>Don’t sell out your moral compass for a quick buck.
As I grow older (I'm not that old), the more I think I'm an idiot by not playing "the game", but I just can't make myself do it. Maybe because deep down I believe in at least karma, if not some afterlife.
I found a fake quote from Dostoyevsky yesterday which said (I'm paraphrasing):
"Don't let the corruption of others be an excuse for your own."
I know it is a fake quote, but still I think that is a worldview to try to strive to. Seeing people like the author of the article supporting a similar point makes me a bit happier and hopeful that the big AI "revolution" won't make my life miserable.
I'm 55 and I plan to never get in the game again (20 years in industry). I'm going to teach as long as I can, and then only work for a non profit that's doing good or for the public sector. The pay won't be up there, but I have limited time left to do what needs doing.
I can relate to those feelings, having now quit three "good" jobs for reasons of "the game" (specifically - in all three instances - I could not help to sweep sexual and violent misconduct under the rug). I felt and still feel like an idiot about those moments in a lot of ways. They have certainly cost me a lot and have changed my career drastically. I also know that, in the end, I could not have made myself act differently.
I find it interesting that this moved from the top position within minutes down to the second page. Below a post with 23 points in 11 hours, while this post has 102 points in 48 minutes. It has obviously been moderated down.
I suppose this won't work. The mechanism behind it is probably something like an elevated sink rate.
But it would be very interesting to scan for posts with a higher than usual sink rate. Obvious violations against the rules would just be flagged or simply downvoted. If it sinks like a rock despite having good numbers, however, then it is probably extraordinary interesting.
I had it open, then decided to read it later because my kid needed attention. Ten minutes later I was looking for it on the frontpage and couldn’t find it anymore. I spend lots of time (too much) on HN and it definitely felt like some coordinated effort, very non-organic.
Yes but by whom do you suspect? Anyone can create an account and just start flagging articles. In this case it's a bit of a screed against Silicon Valley, justified or not, so it hits certain people a certain way. Who do you think is doing the moderating down?
It has not been flagged, at least not visibly. That's the point.
Regarding your question, HN is YCombinator and the article is very much in opposition to YC's business model. Paul Graham is being criticized, too.
Not my hill to die on, but this is very much at odds with the common perception of HN as a platform promoting and enabling the free exchange of ideas and highlights its utility as a VC propaganda machine.
I think the nasty truth is that a lot of people starting startups seeking VC-level funds are hoping for unicorn status, ego boosts, huge wealth. And not much else. Meanwhile a lot of everyday businesses are just ... existing, growing gradually, working hard for their customers. Somehow the VC model of startup became the norm. It's odd really. It's one of many methods of funding. But I guess it comes with a feeling of having 'made it' before uhh 'making it'.
Hard to blame people for chasing the incentives. I had a small software business. The whole job became "getting the money" above anything else. We built things, but 80% of the work, what paid the bills was getting people to pay us. I wish it wasn't that way, but the reason sales is off in a silo and paid to close above all else is because it's what pays the bills. Its really rare you make something so great and obvious it just makes money without the dirty reality of sales or fund raising.
I agree with you and I want to do the same. That's why I work in cyber security, where we push back and think of the company and customers before short-term profits.
The issue is, executives believe we have to push features first or else some mysterious competition runs us into the ground. Or sometimes even that saving on security will give them money.
And since these people have the power, it's hard to avoid them.
A lifestyle business makes maybe a million a year. Not a success at all, but the people running it have jobs they like and didn't take VC money to get there.
"Normal" companies aren't immune to this. I saw a couple where the town hall concluded that these results are great, but we have to do more with less as the shareholders expect it.
Thanks for the perspective Matthias. I find myself constantly torn between the two camps. Paul Graham and YC representing one side and DHH and Basecamp the other. I see beauty on both sides. And I think there is a lot fertile middle ground…
The "move slow and fix things" side that developers really need to be listening to right now is Daniel J. Bernstein, Colin Percival, and the handful of other people who build services that mostly don't get hacked.
This is all very nice and I agree with most of it, obviously a lot of HN does too.
It's fine if you want to check out of your job and make it a hobby, you'll be happier. But (I hate to say it) if you take on this mentality you won't have a job or a career for long in this space.
The money goes to people who move fast and do not care about anything in the way, especially moving slow and fixing things. That's why everything sucks. Every day this becomes more true when a competitor or peer with a louder mouthpiece can slop together something that slurps up the money from whatever you're offering. If you don't want this to happen, you are back to playing the game.
Would love to live in a world with more counterexamples, but this post is mostly advocating for quitting your job or exiting the space. Not everyone can afford to do that.
Doing my part for counterexamples, is twenty years a long time? Asking because despite the consensus... I'm a Principal staff member who has regularly resisted the current. This quote broadly works:
"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."
Sure, I've had to do terrible things due to circumstances. Continuing remained a choice.
Wow. Great post. This line in particular really made me think, and he’s not wrong.
> If you happen to hit the startup jackpot, Paul gets even richer and you might become wealthy too. If you don’t, you’re left with nothing while Paul, already rich, gets to write an essay about your failure.
What exactly are we chasing?
The chance to become rich? Recognition? Status? Or, ultimately, the chance to be admired, perhaps even adored?
Startup hustle culture feels like the American Dream distilled into its purest form. The nerd, once at the bottom of the traditional social pecking order, suddenly has a chance to become the hero. Intelligence becomes power. The outsider becomes the billionaire. The kid nobody wanted to sit with at school gets to buy the whole school, town, state or even the country. Ah heck, if you’re really rich enough you can pointlessly put a car in space and everyone will just think it’s cool.
But are we really escaping that old social hierarchy, or simply finding a different way to climb it?
And perhaps that’s what bugs me most. We’ve somehow convinced ourselves that building something useful, earning a comfortable living and having enough time to enjoy life isn’t really success. Success has to be extraordinary. It has to be visible. It has to make other people envious. It is envy culture.
Meanwhile, the people selling us that dream are often the ones best positioned to profit from our pursuit of it like parasites living off their host and moving on to the next once the host dies.
Maybe we should spend less time asking how to become the next billionaire and more time asking why we think we need to.
Becoming a billionaire is the shit new quest for a certain kind of person. Before that, though, was the quest for "fuck you" money. Which isn't a specific number, but is, at least, less reprehensible. There were reams of actual physical paper squandered on that topic.
Everyone's got their own American dream.
I don't want to be a billionaire, but enough to get out of toxic situations would be nice.
>Don’t sell out your moral compass for a quick buck.
As I grow older (I'm not that old), the more I think I'm an idiot by not playing "the game", but I just can't make myself do it. Maybe because deep down I believe in at least karma, if not some afterlife.
I found a fake quote from Dostoyevsky yesterday which said (I'm paraphrasing):
"Don't let the corruption of others be an excuse for your own."
I know it is a fake quote, but still I think that is a worldview to try to strive to. Seeing people like the author of the article supporting a similar point makes me a bit happier and hopeful that the big AI "revolution" won't make my life miserable.
I'm 55 and I plan to never get in the game again (20 years in industry). I'm going to teach as long as I can, and then only work for a non profit that's doing good or for the public sector. The pay won't be up there, but I have limited time left to do what needs doing.
I can relate to those feelings, having now quit three "good" jobs for reasons of "the game" (specifically - in all three instances - I could not help to sweep sexual and violent misconduct under the rug). I felt and still feel like an idiot about those moments in a lot of ways. They have certainly cost me a lot and have changed my career drastically. I also know that, in the end, I could not have made myself act differently.
I find it interesting that this moved from the top position within minutes down to the second page. Below a post with 23 points in 11 hours, while this post has 102 points in 48 minutes. It has obviously been moderated down.
The first time in over 15 years of coming to hacker news that my trust in their feed has been eroded a little
The comments and upvotes shall continue until the position improves!
I suppose this won't work. The mechanism behind it is probably something like an elevated sink rate.
But it would be very interesting to scan for posts with a higher than usual sink rate. Obvious violations against the rules would just be flagged or simply downvoted. If it sinks like a rock despite having good numbers, however, then it is probably extraordinary interesting.
https://hnrankings.com/50204754/
That's a drop.
There was a better page for this somewhere... I might be back
I'm not the author; I just read the blog, and I liked it, so I shared it here, Is there any problem ?
We don't know. Obviously, there are people happy to read it. So we're surprised it's not ranked higher.
When I started typing my comment 5 minutes ago, it was in the top position. Now it is somewhere in the middle of page 2.
I had it open, then decided to read it later because my kid needed attention. Ten minutes later I was looking for it on the frontpage and couldn’t find it anymore. I spend lots of time (too much) on HN and it definitely felt like some coordinated effort, very non-organic.
I guess the author struck a nerve...
I'm not the author; I just read the blog, and I liked it, so I shared it here
now at #97 on page 4... very curious...
Yes but by whom do you suspect? Anyone can create an account and just start flagging articles. In this case it's a bit of a screed against Silicon Valley, justified or not, so it hits certain people a certain way. Who do you think is doing the moderating down?
It’s dropped 51 positions near instantly: https://hnrankings.com/50204754/
I don’t think flags work like this.
It has not been flagged, at least not visibly. That's the point.
Regarding your question, HN is YCombinator and the article is very much in opposition to YC's business model. Paul Graham is being criticized, too.
Not my hill to die on, but this is very much at odds with the common perception of HN as a platform promoting and enabling the free exchange of ideas and highlights its utility as a VC propaganda machine.
I think the nasty truth is that a lot of people starting startups seeking VC-level funds are hoping for unicorn status, ego boosts, huge wealth. And not much else. Meanwhile a lot of everyday businesses are just ... existing, growing gradually, working hard for their customers. Somehow the VC model of startup became the norm. It's odd really. It's one of many methods of funding. But I guess it comes with a feeling of having 'made it' before uhh 'making it'.
Hard to blame people for chasing the incentives. I had a small software business. The whole job became "getting the money" above anything else. We built things, but 80% of the work, what paid the bills was getting people to pay us. I wish it wasn't that way, but the reason sales is off in a silo and paid to close above all else is because it's what pays the bills. Its really rare you make something so great and obvious it just makes money without the dirty reality of sales or fund raising.
I agree with you and I want to do the same. That's why I work in cyber security, where we push back and think of the company and customers before short-term profits.
The issue is, executives believe we have to push features first or else some mysterious competition runs us into the ground. Or sometimes even that saving on security will give them money.
And since these people have the power, it's hard to avoid them.
A lifestyle business makes maybe a million a year. Not a success at all, but the people running it have jobs they like and didn't take VC money to get there.
VC model is not the norm. It's only in This HN corner that it is.
The norm is vast business where tech is ean enabler, not the actual thing itself.
It's just the get rich quick story of VC path that pulled a certain type of introverted high iq personality to it.
AI is now showing that emperor has no clothes.
"Normal" companies aren't immune to this. I saw a couple where the town hall concluded that these results are great, but we have to do more with less as the shareholders expect it.
Thanks for the perspective Matthias. I find myself constantly torn between the two camps. Paul Graham and YC representing one side and DHH and Basecamp the other. I see beauty on both sides. And I think there is a lot fertile middle ground…
The "move slow and fix things" side that developers really need to be listening to right now is Daniel J. Bernstein, Colin Percival, and the handful of other people who build services that mostly don't get hacked.
Absolutely not. DHH is toxic. We can do a lot better.
This is all very nice and I agree with most of it, obviously a lot of HN does too.
It's fine if you want to check out of your job and make it a hobby, you'll be happier. But (I hate to say it) if you take on this mentality you won't have a job or a career for long in this space.
The money goes to people who move fast and do not care about anything in the way, especially moving slow and fixing things. That's why everything sucks. Every day this becomes more true when a competitor or peer with a louder mouthpiece can slop together something that slurps up the money from whatever you're offering. If you don't want this to happen, you are back to playing the game.
Would love to live in a world with more counterexamples, but this post is mostly advocating for quitting your job or exiting the space. Not everyone can afford to do that.
Doing my part for counterexamples, is twenty years a long time? Asking because despite the consensus... I'm a Principal staff member who has regularly resisted the current. This quote broadly works:
Sure, I've had to do terrible things due to circumstances. Continuing remained a choice.Wow. Great post. This line in particular really made me think, and he’s not wrong.
> If you happen to hit the startup jackpot, Paul gets even richer and you might become wealthy too. If you don’t, you’re left with nothing while Paul, already rich, gets to write an essay about your failure.
What exactly are we chasing?
The chance to become rich? Recognition? Status? Or, ultimately, the chance to be admired, perhaps even adored?
Startup hustle culture feels like the American Dream distilled into its purest form. The nerd, once at the bottom of the traditional social pecking order, suddenly has a chance to become the hero. Intelligence becomes power. The outsider becomes the billionaire. The kid nobody wanted to sit with at school gets to buy the whole school, town, state or even the country. Ah heck, if you’re really rich enough you can pointlessly put a car in space and everyone will just think it’s cool.
But are we really escaping that old social hierarchy, or simply finding a different way to climb it?
And perhaps that’s what bugs me most. We’ve somehow convinced ourselves that building something useful, earning a comfortable living and having enough time to enjoy life isn’t really success. Success has to be extraordinary. It has to be visible. It has to make other people envious. It is envy culture.
Meanwhile, the people selling us that dream are often the ones best positioned to profit from our pursuit of it like parasites living off their host and moving on to the next once the host dies.
Maybe we should spend less time asking how to become the next billionaire and more time asking why we think we need to.
Becoming a billionaire is the shit new quest for a certain kind of person. Before that, though, was the quest for "fuck you" money. Which isn't a specific number, but is, at least, less reprehensible. There were reams of actual physical paper squandered on that topic.
Everyone's got their own American dream. I don't want to be a billionaire, but enough to get out of toxic situations would be nice.