This model totally ignores the need for cash flow. This means that while that (possible) nice bonus at the end of the project would be nice in 3 or 4 months, you have rent that needs to be paid NOW. You have an unexpected car problem that needs to be paid NOW. And minimum wage isn't going to cover this. Additionally, if the project is underestimated (which everyone knows NEVER happens in contracting situations), then your bonus goes up in smoke.
The minimum wage thing is too extreme and ignores these real world concerns. Setting up milestone payments provides for some of the advantages you refer to (bidding on fixed bid contracts), while still allowing for real-world cash flow needs. And most top employees aren't going to be working for minium wage months on end for the hopes of a bonus at the end. I believe anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream.
I'm going to nitpick a bit at the article's first point: as much as we may dislike cubicles, a blanket statement like "working in cubicles is the sure sign that you're not working for a successful company" is... well, a sure sign that the article's author hasn't worked at many companies.
Great point. The cubicle backlash is a tad extreme and the idea of being always happy at your job is probably getting too much airplay. You CAN be happy working in a cubicle and you can be miserable working in a job with an office.
Also, chances are, you're not working at Adobe or Microsoft, so you may need to realistically redefine what the employer has to provide for you to be "happy"...or you need to get a job at Adobe or Microsoft. Just because you boss doesn't let you bring your dog into the office, it may turn out that you can live with that concession if you try.
You make several other excellent points in a post worthy of a +5 insightful.
I personally believe the time to leave that first tech job is when you can find another job that pays significantly more (and at a point that doesn't leave the current team in a bind). This applies to any job in any industry, not just the tech industry.
You should think of yourself as somewhat of a free agent, not totally unlike a professional athlete. Money is the bottom line with any company and is independent of the behaviour of anyone in the company. Even employers "who put their money where their mouth is" are helpless if the money just isn't there for whatever reason.
So while your boss may be the nicest guy in the world able to inspire the troops through any adversity, if the money ever runs out then the troops will die, period. And blaming the employer is pointless, even if they deserve it. You have to think "I'm in this situation...how do I get out of it and if possible, how do I guard against it in the future". Let others waste time and energy whining. You can join in later...after you get your new job.
Some people may read this and think I have a totally self-centered attitude...and that'd be true to an extent. However it doesn't mean that you have to become a callous asshole. You can still be a nice, moral person. However, being nice doesn't mean you're a naive pushover. You have a duty to look out for yourself.
We're still in the growing pains of a new era in the American/Global economy where getting a job doesn't mean you can retire there if you so choose. Let this layoff be a wakeup call.
I'm thinking it's a matter of semantics. In the parent's linked article, Jason Fried first goes on about how functional specs are bad. But then he says a one page story is OK, along with some basic UI drawings. Now I would consider this a functional spec. A functional spec is anything on paper that gets everyone thinking along the same lines. It doesn't have to be this huge, bloated monstrosity with useless information. I suspect Linus is referring to the same thing.
I'm afraid that people are going to read these comments and assume nothing needs to be written down which is going to cause a lot of projects to go up in flames.
I think it's a combination of things.
Elegant design + market mindshare + ready-made channels to shove product down people's throats.
While I agree elegant design is important, I think the other two are just as important if not moreso. "Elegant design" certainly hasn't done Apple's home computer market any favors after all.
You say the engine has been removed because you have a preconceived notion that certain traits should be selected for (eg. not being stupid) and when you see that those are not the traits associated with a higher differential rate of reproduction you dismiss it as not being evolution. Sometimes I wonder if anyone out there has actually bothered to try understanding evolution.
Great point. People think that just because they believe their traits aren't being selected, the evolutioniary "system" has been artificially broken by modernity. It's one of those nice self serving fallacies that help us sleep at night.
Or maybe they're right. The point is, we know too little about evolution and how it applies to humans to assume anything.
"In large organizations it's often OK to do things that are completely worthless, so long as you look really busy while you're doing them."
So true. This only happens because people don't take the time to learn what's truly effective vs what's just busy work to make the boss (in this case the American taxpayer)think you're doing something effective. When the boss doesn't know the difference between good and bad, then the business is screwed...unless the boss figures it out before it's too late.
"That's not really true. They were barely adequate at creating software in the early days.
They started out with a bought copy of the base for both their OS and for BASIC. These weren't even the most advanced things going in the day, but they managed to acquire them.
What they were exceedingly good at is signing a contract with IBM that said all PCs would have their operating system on it. As the PC marketplace grew, it gave them a pretty much locked in revenue stream.
Once they had made a butt-load of money, they had the resources the hire a bunch of developers and actually start doing more.
But make no mistake about it, they didn't get where they are due to the (initial) quality of their product offerings. They got there by locking everybody in to Microsoft as early in the PC industry as you could get, and growing with an emerging market."
You make legitimate points about them not having the best OS of the day and another point about them being "exceedingly good" at signing a contract with IBM(whatever that means:) ). But it ignores the stupidity of their competition.
Bottom line is this. MS wouldn't be where they are without a monumental screwup by Digital Research, a company most people have never heard of. IBM approached them first to use their OS, CP/M, for their new PC. Digital Research refused, so IBM asked Microsoft. Microsoft accepted. As you said, they didn't have their own OS so they bought one for like 50K. The rest is history.
Textbook example of business saavy trumping technical superiority in the marketplace.
" Worse... "My Buddy." (Is the commercial jingle stuck in your mind yet? Bwuhahahahahhah....)
Well that's one day shot to hell, productivity-wise. When we have the project post mortem and discuss why the project is late, I'll just hyperlink this post. Thanks.
His (second) wife was 43 when his youngest daughter was born in 2000. That means that she was born in 1957, and got married in 1975.
At age 18.
Doohan was 55 at the time.
Until now, I was a big fan of the character Scotty. Now I'm a fan of Doohan, the man! Everybody thought Shatner was the player, but who knew that Scotty was the true pimp of TOS.:)
But we are talking business track record here. During his watch, Google conquered search, Apple grabbed portable and downloaded music dominance, and Mozilla/Firefox exploited the lack of attention to IE. These are the sorts of oversights that are ultimately the responsibility of the CEO. He is also constantly saying things that are reactionary, not visionary. Today's quote is another example. All of this indicates to me he isn't the person for the position.
You also have to remember that's operating under a different set of circumstances than Bill Gates was. He has the DOJ breathing down his neck, unlike Gates. So he doesn't have quite the, how shall we put this, "freedom" to let his "genius" flourish as Bill Gates did. Sure MS essentially got off on the charges, but that doesn't mean the Powers That Be aren't watching. There may still be one MS, but things are different now. Bill Gates certainly wouldn't have seemed as great a " business genius" if he had to run MS under the current level of government scrutiny.
Hmm, maybe I'm taking this a little too personally. But I can't help but like a guy who'll allow himself to be videotaped running around a stage yelling "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!", even if he does run the Evil Empire.
Since when does saying "I don't know" hurt your credibility? Or do you expect him to to know every technical detail of every product in an x billion dollar company?
It would have been easy enough for him to just have said some gumpf, but he didn't. This gets plus points in my book.
Seriously. It would behoove him to give some BS spin answer rather than the truth, but he actually does the opposite -- and he's critcisized for it. One thing you can count on with stories about Google and MS is a high density of clueless +5 Insightful posts.
Ballmer was never the right choice as Microsoft CEO IMHO, but I don't know who is.
You feel qualified to comment on his suitability for a job without knowing anything about him? Basing opinions on nothing at all -- a Slashdot tradition!
Here's a pretty good article on this. That Seattle Times article on the situation in Norway (and I'm assuming it's at least somewhat applicable to other Scandinavian countries) traces the lowered work ethic to the riches gained during their oil boom. I don't know if it's true or not...but it at least seems somewhat plausible.
This is honest-to-god, not a troll, but this is an example of why I love Star Wars so much. You can use it as a backdrop for almost anything and at least have somewhat of a point Stephenson can write a long, smart editorial paralleling the Star Wars universe with America (ending with a prediction of America's demise). The parent poster wrote a +5 post talking about the difference in lightsaber usage between the OT and the prequals and analyses the effect they had on both series in an interesting way.
Few movies are able to bring about this level of discussion. The only others that I can think of are the Matrix films (especially Reloaded).
The problem with services like this are the minimum order requirements and the extra fees that are tacked on. For example, the takeouttaxi service you linked to is impractical for a single person ordering one portion (unless that person is very large or doesn't mind having a 25% price markup).
Thus, this may come as a big suprise, but I predict the most successful services will be the ones who charge the least to patrons (as opposed to restauraunts).
I suggest the MBNA save themselves the complication and go ahead and post that account number here and let it be a first come, first serve free for all.
You are so bold as to use a professional athlete in your example...
are you saying that a professional athlete does not take a "holistic" view of work, that they are not doing what they love?
Not my example. As I said, it's Stephen's Pollan's example from his book "Die Broke". However, I do agree with the example.
And let me refine what Pollan referred to with "holistic". You have a life at work where you perform actions to generate income. You have a life away from work. For most people, the two are different. There is/was a view out there that somehow you could do things like raise your kids while simultaneously working in a holistic fairyland where you live and work in the same place. At best, you may be lucky enough to have an employer with daycare on company grounds or maybe you even have a company that pays for lunch/dinner. So you liking your work is somewhat outside the scope of the division between work and the rest of your life.
And by all means, you should be doing something at least in the ballpark of stuff you'd be doing on your own. This lessens the "work" effect somewhat and allows you to be more effective. But just realize that this is an income generating stream (which can be yanked from under you at anytime) and you should seek to maximize it. It's just another point of view in addition to the viewpoint that allows you to derive inherent satisfaction from what you do.
Isn't their job to be certain they can provide profit in the future for their shareholders (the owners of the company). Why would a company want to keep 10~13K employees that are obviously not necessary in the daily business? Simply because they are making a profit?
I'm not a fan of layoffs either but a company is there to make money, nothing else
The problem is that we still have a nostalgic view of employer loyalty to its employees. The way it's supposed to work is that you "do your time" and in X amount of years, you retire with a golden watch and pension.
Of course, in the 21st century, this is a myth. That's why I'm a proponent of Stephen Pollan's methodology in Die Broke -- be ruthless and mercenary about your approach to employment. He calls this the "Mercantile Ethic". Always be looking for your next job, and always take the job that's in your best financial interests, not because it's a better fit for your interests. While you should work hard, you shouldn't buy into the "holistic" view of work. Your work is not your life, no matter how much you love it or how many hours you put in. Work is work. It's an income generating stream, period. Don't get caught up in company politics because in the end, you'll be standing in the unemployment line right alongside the kissup and the quiet hardworker. You're a bean. He uses professional athletes as examples we should follow when pursuing jobs in this new reality.
Lots of other good advice there too, much of it traditional (e.g. live beneath your means, kill your consumer credit, etc) and some definitely non traditional (e.g. lease your car rather than buy and never retire).
Well, Cuban specifically only refers to what he calls "possession of a controlled music substance" , which presumably is different from dealing a controlled music substance. In the former, he's right. And since the former is the only thing he refers, I guess you could just say that he's right.
There's going to be some people who interpret the content of the blog the same as you and come to your conclusion. There will be others who intrepret the blog the same as you, and come to the opposite conclusion. But in the end, you both will be basing your opinions on bad data. He's effectively repositioned the argument right under your noses, and you and many other highly rated posters are all a-buzz...over nothing.
Politicians use subtle tactics like these to confuse us poor proles all the time. I can see how the guy became a billionaire now. What's a cynic to do in a world like this?:)
"I'm 39 and not rich. I wish I had been a workaholic in my 20s and was rich now. I forgot who posted is undelivered graduation speech about advice to high school graduates but the #1 point of it was looking back what's the #1 piece of advice us older people have for younger people. That advice is, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME.
I wasted thousands of days of time playing video games, vegging in front of cable TV and generally goofying off while living a relatively comfortable life with a regular job."
In your post, you "admit" to living a comfortable life. If you're enjoying your life the way you want, I don't see how spending all that time on a desperate hamster wheel hoping for wealth is necessarily better option. Video games and vegging on the couch are not "bad" activities or wastes of time unless your only goal in life is to be working get rich.
"Instead looking back, nothing has really changed, there has been no "real" growth since college."
I doubt you *really* believe that...unless your definition of "real" growth is becoming rich.
"I disagree. The thing about the Bubble wasn't that more startups were getting bought out, it was that more were getting founded and over-funded, while the number of good ideas remained the same. "
The Bubble I remember was about all that plus over valuated IPOs, overvaluated stocks and companies scrambling to pick up little guys lest they go IPO or get bought out by a competitor. It was hardly just VCs doing the overvaluation.
And do you think Graham's company gets a $50 million valuation by Yahoo in the current climate?
"I think the people Paul is trying to reach are the ones that would rather jump off of a bridge than work for the man."
Note the first paragraph of my original post:
"You make good points, but I don't think Paul Graham's articles are aimed at people who want to be cogs in wheels at big comfortable safe companies."
You make good points, but I don't think Paul Graham's articles are aimed at people who want to be cogs in wheels at big comfortable safe companies.
He gives good advice, though sometimes I wonder if he remembers he sold his company to Yahoo at the height of the Internet bubble. He was in a singular moment in time that's not likely to be repeated and so what happened to him is orders of magnitude less likely for anyone else doing the same sort of thing. Most people doing this will have to do this for maybe a decade or more and even then, most still aren't going to be anywhere near "rich". You've got to love the "work" or else, you'd be better off working for the man.
I agree with this assessment and I've always wondered about this. If you watch Episodes 5 and 6 before Episode 4, there's no way you'd think the Vader would ever take of orders from anyone except for the Emporer. There's lots of other stuff in Star Wars that are inconsistent with the "Grand Vision" Lucas supposedly had years ago. After reading some of his interviews (don't get me started on the Joseph Campbell "myth" arc tripe), I've come to the conclusion that if enough people call someone a genius enough time at an early age, they start to believe it...even if it's not really true.
That said, I love these movies to death anyway. All of this other stuff somewhat exists outside the scope of this great work.
Slashdot Mirror
This model totally ignores the need for cash flow. This means that while that (possible) nice bonus at the end of the project would be nice in 3 or 4 months, you have rent that needs to be paid NOW. You have an unexpected car problem that needs to be paid NOW. And minimum wage isn't going to cover this. Additionally, if the project is underestimated (which everyone knows NEVER happens in contracting situations), then your bonus goes up in smoke. The minimum wage thing is too extreme and ignores these real world concerns. Setting up milestone payments provides for some of the advantages you refer to (bidding on fixed bid contracts), while still allowing for real-world cash flow needs. And most top employees aren't going to be working for minium wage months on end for the hopes of a bonus at the end. I believe anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream.
Great point. The cubicle backlash is a tad extreme and the idea of being always happy at your job is probably getting too much airplay. You CAN be happy working in a cubicle and you can be miserable working in a job with an office.
Also, chances are, you're not working at Adobe or Microsoft, so you may need to realistically redefine what the employer has to provide for you to be "happy"...or you need to get a job at Adobe or Microsoft. Just because you boss doesn't let you bring your dog into the office, it may turn out that you can live with that concession if you try.
You make several other excellent points in a post worthy of a +5 insightful.
You should think of yourself as somewhat of a free agent, not totally unlike a professional athlete. Money is the bottom line with any company and is independent of the behaviour of anyone in the company. Even employers "who put their money where their mouth is" are helpless if the money just isn't there for whatever reason.
So while your boss may be the nicest guy in the world able to inspire the troops through any adversity, if the money ever runs out then the troops will die, period. And blaming the employer is pointless, even if they deserve it. You have to think "I'm in this situation...how do I get out of it and if possible, how do I guard against it in the future". Let others waste time and energy whining. You can join in later...after you get your new job.
Some people may read this and think I have a totally self-centered attitude...and that'd be true to an extent. However it doesn't mean that you have to become a callous asshole. You can still be a nice, moral person. However, being nice doesn't mean you're a naive pushover. You have a duty to look out for yourself.
We're still in the growing pains of a new era in the American/Global economy where getting a job doesn't mean you can retire there if you so choose. Let this layoff be a wakeup call.
I'm afraid that people are going to read these comments and assume nothing needs to be written down which is going to cause a lot of projects to go up in flames.
I think it's a combination of things. Elegant design + market mindshare + ready-made channels to shove product down people's throats. While I agree elegant design is important, I think the other two are just as important if not moreso. "Elegant design" certainly hasn't done Apple's home computer market any favors after all.
Great point. People think that just because they believe their traits aren't being selected, the evolutioniary "system" has been artificially broken by modernity. It's one of those nice self serving fallacies that help us sleep at night.
Or maybe they're right. The point is, we know too little about evolution and how it applies to humans to assume anything.
You make legitimate points about them not having the best OS of the day and another point about them being "exceedingly good" at signing a contract with IBM(whatever that means :) ). But it ignores the stupidity of their competition.
Bottom line is this. MS wouldn't be where they are without a monumental screwup by Digital Research, a company most people have never heard of. IBM approached them first to use their OS, CP/M, for their new PC. Digital Research refused, so IBM asked Microsoft. Microsoft accepted. As you said, they didn't have their own OS so they bought one for like 50K. The rest is history.
Textbook example of business saavy trumping technical superiority in the marketplace.
Well that's one day shot to hell, productivity-wise. When we have the project post mortem and discuss why the project is late, I'll just hyperlink this post. Thanks.
Until now, I was a big fan of the character Scotty. Now I'm a fan of Doohan, the man! Everybody thought Shatner was the player, but who knew that Scotty was the true pimp of TOS. :)
Hmm, maybe I'm taking this a little too personally. But I can't help but like a guy who'll allow himself to be videotaped running around a stage yelling "DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS! DEVELOPERS!", even if he does run the Evil Empire.
BTW mods, I'm trying to be funny, not trollish. :)
Here's a pretty good article on this. That Seattle Times article on the situation in Norway (and I'm assuming it's at least somewhat applicable to other Scandinavian countries) traces the lowered work ethic to the riches gained during their oil boom. I don't know if it's true or not...but it at least seems somewhat plausible.
Few movies are able to bring about this level of discussion. The only others that I can think of are the Matrix films (especially Reloaded).
The problem with services like this are the minimum order requirements and the extra fees that are tacked on. For example, the takeouttaxi service you linked to is impractical for a single person ordering one portion (unless that person is very large or doesn't mind having a 25% price markup).
Thus, this may come as a big suprise, but I predict the most successful services will be the ones who charge the least to patrons (as opposed to restauraunts).
This calls for a trip down +5 memory lane.
I suggest the MBNA save themselves the complication and go ahead and post that account number here and let it be a first come, first serve free for all.
Not my example. As I said, it's Stephen's Pollan's example from his book "Die Broke". However, I do agree with the example.
And let me refine what Pollan referred to with "holistic". You have a life at work where you perform actions to generate income. You have a life away from work. For most people, the two are different. There is/was a view out there that somehow you could do things like raise your kids while simultaneously working in a holistic fairyland where you live and work in the same place. At best, you may be lucky enough to have an employer with daycare on company grounds or maybe you even have a company that pays for lunch/dinner. So you liking your work is somewhat outside the scope of the division between work and the rest of your life.
And by all means, you should be doing something at least in the ballpark of stuff you'd be doing on your own. This lessens the "work" effect somewhat and allows you to be more effective. But just realize that this is an income generating stream (which can be yanked from under you at anytime) and you should seek to maximize it. It's just another point of view in addition to the viewpoint that allows you to derive inherent satisfaction from what you do.
The problem is that we still have a nostalgic view of employer loyalty to its employees. The way it's supposed to work is that you "do your time" and in X amount of years, you retire with a golden watch and pension.
Of course, in the 21st century, this is a myth. That's why I'm a proponent of Stephen Pollan's methodology in Die Broke -- be ruthless and mercenary about your approach to employment. He calls this the "Mercantile Ethic". Always be looking for your next job, and always take the job that's in your best financial interests, not because it's a better fit for your interests. While you should work hard, you shouldn't buy into the "holistic" view of work. Your work is not your life, no matter how much you love it or how many hours you put in. Work is work. It's an income generating stream, period. Don't get caught up in company politics because in the end, you'll be standing in the unemployment line right alongside the kissup and the quiet hardworker. You're a bean. He uses professional athletes as examples we should follow when pursuing jobs in this new reality.
Lots of other good advice there too, much of it traditional (e.g. live beneath your means, kill your consumer credit, etc) and some definitely non traditional (e.g. lease your car rather than buy and never retire).
There's going to be some people who interpret the content of the blog the same as you and come to your conclusion. There will be others who intrepret the blog the same as you, and come to the opposite conclusion. But in the end, you both will be basing your opinions on bad data. He's effectively repositioned the argument right under your noses, and you and many other highly rated posters are all a-buzz...over nothing.
Politicians use subtle tactics like these to confuse us poor proles all the time. I can see how the guy became a billionaire now. What's a cynic to do in a world like this? :)
In your post, you "admit" to living a comfortable life. If you're enjoying your life the way you want, I don't see how spending all that time on a desperate hamster wheel hoping for wealth is necessarily better option. Video games and vegging on the couch are not "bad" activities or wastes of time unless your only goal in life is to be working get rich.
I doubt you *really* believe that...unless your definition of "real" growth is becoming rich.
The Bubble I remember was about all that plus over valuated IPOs, overvaluated stocks and companies scrambling to pick up little guys lest they go IPO or get bought out by a competitor. It was hardly just VCs doing the overvaluation.
And do you think Graham's company gets a $50 million valuation by Yahoo in the current climate?
Note the first paragraph of my original post:"You make good points, but I don't think Paul Graham's articles are aimed at people who want to be cogs in wheels at big comfortable safe companies."
He gives good advice, though sometimes I wonder if he remembers he sold his company to Yahoo at the height of the Internet bubble. He was in a singular moment in time that's not likely to be repeated and so what happened to him is orders of magnitude less likely for anyone else doing the same sort of thing. Most people doing this will have to do this for maybe a decade or more and even then, most still aren't going to be anywhere near "rich". You've got to love the "work" or else, you'd be better off working for the man.
That said, I love these movies to death anyway. All of this other stuff somewhat exists outside the scope of this great work.