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

Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

warpspire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#71

Post by EGreg »

jstanley wrote: post #54
EGreg wrote: post #9

And this is why I think fulltime employment is the wrong way to go for many people today. In fact the whole "we are an institution and you are a peon" mentality needs to be disrupted. More companies should hire on a project basis and share the revenues. More companies should try holacracy and abolish a top down chain of command for everything. Then people can really will be compensated on their merit, ie their contri…

> More companies should hire on a project basis and share the revenues. The problem with this is employees being unwilling to take on risk. In general they want to get paid a good amount whether the project succeeds or not.

Not all employees are the same. A kid who lives with his parents (as the OP) or a person receiving UBI or a person in a country with universal healthcare may take more risks, and work on this basis. You don't need EVERYONE to work this way.

Furthermore, this can be done part time by existing employees.

For millions of people, FTE has the same perverse incentives as means tested welfare: they pretend to work, they play office politics, and most of all they are afraid to undertake anything in their own life for fear of losing the guaranteed cashflow. They practice learned helplessness in their life and do not advance.

While some people are ok with this, many like the OP are not.

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#72

Post by gue5t »

atemerev wrote: post #68
RodericDay wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this kind of absurd lionization of the wealthy is part of the problem. I've met some extremely wealthy CEOs, and they warp nothing around them. It's an elite career track and old boys club, that's it.

I met them as well. What industry are you referring to?

Extraordinary claims would do well to find some extraordinary evidence to support them, lest they collapse under the weight of their disproportionate grandeur.

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#73

Post by nfriedly »

This reminds me of my early years - I started doing in web dev work in High School and was excited to be making more than minimum wage!

I started freelancing about halfway through college and quickly learned to hide the fact that I was a student, and my age in general. I recall one of my early clients that had a very distinct negative change in how he treated me after he learned that I was still in college.

I can't complain too much, though, most clients treated me well and I charged enough that I was able to graduate debt free.

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#75

Post by nubbins »

jimbokun wrote: post #62
stdbrouw wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's not what people mean when they say they could run a Fortune 500 company if given the chance. All of the things you list are things that are easily learned, the bigger question is whether in addition to that knowledge the CEOs of big companies have any particular character traits, unique skills or business insights or not.

Why do you think learning all of those things would be "easy"?

Those are essentially solved problems for which you don't need to reinvent the wheel and can copy what any successful small or medium business does.

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#76

Post by josecastillo »

dzamo_norton wrote: post #67

The author feels that his height counted against him, but did anyone actually say "sorry you're too short?". It would be strange client or employer who insisted on a tall developer while age I can accept is a factor for people out there, rightly or wrongly. I'm suggesting that it could be possible to project an inherent sensitivity about one's height onto a separate experience.

That may well be a factor in what's going on, but for whatever reason, there is evidence [1] of a height-based pay gap in hiring and compensation. We're seldom aware of our subconscious biases, but they still influence our actions all the time.

[1] http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspx

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#77

Post by ploggingdev »

kneath wrote: post #74

Author here. Hacker News has long ago blacklisted/blackholed my domain (I am often critical of YCombinator's investment strategies), but the original post can be found on my blog http://warpspire.com/posts/pixels-dont-care — with apostrophes!

I don't know the full backstory of why your domain was blacklisted, but if it's only because of your criticism of YC, that sounds wrong and I'm sure the HN moderators will be happy to remove your domain from the blacklist.

Also, what is the #caboose channel on freenode about? I tried joining to see what it's about, but it looks like it's invite only.

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#78

Post by dahart »

galfarragem wrote: post #48
janwillemb wrote: post #21

The article is from 2013, the guy has gone to greener pastures since then, quite literally: he's "farming trees".[1] [1] https://mobile.twitter.com/kneath

Interesting read from his blog: http://warpspire.com/posts/next

"Psychology, emotion, and interpersonal relationships play a far greater role in shaping policy than any objective fact. Unlike many, I don’t see this as a problem or a bug. It’s just how large groups of people make decisions. We are not robots. We’re leaky bags of meat that have no inclination toward rationality."

Pretty insightful thinking there for a programmer, if you ask me. As a group, we tend to focus on rational facts and ignore the emotional aspects all too often. I also quite enjoy reading Kyle's struggle with how to find happiness and fulfillment. I absolutely love writing software, but after 30 years of it, I'm also struggling to find happiness in it. It is starting to feel more like an addiction than a fulfilling pursuit of life that will help me grow.

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#79

Post by EGreg »

alexchamberlain wrote: post #14
EGreg wrote: post #9

And this is why I think fulltime employment is the wrong way to go for many people today. In fact the whole "we are an institution and you are a peon" mentality needs to be disrupted. More companies should hire on a project basis and share the revenues. More companies should try holacracy and abolish a top down chain of command for everything. Then people can really will be compensated on their merit, ie their contri…

To be honest, I don't like the Qbix Compensation Model. One reason to work for someone else is that they are taking the risk. Within reason, no matter what I do at work, I'll get paid the same at the end of the month. Yes, there is the risk the company could go out of business (a form of job security I guess), and yes, I would expect a fair annual review, but ultimately, I'm able to plan in the medium term for a cons…

Stability at the cost of autonomy breeds complacency, which is the opposite of OP's attitude. Presumably he lived with his parents. But he wants to be paid for his work commensurate with his contributions.

Means tested welfare has the same problems as full time employment: people are so used to that paycheck that they are afraid to do rock the boat and work on something meaningful in ther lives. They just drive the same truck every day, until they lose their job.

In fact, even Adam Smith proposed the free market as a way to achieve equality among men. Even socialist anarchists like Oscar Wilde were most incensed by the degrading nature of the employer-employee relationship.

You don't need this model for everyone. Just for those who are sick and tired of playing office politics and pretending to work 8 hour days becauss they finished in 2 hours and can't be seen doing anything productive for anyone else, since the company can sue them.

Re: Pixels Don’t Care (2013)

#80

Post by jimmaswell »

nailer wrote: post #35
gnrlist wrote: post #24

Just like in sports, you get paid more for what you have done vs what you could do. Having a few really good pieces of work to show off is no guarantee that you'll consistently pump out good work, or that you haven't left clients high and dry before. Since a third party has no real way of gauging that except by your track record, they're taking more of a chance on someone with less of a track record. More risk means…

I honestly do not think most of us could. I hand out with three groups of people: geeks, hacks and lawyers. All of them often easily think they could easily do any other job. This includes the lawyers and journalists thinking that making software is easy. Based on that, I think we're as deluded as they are.

I imagine a whole lot of people could do a better job than Yahoo's new CEO, for example. At that level, being the CEO of a corporation with that level of money that already runs itself, you could likely get by doing pretty much nothing/just going along with your advisors'/the board's advice to keep the company at least in the black.
Post reply on HN