9 ms·

Letter To A Young Programmer Considering A Startup

643 points by twampss 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dustingetz 13y ago
one point al3x didn't talk to: not all startups will teach you to be an awesome engineer. If a startup is really hiring the best of best, a less experienced programmer is not likely to make the cut. Ever look at your code from 6 months, a year, 5 years ago? and how bad it is? Many tech startups don't have time for that, the quality of your work can make or break a startup. Elite startups want "ex-googlers". So if you want to get good, you need to work with people that are better than you, who have already learned from their mistakes so you don't have to. Find the strongest shop that will hire you. It will not be the best shop. It probably won't be an elite startup. But more mature companies can afford to pay for your learning curve. You also will probably make more money, enough to pay off your student debt and save up to bootstrap when you're more experienced.
- cuttooth 13y ago
  This would be (and still is) a great sentiment, but the problem is that so many startups and small development shops are looking for something that most fresh graduates/junior level developers can't offer. It's a real shame, because it appears as if there's often little to no budge, and I worry for the future of the market (and by this I mean for the other 98% of the US which isn't SF or NY) because it's a real issue that's going to start rearing its head, if it hasn't already.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  There are also plenty of startups that don't value or recognize technical skill and where it's easy for a junior engineer to get hired. Those are terrible as well, because (a) they'll make you stay mediocre and (b) you end up learning the wrong lessons.
  - hkmurakami 13y ago
    like that HN'er's story of wiping a production DB accientally and the company (a social gaming company) blaming him and bullying him into resigning. (instead of asking why they had given a Jr. Dev write access to production in the first place)
    - MichaelGG 13y ago
      Giving a "junior dev" access isn't the issue; after all, that dev probably writes code that can execute SQL. The problem there was not having any safeguards against running arbitrary commands and not being able to just rollback from the transaction logs. Seriously, it should be a small annoying incident. Screwed up some data? OK, stop things, restore, rollback to the transaction before you screwed it. Apologize and move on.
    - duaneb 13y ago
      Giving the Jr Dev access wasn't the problem; your site should be Jr Dev proof (i.e. have backups). If that wasn't a problem, then they only have themselves to blame for investing in someone they obviously didn't want. Besides, just because you're inexperienced doesn't excuse stupid behavior, and I'm struggling to think of how one might accidentally drop a database after logging into a production environment—I would suspect that people were already lax about it if a Jr Dev was doing it.
      - bcbrown 13y ago
        If I recall correctly, he was developing a new feature, and the only way to test his work was by creating and dropping test tables, on the production db. One day he dropped the wrong thing. I don't think he had any technical or academic background, and there was no oversight.
        duaneb 13y ago
        > the only way to test his work was by creating and dropping test tables, on the production db. Really? He couldn't restore a backup locally and test against that? You guys couldn't roll back via transaction log? Mistakes ALWAYS happen, and it's just unfortunate that the Jr Dev was the first person to get screwed by one.
- larsberg 13y ago
  Great point. A good rule of thumb in jobs is that if you are the undisputed top <X>, make sure that you are being compensated very, very well. Because you just sold out. It is quite hard to reach new levels of expertise without explicit, task-related mentoring, and if you're trading off that kind of growth, do it explicitly. Back when I was a manager, I used to find it somewhat depressing to interview people who had gone to startups or non-tech firms for 5-10 years, reached "senior developer" or "architect" roles, and whose levels of expertise were indistinguishable from the median recent stanford grad. Certainly, they knew more "things" but had failed to grow in either scope or depth.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Certainly, they knew more "things" but had failed to grow in either scope or depth. It's really easy to let career development and general-purpose learning go to slack when you believe this thing you're spending 80 hours per week on is going to make you rich and change the world-- and when you're surrounded by people who (equally irrationally) believe the exact same thing.
  - dustingetz 13y ago
    that first sentance is an amazing way to frame salary negotiation, thank you!
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  I run a bootstrapped company and we hire the cheapest engineers we can find. I interview for competence in the one thing they understand, and then just how fast they learn. I cannot overstate the number of people out there that are incredibly smart, but can't describe basic information like how the HTTP protocol works. It is completely baffling. These people can be explained how the protocol works in 10 minutes, and spend 8 hours at home looking at the Chrome web inspector, and completely grock the protocol. I find myself a seed planter. These people are smart enough to figure it out, but for some reason they don't do it without a 10 minute verbal overview. My advice to any to young person is to judge the job by the quality of the mentor. Smart people feel ecstasy when learning new things, and if you have anxiety about your job, then you are likely in the wrong position.
  - RockyMcNuts 13y ago
    Most important thing in your first job is your boss. You are going to learn a massive amount, not just the job skills, but how to work in a group/company. The distance is massive between learning the right things from someone who does things in a first class way, and the wrong things from someone mediocre or worse. Second is the company. You join the right company, and it's a solid growing company, or a rocket ship, you have lots of opportunity to learn and grow. Conversely, if it's a truly awful company known for unethical practices or engineering nightmares, it can end up haunting you, both in teaching you the wrong things and a possible red flag on your resume if you stay too long.
    - jcampbell1 13y ago
      In a flat organization, your boss is going to be irrelevant. I would gauge a company by whether the interviewers teach or belittle. I personally find belittling okay, and can learn in that environment. "fuck you, if you are such an expert, then you can explain it to me. If you can't explain it, then you are probably full of shit." I have no problem saying that, but most people won't/shouldn't. I get high from learning no matter whether the people are assholes or teachers. Most people need good mentors that are not managers. Any organization where managers have time to teach are too hierarchical.
- jaimebuelta 13y ago
  If you work on a startup, almost by definition you'll be doing a lot of different stuff, and changing a lot of things. That is a great environment to learn new different stuff (even out of the engineering field). Maybe not deep knowledge, on the other hand... And, of course, working with great people will make you learn faster and better.
absherwin 13y ago
Think of what's being built as a machine for taking several great ideas and spreading them to areas to which they haven't yet spread. While there's much talk of disruption in startups, their goal isn't to destroy, it's to build something better and the destruction results therefrom. Considered that way, the institutionalization of startups doesn't contradict their mission any more than writing in a higher level language makes one less of a programmer. I agree with most of the details; most people's incentives aren't pure. While that may not be ideal, yet far it has accelerated innovation.
michaelochurch 13y ago
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-your-time-in-crappy-startup-jobs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-yo...
- gmack 13y ago
  Thank you for posting this. I know it's from last year, but there are realities here that should be understood by every engineer who is considering working for a startup. Be as hard-core about your negotiation skills and awareness of employment terms, as you are about your coding skills.
- carterschonwald 13y ago
  That's a classic article . I'm glad you're citing your posts now. That ones a really good one.
sthatipamala 13y ago
Startups have become something of a career path or lifestyle. It has developed into a scene, with its own media coverage and drama. I see a lot of clueless college students wanting to "do startups" as if it were any old job. My perspective is this: Found or join a startup if have a specific product/service you want to build at a large scale. You'll earn your wealth through the equivalent amount of pain (http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html). But coming to SF and floundering around is no better than aimlessly moving to LA to become a movie star. There are a lot better ways to spend your youth. Edit to address my last point: Sure, there are many benefits to coming out here. But there's no benefit in coming here to just be a "scenester."
- larrys 13y ago
  "But coming to SF and floundering around" Depends on the alternatives though. Much better to be "floundering around" and amongst a group of people with similar goals then trying to do the same in Topeka Kansas (arbitrary nothing against that city.) To start you could end up meeting people who do something that will give you opportunity. Environments like this are rich in contacts as well that you can make. (Not a reason to drop out of something that you are on a path to but if you can't find that path it certainly will give you a leg up.)
- Zimahl 13y ago
  But coming to SF and floundering around is no better than aimlessly moving to LA to become a movie star. Not to be nit-picky but getting start-up experience isn't quite the same as going to casting calls while working at Olive Garden to make ends meet.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    What about when you work at a no-name software shop to make ends meet while you pitch to VCs to get your own startup off the ground? The analogy may be more apt than it first seems! ;)
    - doktrin 13y ago
galactus 13y ago
I liked this part: "Startups have been systematized, mythologized, culturally and socially de-risked; reduced down to formulas and recipes. Yet, there is no enduring formula for creativity and rebellion."
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Most of these startups would be just regular corporate projects except for the fact that corporate stinginess and lack of vision is at an all time high. Startup "CEOs" are just project managers on a shoestring race to the bottom, as observed in the long hours and extreme personal sacrifice involved. The reason the strategy works so well is that corporate politics are even more stifling to experimentation than VC-istan (but not by much). In ten years, there'll be an open-allocation (Valve style) company that has figured out how to solve this for realz.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - digaozao 13y ago
    Some companies seem to be like a VC in disguise: I would think of Supercell(http://blog.idonethis.com/post/48277151394/least-powerful-ceo http://blog.idonethis.com/post/48277151394/least-powerful-ce...) and Google when it had 20% free time. I liked the 20% free time model, people have some freedom to pursue their goals without worrying so much about money. It probably leads to more innovation being done as it takes money out of people's concerns. I don't know how it's done now on Google.
marssaxman 13y ago
"There are so many ways to make a dent in the world", he says, but fails to suggest any. So what if the startup thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? It's still better than the alternative. What else are you going to do? Go waste your time in a big corporation learning how to withstand endless, meaningless tedium? If you're young you can probably afford to take some risk, so go take some risk! Take a shot at accomplishing something cool. The big boring corporations will always be there. If your startup experience sucks, so what? You're still better off than you'd have been if you'd spent the time playing small cog in a big machine.
- roskilli 13y ago
  I agree, the whole post seems to be written by someone writing a sad and sullen reflection of their last decade or two. I think having a mix of both startups and high profile tech companies in one's CV is great backing to do your own startup, enter contracting or find yourself in a challenging and stimulating career job at your employer of choice. I think the article makes some good points about potential bad eggs in the startup world but is not a balanced true representation of the landscape.
- Zimahl 13y ago
  There are plenty of small to medium sized business where you get to learn and have an impact. I tend to favor those - I have the autonomy to contribute without the overhead of 6 different managers.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Honestly, my observation is that there's nothing out there that "gives you" that opportunity. You have to make it. Fight for it. Steal time if you must. The idealized university-like company that makes you more productive as a part of it than you would be with 100% freedom over your time is, at this point, an extreme rarity. The basic-research labs have been pretty much shut down. The problem with shitty startups is that they mislead people into believing that they're opening so many doors that it's worth letting the networking and independent skill building (each of which should get 10 hours per week; ideally that's out-of-work but do it at the expense of your day job if necessary-- fire up a MOOC during a workday lull; diversify) go to slack. Then, they pass four years of 60-hour weeks only to find that the executive-level or research (everyone wants to be an executive or in R&D; either controlling others or free from control) roles promised them were given to new hires or don't exist, and they realize they've wasted 4 years of their lives. The lesson isn't "never work for startups" because there are great startups and (obviously) awful big-company jobs. It's "don't believe the hype and let your networking and independent learning go to hell". You only go all-in as a founder, not as some subordinate employee. The latter is just stupid; but you see it all the time.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
davecap1 13y ago
"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"
chuckcode 13y ago
Don't start a company because you like coding, Aza Raskin summed it up nicely for designers but same hold trues for programmers (http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/psychological-pitfalls-and-lessons-of-a-designer-founder/ http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/psychological-pitfalls-and-l...) Working for a startup has been a good source of learning new skills for me but as the author notes can be hazardous to the rest of your life...
intrazoo 13y ago
You see the same problems in students going to film school because they like to see themselves as a director. You see the same problems in big studios making blockbusters for money. To be Primer, you have to have a specific, burning idea. To be Fassbinder, you need to have something to say (and be a genius). Else, you can only aspire to be Cars 2 or The Phantom Menace.
YuriNiyazov 13y ago
And this is why I stopped playing that particular game and started playing a very different, but no less systematized and traditional game: being a consultant software developer with clients that pay per project or per hour, rather than in four-year equity vesting cycles.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  I'd love to read a blog post on how you set this up, and what kind of work you do!
robocat 13y ago
Business influence, autonomy, responsibility, variety, opportunity, risk, unclear solutions to open problems : things a small new startup are likely to offer to a 2[0-9] year old and a large business is less likely to. The question is, do your personality and abilities suit a startup environment? Or is one more fitted to a structured environment? Maybe a short internship would tell. If someone inexperienced says they want to do a startup, my advice would be to join a business with 40 to 80 employees in a market that interests you, learn how to tell who are the productive people in sales, marketing, operations and development and start a business with a couple of them. Work out which ones are hard working, effective and entrepreneurial and want to begin a business. Knowing who is excellent in areas you are weak in is a critical skill to learn (and I find extremely hard to judge unless working fairly closely with them). Many many businesses don't know who the real key employees are, or are under-valuing/under-appreciating them. I had opportunity to join the most effective dev and marketer in a business I was working in when 24 and I didn't jump on the opportunity so I missed out (stupid me). I created a similar opportunity many years later, and it is working out very well (although rough for a couple of years).
- robocat 13y ago
  Conversely, learning how to tell who are lemons, and you must not join is also critical. Just because a few people are doing a start-up that sounds good doesn't mean it is a good idea to join those people. One must also learn to have enough insight to work out if one is a lemon oneself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Another great place to learn these skills and to pick the really skilled is in an incubator or shared space. That has also worked for me.
luckydude 13y ago
I don't have a lot to add here other than liking the two sides of the coin thing the author mentioned. With any choice there are pros and cons. Lots of people, not just the young people, tend to look at the pros and pretend the cons don't exist.
- johnjlocke 13y ago
  I really liked this article, it doesn't just apply to startups. Engineers are like the rockstars of today. Instead of the Sunset Strip, everyone is headed to the Bay Area for their own shot at glory.What's to be remembered is that nothing should be done except for the inherent love of what you're doing, and nothing should be done purely for the sake of "success". Be a decent person, have respect and courtesy for others, and you can enjoy life, whatever the vehicle of your creativity is.
teawithcarl 13y ago
Alex Payne is the best.
jparishy 13y ago
As a twenty year old who left school (in late 2011) and is currently working for a startup, the article really struck a chord with me and I must admit that it is very accurate, particularly the section, "Startups have an ongoing interpersonal cost." That being said, I have very few regrets and have learned more than I could have ever imagined since leaving school. But there are days I wish I stayed for both personal (ex. making friends is hard and it is insanely easy to become woefully lonely) and professional/career (ex. I spend many hours on top of work studying algorithms and mathematics I would have been taught in university) reasons.
volandovengo 13y ago
Great way to end it: "If you’re not part of the intended audience and are very very mad that a stranger on the Internet has a different opinion than you, I encourage you to direct your energy into an alternative argument that a young person might benefit from reading."
samfisher83 13y ago
In some professions this guy would be considered young. Its kind of amusing to read. He has made it so even though there is some bitterness in his writing, he has obviously benefited from the system, and unlike being a struggling actor you are making some bank at a startup with a potential to make it big. Compare that to making ends meet as a waiter.
- datalus 13y ago
  Any idea how old Alex is? My guess is late 20s to early 30s, which makes me wince at the title.
  - dchichkov 13y ago
    Why? Age is of little importance and can be misleading. It is not uncommon between people here to have started developing software professionally as teenagers or even as kids. By the time someone is in early 30s that someone may as well have been coding for a quarter of a century. And on the opposite, you can have somebody just starting at that age, with minimal or zero engineering experience.
- johnjlocke 13y ago
  I don't think this article sounded bitter at all. It just sounded like someone who's been there, done that, and has perspective on career and life.
205guy 13y ago
I feel the OP raised 2 strawmen: 1) Many jobs are at startups now, and those startups are roughly similar, therefore it's not cool anymore ("is the novelty even there"). That is just bad logic. It may be that startups replicated high pressure low gratification corporate jobs, but that's not inherent in the argument that there are more startup jobs. It could also be the case that the tech economy has really shifted from large corporations to small agile (and sometimes fun to work at) startups. 2) Startup jobs turn into corporate jobs, so you shouldn't take them in the first place. That change is not a given, nor is it that the change will be done poorly, nor is it that the employee won't want the change by then. Anyways, if you get 1-3 years of startup experience that you enjoy, make contacts, have a chance at a payout, then there's nothing wrong with taking the startup job with the knowledge it may change and you may want out later--in fact, in every US employment contract, it's a given that the employee or the company may change their minds later. I do agree with the idea that we need to demystify the startup scene. Being beholden to a VC is no different than to a corporate middle manager, they're both trying to carve out their little empires with your work. I think the interpersonal cost is real in certain cases, and the comment about fetishizing disruption is right on. But the 2 logical errors above weaken the message, especially since they are above the more lucid observations.
- obstacle1 13y ago
  1) The author isn't arguing that. He is objecting to the portrayal of startups as more free, open, and fluid than traditional enterprise. Unless I'm bad at reading the author didn't even mention the ratio of startup:traditional jobs, so that isn't relevant. And the objection wasn't to the fact that all startups are roughly equivalent (which was, though, a point made). The objection was that startups are roughly equivalent to traditional enterprise in structure, form, and execution (i.e. Super Cool Startup is just as non-free, non-open, and non-fluid as Enterprise Shop Inc., and this is systemic). The equivalence comes from the startup scene having been wholly co-opted by a system (VC-istan, anyone?) that amounts to traditional enterprise (formulaic, mass-producing, repeatable templates). This is a textbook binary deconstruction: the startup/corporate dichotomy as it exists in popular consciousness is false. Food for thought, see pg's comment in this thread: apparently there is now a formula for creativity and rebellion. Questions: if you can formulaically rebel, how is that rebellion? By definition your 'rebellion' is deterministic -- how is that possible? If 'creativity' can come by formula, what are you creating? The 'new' is just a function of what you already knew, i.e., it already existed. So the 'new' is by definition not new at all. 2) Again, the author didn't make this point. He argued that people considering taking a startup job should consciously look through popular delusion and consider the bad with the good. There was no mention that one should or shouldn't take a particular kind of job.
fixxer 13y ago
Really liked this part: "As there was in the first dot com bubble there is a current proliferation of startups, incubators, accelerators, angel/seed funding, and so forth. ... accompanied by a shared set of values, norms, and language." I'm currently doing a start-up. I went the University incubator route and have regretted it ever since. Feels so pedantic...
- jfasi 13y ago
  I'm not sure I understand. Could you please elaborate?
icpmacdo 13y ago
It is strange how anti startup HN seems.
beatpanda 13y ago
>Maybe the best way to meet your goal is starting a non-profit or going into politics. I'd like to know whose, or which, goals are better met going into politics. Politics, at least in America, are a machine that eats good ideas and shits murder, and anybody with half a brain and the desire to change the world should know, from even casual observation, to steer clear. For example, Elon Musk and entrepreneurs like him have done more to move the world away from fossil fuels and towards alternative energy in the last decade than the U.S. government (at any level) has in the 25 years they've been aware of climate change. Musk is inventing the future, and in Congress they're still arguing over whether climate change exists or not. And that's just how fast things move in that arena. It's unavoidable. At this point in history, even if you don't care about money at all, even if hate for capitalism runs deep in your blood, starting a business is the only means available for make a positive impact in the world on a reasonable time scale. And I should also point out, going into politics or non-profits means you would actually be spending more time raising money than you would if you were running a VC-backed startup. So, if your goal is to get really good at raising money, the author's sentence makes sense. For any other meaning, it doesn't.
- lukifer 13y ago
  > starting a business is the only means available for make a positive impact in the world on a reasonable time scale There is a great deal of validity to what you say, but blanket statements like this are absurd. What capitalist venture is going to make an impact on gay marriage? What was the business model of MLK Jr.'s speeches?
  - beatpanda 13y ago
    I would argue that Khan Academy is doing more to correct disparities in our education system, including of the kind caused by centuries of institutionalized racism, by making high-quality tutoring available for free on the Internet, than any modern-day legislator or activist. Large companies like Google are able to set standards in their industries around things like health benefits, which, while not providing the social recognition many gay marriage advocates are after, does provide one of the material benefits of marriage without waiting for the government's blessing. And meanwhile, the systems that our government uses to suppress movements like King's (in his day it was COINTELPRO) have gotten frighteningly more effective. The Occupy movement was subject to a massive, coordinated campaign of extreme police repression before it even started. Given how bad police repression of the civil rights movement already was, imagine what would have happened if anything as pervasive as the Patriot Act or computer-assisted social network analysis had been available.
pg 13y ago
"Yet, there is no enduring formula for creativity and rebellion." This is a fine sounding statement, but it's false. We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings. Several? The only one I remember from reading DaVinci's journal was along the lines of "have the students work alongside each other," referring to his apprentices. The idea was that seeing each other's work would motivate each apprentice to excel and one-up one another. The YC dinners would be the modern incarnation of that. It's a good idea. I thought that it was the only remark DaVinci wrote down about fostering creative process, though. Most of his journal is dedicated to observations from his research projects.
- yarou 13y ago
  True, we have been refining techniques for incremental improvement. But what of disruptive technology? Can something that is chaotic and non-deterministic have a deterministic set of steps to achieve? Is it reproducible, ceteris paribus? That's how I parse "creativity and rebellion".
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- TheBiv 13y ago
  If it is false, what is the true enduring formula for creativity and rebellion?
- trustfundbaby 13y ago
  I dunno Paul, I think I agree with Alex on this. I see where you are coming from, because I think there are things you can do to encourage this kind of creativity, but there aren't guaranteed ways to ensure that it happens. I get the feeling that you might be thinking about creativity in a more general sense than Alex might be though, but thats total speculation on my part.
sloria 13y ago
I have collected my favorite quotes and talking points from this piece, Michael Church's "Don’t waste your time in crappy startup jobs", and Aza Raskin's "Psychological Pitfalls And Lessons of A Designer-Founder". Here: http://www.stevenloria.com/disillusionment-in-startups-collected-quotes/ http://www.stevenloria.com/disillusionment-in-startups-colle... I intend to add to this list of quotes, and I also welcome others to email me related bits of wisdom.
- jfasi 13y ago
  That is a beautiful website. Is it custom, or is it something I can install myself? Feel free to refuse to answer :P
  - sloria 13y ago
    Thanks. It is this: https://github.com/holman/left https://github.com/holman/left with just a few modifications.
jonathanjaeger 13y ago
First off, I agree with much of what you said. I think there is a way to be insanely devoted to your craft and still maintain your relationships. Sure, you might not be the social butterfly who goes to parties every night, but if you can't maintain some small semblance of a life, what's the point? Unless you're some entrepreneur martyr.. "A startup is just a means to an end. Consider the end, and don’t seek to revel in the means." -I disagree with this. The journey is often the most exciting, exhilarating part. Creating something from nothing is what I want to live for.
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  To extrapolate form the rest of his post, I think he phrased that part poorly. I think he really meant to advise not to revel in merely being a participant in a startup, as if that should provide you with satisfaction in and of itself. If you're in the startup world and have chosen your position well enough to be enjoying the journey, I don't think you're the target audience. He's really targeting the people who might become entrepreneurial martyrs.
trustfundbaby 13y ago
> "start-ups are full of [young] people working hard to make other people rich" This is very cynical but there is a lot of truth to it, especially in the current climate of "Who wants to be a millionaire (Startup edition)". I think that if you find yourself in a startup where you won't profit much from the upside if there is one, and you're not making a salary that compensates for this then you're probably not at the kind of startup you should be at.
triplesec 13y ago
This is a great cautionary polemic to those who may jump in without understanding what they really want. I'm sure it has flaws, but the intent of the author seems to be fair and careful warning to the unthinking. Fine advice, and if you still want to do a startup having analysed this piece, then you're in the right business!
demianturner 13y ago
I wonder how many people get the Rilke reference? Why is it that programmers are not well read?
thebear 13y ago
Many people seem to believe that if you want to do a startup, you have to do it when you're young. Young people can afford to take a lot of risk, because they have few responsibilities to hold them back. And if they fail, there'll be plenty of opportunity to make up for lost time. What few people seem to realize is that there is a second phase in your life where almost exactly the same is true, namely, when you're old. The only thing that is no longer true is that you won't be able to make up for lost time in case of failure. But if you lived a good life, you don't have to, because you've already made up for lost time in the past. And there are some extra perks, like you've probably got money to fund yourself. And you should know a thing or two that you didn't when you were young. And BTW, I'm not just blabbering here. I'm 60 and I'm doing it. Granted, I haven't been successful so far, but having the time of my life anyway. No fears, no regrets, and high like a kite on adrenalin 24/7.
- jfasi 13y ago
  Thanks for saying this. I'm an early twenty's kid who's decided to forgo the fashionable startup scene in favor of an extremely well-paid (given my age) position in a top-ten tech giant. I have a hunch that it would be more sensible to sharpen my skills when I'm young, and focus on becoming a happy and fulfilled person, only to emerge as a powerhouse of compounded experience and technical and social skill. As someone who's already emerged on the other side of that process, can you speak to one's capability to capitalize on that experience and personal growth throughout one's life? Does middle age have to be a time of complacency and conservatism?
  - thebear 13y ago
    >> [...] can you speak to one's capability to capitalize on that experience and personal growth throughout one's life? << Given the fact that I haven't been successful with a late-in-life startup, some may deny me the credibility to speak to that. That being said, I do believe that yes, you can capitalize on past growth and experience. That's assuming you can pull off that Zen thing of keeping your beginner's mind. Know what you know, know what you don't know, and strive to be an expert with a beginner's mind. >> Does middle age have to be a time of complacency and conservatism? << Complacency, no, that doesn't sound good to me. I believe you should always be able to describe yourself with an adjective or a combination of adjectives such as "ambitious," "dedicated," and the like. Of course that could be dedication to a family, accompanied by less ambition in your professional life. But that's still different from complacency. Conservatism, yes, that would describe my own middle age pretty well. Everybody's rhythm of life is different of course. But it makes a lot of sense to have one extended period in your life where you plant a tree and watch it grow. The middle of one's life is a pretty good time to do that.
makerops 13y ago
I started, and invested my own money (6 figures, that I earned) in a b&m business in my 20s, lost a lot of time, money, and experienced a lot of bullshit... but I learned a lot. That preamble is because, while I have no experience with your typical SV startup, I have put my own time and money at risk. By joining a startup you are pretty much guaranteed a salary, an office to go to, and you have to weigh the risks of lower salary vs options, but so what? That's no more risk then someone working a corporate 9-5 and chooses to actively manage their portfolio, which really is minimal risk imo (wrong?). As an outside observer it seems to be in the financiers interest to perpetuate the sexiness of startups to "market" their investments. Can someone that is more into the startup culture clear this up for me? What risk is there in joining a startup as an employee other than what I have described?
Osmn 13y ago
Good read, pretty relevant to me as a 17 year old entrepreneur. Love the "A startup is just a means to an end." paragraph.
KedarMhaswade 13y ago
I am still trying to understand Alex's post well, but it reminds me of a Warren Buffett quote: "Bad things are not obvious when times are good".
esharef 13y ago
What's the most entrepreneurial thing you've done to get a job at a start-up?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dschiptsov 13y ago
First become known (or even famous) for what you do, then apply yourself to an actual, unsolved problem (in a very small time window) then people with positions and money will notice you, and then they will arrange somehow that Yahoo will buy your shit.)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
losethos 13y ago
God is just. As Pete said, "When it comes to women, when you lose, you lose and when you win, you really lose." God says... Professorship filling face_palm deferred looker-on powers conception Greek_to_me pressed deferred interpret concord malicious prisoner oppose vent man replenish hype perceives physic re-collected India remain you_don't_say hart perverseness fuller show shoe Saudi_Arabia mark wilderness if_and_only_if employest reclaim unsung_hero Ivory_Coast science combinations one's springs pleasantness uproar Victor scattered prolix makes seeketh meekness communicated greatness cover heresies arithmetic tormented willed easy endeavour circuits between curiosities unspeakable ---- My code is divinely inspired, like the Bible; a stumbling block that became the cornerstone.
CWSpear13 13y ago
I'm a freelancer that has started his own company, and I contract with a lot of companies, one in particular could have been considered a startup at one point, but I'm not sure you'd call it that now. I think of VC as debt. I've worked really hard to stay out of debt. Apart from a house, my goal is to never take a loan out or borrow money for anything. We have two pretty crappy cars, but we paid cash for them, and honestly, after some repairs and such, they've been running fine. To bring it home: I treat a lot of my business the same way. I'm extremely skeptical of doing work on "borrowed money." This once-startup contract I have has been profitable (by good margins) for 5 years now, and I've been working on a $2 million project for them about 7 months now, but it was all with money the company already had. I've turned down lucrative work in the past because they had financiers involved. I tend to work on smaller, more manageable projects (with the exception of the aforementioned example) because of this. Maybe a little more work at times (to find work), maybe a little less money, but I've never had an issue getting paid (except that one time when the business literally got washed away in Hurricane Sandy), I've not had to meet crazy deadlines or feel that sort of pressure, and I'd still consider myself to be doing very, very well. All that said, and I am a college dropout. But I wouldn't recommend people do drop out of college, especially for a VC gig.

643 points by twampss 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

one point al3x didn't talk to: not all startups will teach you to be an awesome engineer. If a startup is really hiring the best of best, a less experienced programmer is not likely to make the cut. Ever look at your code from 6 months, a year, 5 years ago? and how bad it is? Many tech startups don't have time for that, the quality of your work can make or break a startup. Elite startups want "ex-googlers". So if you want to get good, you need to work with people that are better than you, who have already learned from their mistakes so you don't have to. Find the strongest shop that will hire you. It will not be the best shop. It probably won't be an elite startup. But more mature companies can afford to pay for your learning curve. You also will probably make more money, enough to pay off your student debt and save up to bootstrap when you're more experienced.

cuttooth 13y ago
This would be (and still is) a great sentiment, but the problem is that so many startups and small development shops are looking for something that most fresh graduates/junior level developers can't offer. It's a real shame, because it appears as if there's often little to no budge, and I worry for the future of the market (and by this I mean for the other 98% of the US which isn't SF or NY) because it's a real issue that's going to start rearing its head, if it hasn't already.
michaelochurch 13y ago
There are also plenty of startups that don't value or recognize technical skill and where it's easy for a junior engineer to get hired. Those are terrible as well, because (a) they'll make you stay mediocre and (b) you end up learning the wrong lessons.
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  like that HN'er's story of wiping a production DB accientally and the company (a social gaming company) blaming him and bullying him into resigning. (instead of asking why they had given a Jr. Dev write access to production in the first place)
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    Giving a "junior dev" access isn't the issue; after all, that dev probably writes code that can execute SQL. The problem there was not having any safeguards against running arbitrary commands and not being able to just rollback from the transaction logs. Seriously, it should be a small annoying incident. Screwed up some data? OK, stop things, restore, rollback to the transaction before you screwed it. Apologize and move on.
  - duaneb 13y ago
    Giving the Jr Dev access wasn't the problem; your site should be Jr Dev proof (i.e. have backups). If that wasn't a problem, then they only have themselves to blame for investing in someone they obviously didn't want. Besides, just because you're inexperienced doesn't excuse stupid behavior, and I'm struggling to think of how one might accidentally drop a database after logging into a production environment—I would suspect that people were already lax about it if a Jr Dev was doing it.
    - bcbrown 13y ago
      If I recall correctly, he was developing a new feature, and the only way to test his work was by creating and dropping test tables, on the production db. One day he dropped the wrong thing. I don't think he had any technical or academic background, and there was no oversight.
      - duaneb 13y ago
        > the only way to test his work was by creating and dropping test tables, on the production db. Really? He couldn't restore a backup locally and test against that? You guys couldn't roll back via transaction log? Mistakes ALWAYS happen, and it's just unfortunate that the Jr Dev was the first person to get screwed by one.
larsberg 13y ago
Great point. A good rule of thumb in jobs is that if you are the undisputed top <X>, make sure that you are being compensated very, very well. Because you just sold out. It is quite hard to reach new levels of expertise without explicit, task-related mentoring, and if you're trading off that kind of growth, do it explicitly. Back when I was a manager, I used to find it somewhat depressing to interview people who had gone to startups or non-tech firms for 5-10 years, reached "senior developer" or "architect" roles, and whose levels of expertise were indistinguishable from the median recent stanford grad. Certainly, they knew more "things" but had failed to grow in either scope or depth.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Certainly, they knew more "things" but had failed to grow in either scope or depth. It's really easy to let career development and general-purpose learning go to slack when you believe this thing you're spending 80 hours per week on is going to make you rich and change the world-- and when you're surrounded by people who (equally irrationally) believe the exact same thing.
- dustingetz 13y ago
  that first sentance is an amazing way to frame salary negotiation, thank you!
jcampbell1 13y ago
I run a bootstrapped company and we hire the cheapest engineers we can find. I interview for competence in the one thing they understand, and then just how fast they learn. I cannot overstate the number of people out there that are incredibly smart, but can't describe basic information like how the HTTP protocol works. It is completely baffling. These people can be explained how the protocol works in 10 minutes, and spend 8 hours at home looking at the Chrome web inspector, and completely grock the protocol. I find myself a seed planter. These people are smart enough to figure it out, but for some reason they don't do it without a 10 minute verbal overview. My advice to any to young person is to judge the job by the quality of the mentor. Smart people feel ecstasy when learning new things, and if you have anxiety about your job, then you are likely in the wrong position.
- RockyMcNuts 13y ago
  Most important thing in your first job is your boss. You are going to learn a massive amount, not just the job skills, but how to work in a group/company. The distance is massive between learning the right things from someone who does things in a first class way, and the wrong things from someone mediocre or worse. Second is the company. You join the right company, and it's a solid growing company, or a rocket ship, you have lots of opportunity to learn and grow. Conversely, if it's a truly awful company known for unethical practices or engineering nightmares, it can end up haunting you, both in teaching you the wrong things and a possible red flag on your resume if you stay too long.
  - jcampbell1 13y ago
    In a flat organization, your boss is going to be irrelevant. I would gauge a company by whether the interviewers teach or belittle. I personally find belittling okay, and can learn in that environment. "fuck you, if you are such an expert, then you can explain it to me. If you can't explain it, then you are probably full of shit." I have no problem saying that, but most people won't/shouldn't. I get high from learning no matter whether the people are assholes or teachers. Most people need good mentors that are not managers. Any organization where managers have time to teach are too hierarchical.
jaimebuelta 13y ago
If you work on a startup, almost by definition you'll be doing a lot of different stuff, and changing a lot of things. That is a great environment to learn new different stuff (even out of the engineering field). Maybe not deep knowledge, on the other hand... And, of course, working with great people will make you learn faster and better.

absherwin 13y ago

Think of what's being built as a machine for taking several great ideas and spreading them to areas to which they haven't yet spread. While there's much talk of disruption in startups, their goal isn't to destroy, it's to build something better and the destruction results therefrom. Considered that way, the institutionalization of startups doesn't contradict their mission any more than writing in a higher level language makes one less of a programmer. I agree with most of the details; most people's incentives aren't pure. While that may not be ideal, yet far it has accelerated innovation.

michaelochurch 13y ago

http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-your-time-in-crappy-startup-jobs/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/dont-waste-yo...

gmack 13y ago
Thank you for posting this. I know it's from last year, but there are realities here that should be understood by every engineer who is considering working for a startup. Be as hard-core about your negotiation skills and awareness of employment terms, as you are about your coding skills.
carterschonwald 13y ago
That's a classic article . I'm glad you're citing your posts now. That ones a really good one.

sthatipamala 13y ago

Startups have become something of a career path or lifestyle. It has developed into a scene, with its own media coverage and drama. I see a lot of clueless college students wanting to "do startups" as if it were any old job. My perspective is this: Found or join a startup if have a specific product/service you want to build at a large scale. You'll earn your wealth through the equivalent amount of pain (http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html). But coming to SF and floundering around is no better than aimlessly moving to LA to become a movie star. There are a lot better ways to spend your youth. Edit to address my last point: Sure, there are many benefits to coming out here. But there's no benefit in coming here to just be a "scenester."

larrys 13y ago
"But coming to SF and floundering around" Depends on the alternatives though. Much better to be "floundering around" and amongst a group of people with similar goals then trying to do the same in Topeka Kansas (arbitrary nothing against that city.) To start you could end up meeting people who do something that will give you opportunity. Environments like this are rich in contacts as well that you can make. (Not a reason to drop out of something that you are on a path to but if you can't find that path it certainly will give you a leg up.)
Zimahl 13y ago
But coming to SF and floundering around is no better than aimlessly moving to LA to become a movie star. Not to be nit-picky but getting start-up experience isn't quite the same as going to casting calls while working at Olive Garden to make ends meet.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  What about when you work at a no-name software shop to make ends meet while you pitch to VCs to get your own startup off the ground? The analogy may be more apt than it first seems! ;)
  - doktrin 13y ago

galactus 13y ago

I liked this part: "Startups have been systematized, mythologized, culturally and socially de-risked; reduced down to formulas and recipes. Yet, there is no enduring formula for creativity and rebellion."

michaelochurch 13y ago
Most of these startups would be just regular corporate projects except for the fact that corporate stinginess and lack of vision is at an all time high. Startup "CEOs" are just project managers on a shoestring race to the bottom, as observed in the long hours and extreme personal sacrifice involved. The reason the strategy works so well is that corporate politics are even more stifling to experimentation than VC-istan (but not by much). In ten years, there'll be an open-allocation (Valve style) company that has figured out how to solve this for realz.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- digaozao 13y ago
  Some companies seem to be like a VC in disguise: I would think of Supercell(http://blog.idonethis.com/post/48277151394/least-powerful-ceo http://blog.idonethis.com/post/48277151394/least-powerful-ce...) and Google when it had 20% free time. I liked the 20% free time model, people have some freedom to pursue their goals without worrying so much about money. It probably leads to more innovation being done as it takes money out of people's concerns. I don't know how it's done now on Google.

marssaxman 13y ago

"There are so many ways to make a dent in the world", he says, but fails to suggest any. So what if the startup thing isn't all it's cracked up to be? It's still better than the alternative. What else are you going to do? Go waste your time in a big corporation learning how to withstand endless, meaningless tedium? If you're young you can probably afford to take some risk, so go take some risk! Take a shot at accomplishing something cool. The big boring corporations will always be there. If your startup experience sucks, so what? You're still better off than you'd have been if you'd spent the time playing small cog in a big machine.

roskilli 13y ago
I agree, the whole post seems to be written by someone writing a sad and sullen reflection of their last decade or two. I think having a mix of both startups and high profile tech companies in one's CV is great backing to do your own startup, enter contracting or find yourself in a challenging and stimulating career job at your employer of choice. I think the article makes some good points about potential bad eggs in the startup world but is not a balanced true representation of the landscape.
Zimahl 13y ago
There are plenty of small to medium sized business where you get to learn and have an impact. I tend to favor those - I have the autonomy to contribute without the overhead of 6 different managers.
michaelochurch 13y ago
Honestly, my observation is that there's nothing out there that "gives you" that opportunity. You have to make it. Fight for it. Steal time if you must. The idealized university-like company that makes you more productive as a part of it than you would be with 100% freedom over your time is, at this point, an extreme rarity. The basic-research labs have been pretty much shut down. The problem with shitty startups is that they mislead people into believing that they're opening so many doors that it's worth letting the networking and independent skill building (each of which should get 10 hours per week; ideally that's out-of-work but do it at the expense of your day job if necessary-- fire up a MOOC during a workday lull; diversify) go to slack. Then, they pass four years of 60-hour weeks only to find that the executive-level or research (everyone wants to be an executive or in R&D; either controlling others or free from control) roles promised them were given to new hires or don't exist, and they realize they've wasted 4 years of their lives. The lesson isn't "never work for startups" because there are great startups and (obviously) awful big-company jobs. It's "don't believe the hype and let your networking and independent learning go to hell". You only go all-in as a founder, not as some subordinate employee. The latter is just stupid; but you see it all the time.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

davecap1 13y ago

"plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose"

chuckcode 13y ago

Don't start a company because you like coding, Aza Raskin summed it up nicely for designers but same hold trues for programmers (http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/psychological-pitfalls-and-lessons-of-a-designer-founder/ http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/psychological-pitfalls-and-l...) Working for a startup has been a good source of learning new skills for me but as the author notes can be hazardous to the rest of your life...

intrazoo 13y ago

You see the same problems in students going to film school because they like to see themselves as a director. You see the same problems in big studios making blockbusters for money. To be Primer, you have to have a specific, burning idea. To be Fassbinder, you need to have something to say (and be a genius). Else, you can only aspire to be Cars 2 or The Phantom Menace.

YuriNiyazov 13y ago

And this is why I stopped playing that particular game and started playing a very different, but no less systematized and traditional game: being a consultant software developer with clients that pay per project or per hour, rather than in four-year equity vesting cycles.

acjohnson55 13y ago
I'd love to read a blog post on how you set this up, and what kind of work you do!

robocat 13y ago

Business influence, autonomy, responsibility, variety, opportunity, risk, unclear solutions to open problems : things a small new startup are likely to offer to a 2[0-9] year old and a large business is less likely to. The question is, do your personality and abilities suit a startup environment? Or is one more fitted to a structured environment? Maybe a short internship would tell. If someone inexperienced says they want to do a startup, my advice would be to join a business with 40 to 80 employees in a market that interests you, learn how to tell who are the productive people in sales, marketing, operations and development and start a business with a couple of them. Work out which ones are hard working, effective and entrepreneurial and want to begin a business. Knowing who is excellent in areas you are weak in is a critical skill to learn (and I find extremely hard to judge unless working fairly closely with them). Many many businesses don't know who the real key employees are, or are under-valuing/under-appreciating them. I had opportunity to join the most effective dev and marketer in a business I was working in when 24 and I didn't jump on the opportunity so I missed out (stupid me). I created a similar opportunity many years later, and it is working out very well (although rough for a couple of years).

robocat 13y ago
Conversely, learning how to tell who are lemons, and you must not join is also critical. Just because a few people are doing a start-up that sounds good doesn't mean it is a good idea to join those people. One must also learn to have enough insight to work out if one is a lemon oneself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect Another great place to learn these skills and to pick the really skilled is in an incubator or shared space. That has also worked for me.

luckydude 13y ago

I don't have a lot to add here other than liking the two sides of the coin thing the author mentioned. With any choice there are pros and cons. Lots of people, not just the young people, tend to look at the pros and pretend the cons don't exist.

johnjlocke 13y ago
I really liked this article, it doesn't just apply to startups. Engineers are like the rockstars of today. Instead of the Sunset Strip, everyone is headed to the Bay Area for their own shot at glory.What's to be remembered is that nothing should be done except for the inherent love of what you're doing, and nothing should be done purely for the sake of "success". Be a decent person, have respect and courtesy for others, and you can enjoy life, whatever the vehicle of your creativity is.

teawithcarl 13y ago

Alex Payne is the best.

jparishy 13y ago

As a twenty year old who left school (in late 2011) and is currently working for a startup, the article really struck a chord with me and I must admit that it is very accurate, particularly the section, "Startups have an ongoing interpersonal cost." That being said, I have very few regrets and have learned more than I could have ever imagined since leaving school. But there are days I wish I stayed for both personal (ex. making friends is hard and it is insanely easy to become woefully lonely) and professional/career (ex. I spend many hours on top of work studying algorithms and mathematics I would have been taught in university) reasons.

volandovengo 13y ago

Great way to end it: "If you’re not part of the intended audience and are very very mad that a stranger on the Internet has a different opinion than you, I encourage you to direct your energy into an alternative argument that a young person might benefit from reading."

samfisher83 13y ago

In some professions this guy would be considered young. Its kind of amusing to read. He has made it so even though there is some bitterness in his writing, he has obviously benefited from the system, and unlike being a struggling actor you are making some bank at a startup with a potential to make it big. Compare that to making ends meet as a waiter.

datalus 13y ago
Any idea how old Alex is? My guess is late 20s to early 30s, which makes me wince at the title.
- dchichkov 13y ago
  Why? Age is of little importance and can be misleading. It is not uncommon between people here to have started developing software professionally as teenagers or even as kids. By the time someone is in early 30s that someone may as well have been coding for a quarter of a century. And on the opposite, you can have somebody just starting at that age, with minimal or zero engineering experience.
johnjlocke 13y ago
I don't think this article sounded bitter at all. It just sounded like someone who's been there, done that, and has perspective on career and life.

205guy 13y ago

I feel the OP raised 2 strawmen: 1) Many jobs are at startups now, and those startups are roughly similar, therefore it's not cool anymore ("is the novelty even there"). That is just bad logic. It may be that startups replicated high pressure low gratification corporate jobs, but that's not inherent in the argument that there are more startup jobs. It could also be the case that the tech economy has really shifted from large corporations to small agile (and sometimes fun to work at) startups. 2) Startup jobs turn into corporate jobs, so you shouldn't take them in the first place. That change is not a given, nor is it that the change will be done poorly, nor is it that the employee won't want the change by then. Anyways, if you get 1-3 years of startup experience that you enjoy, make contacts, have a chance at a payout, then there's nothing wrong with taking the startup job with the knowledge it may change and you may want out later--in fact, in every US employment contract, it's a given that the employee or the company may change their minds later. I do agree with the idea that we need to demystify the startup scene. Being beholden to a VC is no different than to a corporate middle manager, they're both trying to carve out their little empires with your work. I think the interpersonal cost is real in certain cases, and the comment about fetishizing disruption is right on. But the 2 logical errors above weaken the message, especially since they are above the more lucid observations.

obstacle1 13y ago
1) The author isn't arguing that. He is objecting to the portrayal of startups as more free, open, and fluid than traditional enterprise. Unless I'm bad at reading the author didn't even mention the ratio of startup:traditional jobs, so that isn't relevant. And the objection wasn't to the fact that all startups are roughly equivalent (which was, though, a point made). The objection was that startups are roughly equivalent to traditional enterprise in structure, form, and execution (i.e. Super Cool Startup is just as non-free, non-open, and non-fluid as Enterprise Shop Inc., and this is systemic). The equivalence comes from the startup scene having been wholly co-opted by a system (VC-istan, anyone?) that amounts to traditional enterprise (formulaic, mass-producing, repeatable templates). This is a textbook binary deconstruction: the startup/corporate dichotomy as it exists in popular consciousness is false. Food for thought, see pg's comment in this thread: apparently there is now a formula for creativity and rebellion. Questions: if you can formulaically rebel, how is that rebellion? By definition your 'rebellion' is deterministic -- how is that possible? If 'creativity' can come by formula, what are you creating? The 'new' is just a function of what you already knew, i.e., it already existed. So the 'new' is by definition not new at all. 2) Again, the author didn't make this point. He argued that people considering taking a startup job should consciously look through popular delusion and consider the bad with the good. There was no mention that one should or shouldn't take a particular kind of job.

fixxer 13y ago

Really liked this part: "As there was in the first dot com bubble there is a current proliferation of startups, incubators, accelerators, angel/seed funding, and so forth. ... accompanied by a shared set of values, norms, and language." I'm currently doing a start-up. I went the University incubator route and have regretted it ever since. Feels so pedantic...

jfasi 13y ago
I'm not sure I understand. Could you please elaborate?

icpmacdo 13y ago

It is strange how anti startup HN seems.

beatpanda 13y ago

>Maybe the best way to meet your goal is starting a non-profit or going into politics. I'd like to know whose, or which, goals are better met going into politics. Politics, at least in America, are a machine that eats good ideas and shits murder, and anybody with half a brain and the desire to change the world should know, from even casual observation, to steer clear. For example, Elon Musk and entrepreneurs like him have done more to move the world away from fossil fuels and towards alternative energy in the last decade than the U.S. government (at any level) has in the 25 years they've been aware of climate change. Musk is inventing the future, and in Congress they're still arguing over whether climate change exists or not. And that's just how fast things move in that arena. It's unavoidable. At this point in history, even if you don't care about money at all, even if hate for capitalism runs deep in your blood, starting a business is the only means available for make a positive impact in the world on a reasonable time scale. And I should also point out, going into politics or non-profits means you would actually be spending more time raising money than you would if you were running a VC-backed startup. So, if your goal is to get really good at raising money, the author's sentence makes sense. For any other meaning, it doesn't.

lukifer 13y ago
> starting a business is the only means available for make a positive impact in the world on a reasonable time scale There is a great deal of validity to what you say, but blanket statements like this are absurd. What capitalist venture is going to make an impact on gay marriage? What was the business model of MLK Jr.'s speeches?
- beatpanda 13y ago
  I would argue that Khan Academy is doing more to correct disparities in our education system, including of the kind caused by centuries of institutionalized racism, by making high-quality tutoring available for free on the Internet, than any modern-day legislator or activist. Large companies like Google are able to set standards in their industries around things like health benefits, which, while not providing the social recognition many gay marriage advocates are after, does provide one of the material benefits of marriage without waiting for the government's blessing. And meanwhile, the systems that our government uses to suppress movements like King's (in his day it was COINTELPRO) have gotten frighteningly more effective. The Occupy movement was subject to a massive, coordinated campaign of extreme police repression before it even started. Given how bad police repression of the civil rights movement already was, imagine what would have happened if anything as pervasive as the Patriot Act or computer-assisted social network analysis had been available.

pg 13y ago

"Yet, there is no enduring formula for creativity and rebellion." This is a fine sounding statement, but it's false. We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings.

sillysaurus 13y ago
We've been accumulating and refining techniques for having new ideas for centuries, at least. Leonardo da Vinci mentioned several in his writings. Several? The only one I remember from reading DaVinci's journal was along the lines of "have the students work alongside each other," referring to his apprentices. The idea was that seeing each other's work would motivate each apprentice to excel and one-up one another. The YC dinners would be the modern incarnation of that. It's a good idea. I thought that it was the only remark DaVinci wrote down about fostering creative process, though. Most of his journal is dedicated to observations from his research projects.
yarou 13y ago
True, we have been refining techniques for incremental improvement. But what of disruptive technology? Can something that is chaotic and non-deterministic have a deterministic set of steps to achieve? Is it reproducible, ceteris paribus? That's how I parse "creativity and rebellion".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
TheBiv 13y ago
If it is false, what is the true enduring formula for creativity and rebellion?
trustfundbaby 13y ago
I dunno Paul, I think I agree with Alex on this. I see where you are coming from, because I think there are things you can do to encourage this kind of creativity, but there aren't guaranteed ways to ensure that it happens. I get the feeling that you might be thinking about creativity in a more general sense than Alex might be though, but thats total speculation on my part.

sloria 13y ago

I have collected my favorite quotes and talking points from this piece, Michael Church's "Don’t waste your time in crappy startup jobs", and Aza Raskin's "Psychological Pitfalls And Lessons of A Designer-Founder". Here: http://www.stevenloria.com/disillusionment-in-startups-collected-quotes/ http://www.stevenloria.com/disillusionment-in-startups-colle... I intend to add to this list of quotes, and I also welcome others to email me related bits of wisdom.

jfasi 13y ago
That is a beautiful website. Is it custom, or is it something I can install myself? Feel free to refuse to answer :P
- sloria 13y ago
  Thanks. It is this: https://github.com/holman/left https://github.com/holman/left with just a few modifications.

jonathanjaeger 13y ago

First off, I agree with much of what you said. I think there is a way to be insanely devoted to your craft and still maintain your relationships. Sure, you might not be the social butterfly who goes to parties every night, but if you can't maintain some small semblance of a life, what's the point? Unless you're some entrepreneur martyr.. "A startup is just a means to an end. Consider the end, and don’t seek to revel in the means." -I disagree with this. The journey is often the most exciting, exhilarating part. Creating something from nothing is what I want to live for.

acjohnson55 13y ago
To extrapolate form the rest of his post, I think he phrased that part poorly. I think he really meant to advise not to revel in merely being a participant in a startup, as if that should provide you with satisfaction in and of itself. If you're in the startup world and have chosen your position well enough to be enjoying the journey, I don't think you're the target audience. He's really targeting the people who might become entrepreneurial martyrs.

trustfundbaby 13y ago

> "start-ups are full of [young] people working hard to make other people rich" This is very cynical but there is a lot of truth to it, especially in the current climate of "Who wants to be a millionaire (Startup edition)". I think that if you find yourself in a startup where you won't profit much from the upside if there is one, and you're not making a salary that compensates for this then you're probably not at the kind of startup you should be at.

triplesec 13y ago

This is a great cautionary polemic to those who may jump in without understanding what they really want. I'm sure it has flaws, but the intent of the author seems to be fair and careful warning to the unthinking. Fine advice, and if you still want to do a startup having analysed this piece, then you're in the right business!

demianturner 13y ago

I wonder how many people get the Rilke reference? Why is it that programmers are not well read?

thebear 13y ago

Many people seem to believe that if you want to do a startup, you have to do it when you're young. Young people can afford to take a lot of risk, because they have few responsibilities to hold them back. And if they fail, there'll be plenty of opportunity to make up for lost time. What few people seem to realize is that there is a second phase in your life where almost exactly the same is true, namely, when you're old. The only thing that is no longer true is that you won't be able to make up for lost time in case of failure. But if you lived a good life, you don't have to, because you've already made up for lost time in the past. And there are some extra perks, like you've probably got money to fund yourself. And you should know a thing or two that you didn't when you were young. And BTW, I'm not just blabbering here. I'm 60 and I'm doing it. Granted, I haven't been successful so far, but having the time of my life anyway. No fears, no regrets, and high like a kite on adrenalin 24/7.

jfasi 13y ago
Thanks for saying this. I'm an early twenty's kid who's decided to forgo the fashionable startup scene in favor of an extremely well-paid (given my age) position in a top-ten tech giant. I have a hunch that it would be more sensible to sharpen my skills when I'm young, and focus on becoming a happy and fulfilled person, only to emerge as a powerhouse of compounded experience and technical and social skill. As someone who's already emerged on the other side of that process, can you speak to one's capability to capitalize on that experience and personal growth throughout one's life? Does middle age have to be a time of complacency and conservatism?
- thebear 13y ago
  >> [...] can you speak to one's capability to capitalize on that experience and personal growth throughout one's life? << Given the fact that I haven't been successful with a late-in-life startup, some may deny me the credibility to speak to that. That being said, I do believe that yes, you can capitalize on past growth and experience. That's assuming you can pull off that Zen thing of keeping your beginner's mind. Know what you know, know what you don't know, and strive to be an expert with a beginner's mind. >> Does middle age have to be a time of complacency and conservatism? << Complacency, no, that doesn't sound good to me. I believe you should always be able to describe yourself with an adjective or a combination of adjectives such as "ambitious," "dedicated," and the like. Of course that could be dedication to a family, accompanied by less ambition in your professional life. But that's still different from complacency. Conservatism, yes, that would describe my own middle age pretty well. Everybody's rhythm of life is different of course. But it makes a lot of sense to have one extended period in your life where you plant a tree and watch it grow. The middle of one's life is a pretty good time to do that.

makerops 13y ago

I started, and invested my own money (6 figures, that I earned) in a b&m business in my 20s, lost a lot of time, money, and experienced a lot of bullshit... but I learned a lot. That preamble is because, while I have no experience with your typical SV startup, I have put my own time and money at risk. By joining a startup you are pretty much guaranteed a salary, an office to go to, and you have to weigh the risks of lower salary vs options, but so what? That's no more risk then someone working a corporate 9-5 and chooses to actively manage their portfolio, which really is minimal risk imo (wrong?). As an outside observer it seems to be in the financiers interest to perpetuate the sexiness of startups to "market" their investments. Can someone that is more into the startup culture clear this up for me? What risk is there in joining a startup as an employee other than what I have described?

Osmn 13y ago

Good read, pretty relevant to me as a 17 year old entrepreneur. Love the "A startup is just a means to an end." paragraph.

KedarMhaswade 13y ago

I am still trying to understand Alex's post well, but it reminds me of a Warren Buffett quote: "Bad things are not obvious when times are good".

esharef 13y ago

What's the most entrepreneurial thing you've done to get a job at a start-up?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dschiptsov 13y ago

First become known (or even famous) for what you do, then apply yourself to an actual, unsolved problem (in a very small time window) then people with positions and money will notice you, and then they will arrange somehow that Yahoo will buy your shit.)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

losethos 13y ago

God is just. As Pete said, "When it comes to women, when you lose, you lose and when you win, you really lose." God says... Professorship filling face_palm deferred looker-on powers conception Greek_to_me pressed deferred interpret concord malicious prisoner oppose vent man replenish hype perceives physic re-collected India remain you_don't_say hart perverseness fuller show shoe Saudi_Arabia mark wilderness if_and_only_if employest reclaim unsung_hero Ivory_Coast science combinations one's springs pleasantness uproar Victor scattered prolix makes seeketh meekness communicated greatness cover heresies arithmetic tormented willed easy endeavour circuits between curiosities unspeakable ---- My code is divinely inspired, like the Bible; a stumbling block that became the cornerstone.

CWSpear13 13y ago

I'm a freelancer that has started his own company, and I contract with a lot of companies, one in particular could have been considered a startup at one point, but I'm not sure you'd call it that now. I think of VC as debt. I've worked really hard to stay out of debt. Apart from a house, my goal is to never take a loan out or borrow money for anything. We have two pretty crappy cars, but we paid cash for them, and honestly, after some repairs and such, they've been running fine. To bring it home: I treat a lot of my business the same way. I'm extremely skeptical of doing work on "borrowed money." This once-startup contract I have has been profitable (by good margins) for 5 years now, and I've been working on a $2 million project for them about 7 months now, but it was all with money the company already had. I've turned down lucrative work in the past because they had financiers involved. I tend to work on smaller, more manageable projects (with the exception of the aforementioned example) because of this. Maybe a little more work at times (to find work), maybe a little less money, but I've never had an issue getting paid (except that one time when the business literally got washed away in Hurricane Sandy), I've not had to meet crazy deadlines or feel that sort of pressure, and I'd still consider myself to be doing very, very well. All that said, and I am a college dropout. But I wouldn't recommend people do drop out of college, especially for a VC gig.