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #177

jandrewrogers wrote: post #125

I've had a related discussion with a few VCs in recent months. Some kinds of startups are effectively impossible to build given current structural constraints on financing them, creating an adverse selection for startups that fit the classic model rather than startups with the highest expected ROI. Broadly speaking, engineers will work at a discount to market-clearing wages of maybe 20% if they really like the startu…

This is a good summation of the current challenges with startups that are attempting to compete on technical merit. I know this first hand as I started a computer vision company right around 2012 when the "AI" boom was really picking up steam. I would never dream today of starting a very technical company because every major will poach your talent (happened to me), invest in your competitors or attempt to acquire you…

> I would never dream today of starting a very technical company because every major will poach your talent (happened to me), invest in your competitors or attempt to acquire you (some people don't want to be acquired).

Damn, this is exactly what I want to do. Computer vision too.

Do you have any advice other than "don't"?

Would basing the company on the East coast near a tier-1 research university help with talent?

Could you have strong software engineers support the research roles? Does that pattern work effectively?

Another thing I really want to do is offer a 4-day work week with the promise of sabbaticals and/or remote work. That might not be attractive to everyone, but it's something that would speak to me and that I would want in addition to equity and salary.

Are you still interested in computer vision? Want to chat sometime?

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#216

Post by yibg » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:20 AM UTC

throwaway112234 wrote: post #107

Here's where I've been: - worked at a startup out of college for 85k max plus significant equity (never amounted to anything). Stayed too long. - worked at a later-stage startup starting at 120k, peaking at 130k. Got some stock options there (haven't amounted to anything yet) - took a job at FAANG starting at 400k, plus some stock options. Currently at this job for > 600k base. Plus stock options. While at FAANG, I c…

So Nflx.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#217

Post by jandrewrogers » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:21 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #130

jandrewrogers wrote: post #125

I've had a related discussion with a few VCs in recent months. Some kinds of startups are effectively impossible to build given current structural constraints on financing them, creating an adverse selection for startups that fit the classic model rather than startups with the highest expected ROI. Broadly speaking, engineers will work at a discount to market-clearing wages of maybe 20% if they really like the startu…

> Some kinds of startups are effectively impossible to build given current structural constraints on financing them There are a lot of things that are impossible to raise money for, that are possible to bootstrap. If you're willing to work on something for 5 or 6 years without getting paid, there are lots of opportunities that open up that have high barrier to entry because they essentially can't be copied by venture…

Very few people can afford to bootstrap 5-6 years, that is a privileged position, most viable startups will never be executed if that is the filter. Some startups require many man-years of engineering effort before they can produce an MVP, so after 5-6 years they may have no material traction. Furthermore, startups have a shelf-life beyond which they become borderline un-investable solely by virtue of age. There are always exceptions but I would not want to count on being an exception among exceptions.

Some startups may be amenable to slow bootstrap, but the ones that have this very high wage cost tend not to be those types startups. I love these kinds of hardcore tech startups and believe they are extraordinarily valuable, it is the kind of company I would start, but I am also very realistic about the economics of building a team that can execute within those constraints.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#218

Post by buzzkillington » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:27 AM UTC

echelon wrote: post #213

buzzkillington wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kubernetes is a solution worse than the problem. Microservices are unix pipes but slower. AI is linear algebra that costs x1000 because of the brand name. There is no revolution in software. We are just building crud as high and as fast as we can because the quality of developers tends to zero as the number of developers increases.

> Kubernetes is a solution worse than the problem. Not if you're a 1,000+ engineer org with an SOA. > Microservices are unix pipes but slower. Humans are way more expensive than the machines running our code. You can always spend more on spinning up additional instances. In reality the overhead isn't that bad. The principles of immutable stateless deploys free up so much mental energy when it comes to thinking about…

>Not if you're a 1,000+ engineer org with an SOA.

That's the problem. With a sane simple architecture instead of 40 years of crap on top of crap you wouldn't need thousands of engineers to spin up instances.

>In reality the overhead isn't that bad.

Over 1e2 times if the solution is in software, over 1e5 times if it's an fpga. Around 1e8 if you do it in silicon. You make the savings from not hiring the 1000s of engineers to deploy your bloated horror.

>The principles of immutable stateless deploys

Has nothing to do with k8s. Nixos and Guix are two systems that are as close to functional as possible and they sure as hell aren't 'stateless', even though they come closer than any of the sexy trending tech.

>Tell that to my real time voice conversion system I just wrote.

Thank you project librevox for proving a near infinite training corpus, thank you nvidia for gpus to do linear algebra 1e5 more efficiently than you can on a cpu.

>I'm on a fucking phone responding from hundreds of miles away. We're launching satellites that beam internet.

Like everything else you listed there this is a hardware improvement. A Casio watch from the 90s had the same order of magnitude computational capability as the first generation IMPs. Good luck getting it connected to the internet using any software you could write for it.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#219

Post by antoinevg » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:31 AM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #146

throwaway7951 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fuck being an employee for a startup so they can bleed you dry. Could not agree more, and this is my stance which I will happily share with anyone who cares to listen. I was first employee (and only engineer) at a startup which dangled 'equity' in front of me but didn't deliver. Contract was so full of gotchas that the path to me seeing some sort of actual payoff was astronomically unlikely. 90 day exercise windows…

Liquidation preferences for investors putting actual cash into a business exist for a reason. Suppose I have a company idea, maybe an early prototype and manage to raise $2MM at $10MM post-money valuation. The investors have a 20% stake for their investment. If I decide the next day, “Nah, it’s not going to work; let’s close the company and distribute the assets to the shareholders,” it would be manifestly unfair for…

You don't have to screw the engineers to safeguard your investment from fraud.

Come up with a different mechanism if you ever want anyone competent to work at your startup.

Re: Working for a startup makes less sense

#220

Post by ummonk » Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 4:35 AM UTC

CalChris wrote: post #166

ummonk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not bring on the early engineers as cofounders with sizeable equity in lieu of market-clearing wages?

That’s a title. I’ve never seen an accepted definition of cofounder but mine is anyone pre-money. Someone pre-money is taking a 100% pay cut and often invests their own money.

Cofounders typically get double digit or at least mid-high single digit grants in equity. Whereas employees typically have 1% or less in equity.

If they're this vital to the success of the startup, they should receive equity accordingly.