51–60 of 63 posts
Tired of entitled white girls giving us advice as if any of it applies to us. No doub the next elizabeth holmes. be a young attractive white girl who went to cambridge and you can get a startup job? okay that helps.
Reverse the gender and remove "Cambridge" and there would be no front page article.
> talk to people around you, they’re surprisingly willing to be involved in what you’re doing if it’s interesting and not too onerous for them. Counters the general assumption that if you talk to strangers they’ll think you’re crazy. Maybe if you're a young woman (as the author is) approaching someone at a coffee shop, then sure. Reverse the genders and watch the interaction take on a dramatically different character…
> Reverse the genders and watch the interaction take on a dramatically different character. I dunno, give it a shot. I generally don't have much interest in just randomly starting up conversation, but when I talk to a stranger about something it rarely goes poorly.
you don't know if you don't try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keep in mind what was written in the article regarding the author's job at the time was: The job was technically sales ... And: Yesterday was my last day there as I’m now moving on to something new — planning to develop my currently non-existent technical skills full time. So categorizing the author as being new "to the industry" at that point in time (2015/07/30) is nonsensical unless peripheral exposure counts. Not…
Sorry, I have little idea what your point is. She's was/is a recent graduate, she's new to any industry. If you "stick around" long without increase in salary, equity or experience (preferable all fo them) you're doing it wrong. How it can be interpreted only matter for people who hasn't manged to get the right experience to be in demand. In my opinion of course.
Sorry, I have little idea what your point is.
My point was that anyone entering into the dev/tech world would be wise to spend a year at their first job in order to:
* Learn about what is involved
* Have time to refine their skills
* Be able to show to other companies that they can survive
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be okay if prototypes would be prototypes, but in the software field prototypes are too often taken into production. It's like a designer giving you a small model how they envision it. You don't expect to shrink yourself and live in the model house out of paper. It should be the same with software. Just recall the struggle with Twitter's MVP that failed to be available. Maybe we should differentiate between…
I agree that there is a lot of space for distinction between the kind of work that people are doing in the software field, but I see prototypes being thrown into production as a hugely positive thing, not a problem. Part of the beauty of the current startup landscape is feasibility of throwing a working prototype written by a junior, garbage code and all, into production to see if it gets any traction. It costs littl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet two guys were able to ask everyone in an entire coffee shop what they were working on with a 95% "super friendly" rate. Perhaps some problems are perceived rather than real. https://medium.com/life-learning/what-are-people-working-on-...
I suspect that in a coffee shop in a good area, it really is this easy, male or female. People are generally pretty social if everyone is on equal footing, not obviously busy, and not creating discomfort. Anyone who's tried to get petitions can attest that doing this on a street corner is a much different beast, but I think hallway testing (or lead finding, or whatever else) is more viable than most people think. I'm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I have little idea what your point is. She's was/is a recent graduate, she's new to any industry. If you "stick around" long without increase in salary, equity or experience (preferable all fo them) you're doing it wrong. How it can be interpreted only matter for people who hasn't manged to get the right experience to be in demand. In my opinion of course.
Sorry, I have little idea what your point is. At the time this blog entry was written, she was working in a sales/marketing capacity and not as a coder (her words, not mine). IMHO, this means she was exposed to tech start-ups. She then goes on to say that she had "non-existent technical skills." My point was that anyone entering into the dev/tech world would be wise to spend a year at their first job in order to: * L…
Yes, but that was what she was looking for when she said "find one start-up I wanted to devote the next year or so to building" and what I agreed with as "some sort of minimum commitment as an employee"?
I LOLed so hard at "The thing was at first I couldn’t find one start-up I wanted to devote the next year or so of my life to building." Hint: startup is more like 7-10y+ unless you're just playing at it, or it fails. If you go into it expecting it to be a year, it probably will be.
My plan wasn't to leave after the year, just to re-evaluate if I was learning what I wanted to be in the role. As it turned out, I did leave as I wanted to develop my technical skills instead of carrying along the VC/Biz-dev career path.
I agree that if you're starting your own thing then 7-10 years is a good minimum time frame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
200 hours self-taught followed by 3 months at, say, 80 hours a week is 1160 hours in total. I imagine there are people who spend less time learning to code during a 3 year university course. Plus her learning would be very specifically focused on startup-oriented JavaScript instead of trying to cover everything. I see no reason why the statement "So I can code." should be wrong.
Man that kind of makes me sad that I've wasted so much of my life over the past decade learning one useless 'skill' after another. Its a sad realization that someone who only started coding 3 months ago is kicking my ass finding jobs at startups meanwhile I am being rejected( when they respond) constantly .
Then after I left I spent 2 weeks solidly trying to hit the course requirements, then 3 months on the coding course. There was also time before that learning syntax on coding academy in my evenings.
Since finishing the course (in December 2015) I've been freelancing with some mentorship at Founders & Coders. It's only now that I feel I could apply for a role as junior dev. So really it's been 7 months, and a lot of hours, getting to that standard.
Few things grind my gears like the idea that a person who cares about products being usable and well designed is inherently a "hipster".
This seems like your baggage not the author's; I'm not sure that she ever said what she meant by hipster. I read it differently.
"At SXSW, Rei Inamoto, the chief creative officer for AKQA, shared a nugget of wisdom that I’ve observed to be true: “To run an efficient team, you only need three people: a Hipster, a Hacker, and a Hustler.” - http://www.forbes.com/sites/andyellwood/2012/08/22/the-dream...
It was a colloquial way to get across the point that I couldn't code or design at the point I was looking for a role at a start-up.
I LOLed so hard at "The thing was at first I couldn’t find one start-up I wanted to devote the next year or so of my life to building." Hint: startup is more like 7-10y+ unless you're just playing at it, or it fails. If you go into it expecting it to be a year, it probably will be.
I wrote the post, as some people have picked up in the comments, the one year is a reference to the minimum time I wanted to spend working for someone at a start-up. I used the word build as when you're an early employee that's the dynamic. My plan wasn't to leave after the year, just to re-evaluate if I was learning what I wanted to be in the role. As it turned out, I did leave as I wanted to develop my technical sk…