Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinzollars | Hacker News Reader

> the mean age of high-tech founders is 43.2, economists say

I could see this. From the perspective of an Engineer I'm 36 and I have never been more qualified to start a company than today. People I work with in their 40s are great I've had the opportunity to learn from some excellent people in my career

View on HN

Experience wise I feel the same. Managing and building a team is very non-obvious, and doing group projects in college will never get you that kind of experience. Technical skills are of somewhat less importance in my mind (and easier to learn very young)

However, the older you get the more other commitments you tend to have. I fully believe you can found a company while having a life outside of work, but it is not the classic image of the hard-working, hard-drinking 20-something.

Maybe when in their 40s, they've made enough to be effectively retired? Otherwise, given the commitments you mentioned, they'd likely never be in a position to branch out.

Maybe some founders are younger because that's the window. They are old enough to be at the staff level (experience) and yet young enough to not quite be ready to have children. Whether they know it or not, startups usually fail within the first year and the most common difference between year acquired and year founded is 3. If they fail, they'd likely do it just in time to settle down and have children on schedule.

You're more qualified and so am I. The competition right now is crazy compared to what it used to be in fields like pure software.

You're fully capable of starting a bio-computing or quantum computing startup, though.

Something I think about constantly is if it would be better to just go back to university for a field I'm 50-80% certain is going to be huge and combine it with my strengths in software and physical engineering.

The problem is that I didn't make a conscious choice to study software because of where the world was going. I just liked computers as a kid. How do you replicate that?

I don't know enough about quantum to be sure that that's going to be the next field until I've already learned it, and the only proxy I can have that seems to be right about the general direction of any of this is DARPA, but they're usually unhelpful about timing.

The one major problem I don't know how to solve, let alone make money from, is how to square capitalism with cybersecurity. The incentives point in other directions after a sigma or three.

I mean there is a whole global market for cybersecurity products and services. You would square that by finding some product to sell. Selling traditional AV or network firewalls would probably be very competitive but providing next generation cloud based device security management is less so. And in fact this is where you see the current slew of startups.. each one offering a way to security the edge to the cloud since companies are migrating to the cloud and using less IT/infosec human resources to do so. Same with government departments as well. Govt is probably better especially when you need a security clearance because you can charge more operating in those environments.

This has been my experience as well.

After seeing startup CEOs be swept aside for growth or scaling CEOs by their VC's, I decided I wanted to build lasting and transferable skills alongside the problem solving.

In hindsight there was little harm spending my twenties gathering 20 years of experience in 10 years. This is less about age, than how one levels up.

Putting in time helped understand problems at a greater breadth, depth and uncover inter-disciplinary connections, instead of the spitball ideation process.

After 10 years (around age), having 20 years of experience on average puts you ahead of many of your contemporaries, leaving you in a better position to recognize opportunities, and areas needing improvement. If this is you, let's chat :)

On what basis are you quantifying this? You say you're ten years ahead ... Of what exactly? Compared to whom? Based on what?

How would you quantify it? I measure it in part by pursuing a track record that is meaningful to me not aligned on income or titles alone, but the innovation/change I've been able to be part of that is remarkable and memorable for it's time.

Sometimes I meet people who have a lot of experience/expertise (not a title) they have no business having at a particular age or experience level. They have really been able to extract a lot from their opportunities. Sometimes I get approached in this manner for senior, or leadership assistance while I'm young on the basis of my experience and track record.

Quantifiably speaking, experience, expertise seems to be listened to the more experienced I get. Also helpful is where it's relevant participating in startups or small businesses that scaled from from 0-5M, 0-10M, and now 0-60M/year.

A measure that I like is it by whether I can see opportunities early and recognize others who do the same and what I can learn from/with them.

What do you mean by getting 20 years of experience in 10 years? Do you mean in terms of putting in 2x the time or work, or looking for opportunities/experiences that are more cross-applicable? Or simply looking for the best growth?

I pursued 20 years of experience in 10 years of living/work because I came out of university after the dot com crash and had to become recession proof, and deliver value no matter what. It was very fortunate that the world adopted the internet, technology, etc.

If I couldn't see the future, I had to get up higher to see further ahead. Having the experience of a mid-senior technology exec 5-10 years earlier was not a career goal, but to gain a perspective to then see my own life and goals I could pursue. I had/have a lot of learning to do when it comes to business/people skills - outside of my technical abilities, and I'm sure I was inefficient at it. Today, my ability to deal with young techies is my most important skill.

How that happens was largely inefficient... I don't worship the cult of working a lot of hours though, maybe learning from a lot of hours the long way while I was young and could afford the time. This meant generally working 6-7 days a week for probably close to 5-7 years between freelancing, contracting, consulting, and building products, straight out of school. I stayed on call 24/7/365 myself for a large number of those years, never flying more than 3 hours away from me due to obligations I let myself take on (and learn to handle much better - even though I was on call, I got good at building systems and processes that didn't need me). Your question seems to be looking for tactics, when it's not about tactics alone. Going to the gym alone doesn't make anyone an athlete who can compete at a high level. Getting better at your sport is really important, for me:

1) I got over having to work harder than I should have to. It means outworking, outlearning, and outgrowing everyone by a country mile not only among your similarly experienced/aged contemporaries, and those senior to you too. If I have to be 8x as good as everything around me to make up for the slack/mistakes/learning, I have a chance of being much better than I may have been.

2) The small opportunities along the way really do become larger and multiply in numbers over the years. You gotta love what you do, not the returns alone. You have to learn what your limits actually are. I know I can push myself in certain ways, but not others.

3) My key lesson was learning discipline before everything else, and then using that to be more efficient and effective. There's no finish line on that though, and you might need something else.

4) The most important part about getting 20 years of life experience in 10 is learning from others rather than wasting your time having to learn everything. We are not special, and no problems are special. Use your bandwidth to solve problems after getting insights from others, not all on your own.

Being in the right place in the right time also means being places that no reasonable person would be, especially for outsiders.

Happy to chat via email too, I didn't want to shortchange a reply to you.

I appreciate what you're trying to say, but you can't just claim to have 20 years of industry experience after starting in that industry 10 years ago, right? Do you put 20 years of experience on your resume?

It's similar to how Paul Graham compares like working really hard for a few years in a startup vs working slower at a traditional job. How hard one works in a compressed amount of time, and the results one achieve in the same amount of time can equate to something.

I never would put 20 years of experience on my resume. Can't fake it till you make it in tech. :) Years of experience, again aren't the metric alone, its the quality of those years does matter.

If someone has 10 years of experience, and their achievements and skillset are mature and are on par with someone at the top of the pile with 20 years of experience, that might be one way. Does that help clarify?

Either way, I'm not sure where this new literal HN is coming from, and maybe I haven't done a very good job of explaining much.

Thanks for the clarification. I get what you're trying saying. The point of confusion for me was how literally you used "20 years of experience" in your career. As you said, it's hard to pass that off literally, but I totally understand having compressed learning. I, myself, have been in the industry for 12 years now and I feel that number is fair, but I feel like almost all of my usable experience came in the last 6 years. So in a way I feel like I got 12 years of experience in 6 years.

Cool. Now having 20 actual years of experience, I think I was describing it in hindsight, vs looking to my future.

I agree with your 12 yeaer experience. When I hire or am being hired we look for recent, relevant and hopefully experience that shows a higher level of mastery relative to other candidates.

Still this is a nice reminder of how good HN has been at attracting new entrepreneurs/technologists, and the lowering the average age/experience level on HN. I see it as a positive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com