Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't know whether VCs have changed, so much as they've either pushed themselves or been pushed into an inappropriate role.

A large part of it is that big companies have given up on trying to innovate (they just buy innovations, at a panic price) and the people from whom innovation typically came are now a pariah caste of almost-unemployable miserable geniuses. Even worse, those people can't raise funding anymore because they've been outcompeted (for attention, press, and funding) by people with superior social polish but shittier ideas.

VCs are private equity guys. For deciding whether two $300-million biotech companies should merge, they're probably the best people out there. It's not that they're "good" at making those calls, but that the companies are so complex and unusual that almost no one is, and they're the most adept at figuring out what's going on amid the chaos. They might be able to tease out a +0.02 correlation in decision-making while the rest of us would get zero. For figuring out who has the competence to start a tech company? They're in the dark. Not a clue among them. It's not what they learned in business school or McKinsey. They'd do 100 times better to have a person like me do the talent scouting/vetting, but for a variety of reasons that will never happen.

The real evil isn't VCs so much as it's the replacement of R&D by M&A, representing a wide-scale trend of engineer disempowerment. Being a software engineer used to be an R&D job because non-engineers understood that they didn't know how to do that job, so it got a lot of autonomy and trust. Now, it's being treated as commodity work, and the result is a catastrophic dilution of the industry. VCs aren't singularly to blame for this, but they certainly didn't stop it.

It was actually a lot better, for engineers, to be in R&D labs of large companies than it is to be an engineer at a VC-istan startup. You had more career growth and more opportunities to learn stuff. Don't be fooled by the bullshit equity handed out now. Sure, these R&D engineers didn't get rich at 27-- they had to strike out on their own to do that, and many were happy being upper-middle-class technology researchers as a lifelong career, so most never did-- but most VC-istanis don't either.

We need to bring back the R&D flavor of the software industry, or we'll have lost the industry for good.

There is a fundamental problem in everything that you say.

The VCs may be private equity guys, but they have learned to pay attention to what is said by angels and early seed investors. Who in turn frequently got that way by being in successful startups. Which really did compete on merit. And those people know plenty about programming.

As a case in point look no farther than ycombinator itself. I first heard of Paul Graham because he was a well-known Lisp hacker, and when I was starting in programming I was told to read a book of his to open my eyes to how much I did not understand. (I did read On Lisp and highly recommend it.) I first heard of Robert Morris because he famously accidentally took down the internet. They got the money with which they started ycombinator by running their own startup. And every year they identify dozens of unconnected but talented people as people who deserve a chance, and suddenly some kid whose main qualification is that they could impress some talented hackers is in one of the most prestigious inner circles in the Valley.

And yes, part of what they look for is the "social polish" that you deride. Because they've learned that you need some of that to make your business succeed. And yes, they will help you learn how to spin yourself successfully. Because that also helps in the real world.

But in the end they give a first step up to a lot of people who then go on to build everything from better online analytics to motorcycles that won't fall over.

>motorcycles that won't fall over

Which company is this?

The 4th link down:

https://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=motorcycle...

Lit Motors. Which reminds me, I meant to reserve one.

You've bought into the startup porn a little too much. YC is a startup mill -- they make a TINY investment, and it doesn't matter if most of them fail. The failed founders make a HUGE investment, and its on their head that the majority of the cost of failure sits.

YC floats on a bubble of spit and polish and politics. They want people like you to buy into it, because they need to take advantage of people like you.

You're the one who doesn't understand what is going on here.

The failed founders are adults who walk into the project with risks understood. Yes, a large percentage fail. However the ones who fail wind up with invaluable experience, an excellent item on the resume, and a network of connections to help them either try again or get a job. This is not a horrible downside if nobody is depending on you.

As for me, personally, I'm a married middle aged man who has been watching this from a distance. I have plenty of friends who have entered, gone through ups and downs, and mostly wound up reasonably well off. Unfortunately I have family commitments that have made the risk profile wrong for me. I also sat out the dot com crash and watched a lot of people lose a lot there.

I've also seen a lot of people think they were entering the startup world without a clue about what they were doing. They go through the motions, then painfully lose their shirts. Anyone competent develops a radar for those unfolding disasters. I feel sorry for them, but learned a long time ago the dangers of trying to rescue people from self-inflicted injuries.

> The failed founders are adults who walk into the project with risks understood.

Most of the YC founders are barely out of college.

> However the ones who fail wind up with invaluable experience, an excellent item on the resume, and a network of connections to help them either try again or get a job.

I'm curious, have you looked into "where are they now" for YC startups? eg, http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/27/y-combinator-demo-day-marc...

You're really just pushing the startup religion; that somehow inexperienced people who failed at getting traction now have a resume bullet point and a great network?

If that's true, then it just lends credence to the original article's point that we've replaced quantifiable quality with politics.

Let's compare.

At their age I went to graduate school in math. Which was a longer time commitment, at lower likely salaries, which left me with no real employable skills.

I do not see a failed startup at that age as a worse economic choice than graduate school was for me.

Losing 1-3 years of career development by working at a failed startup with other 20-somethings from whom you have nothing to learn is a very expensive career choice -- unless we do actually live in a bubble of vapid startups in which actually being good at your job (whether it's programming, business development, or otherwise) doesn't actually matter.

That's not even factoring in the broader opportunity costs, actual cash outlay, etc.

I don't think that's the right way to think of Y Combinator. It's Harvard++.

What incubators and VCs and tech press sell, much more than money or exposure, is legitimacy. Once you're legitimized, you don't need to worry as much about money because it will seek you out.

Being YC means you're already legitimate (it was the first of its kind, and is therefore highly prestigious) and require almost no further capitalization from YC itself.

I tend to view the tech R&D golden age as a product of post-war prosperity and the unique advantages the US had during the latter half of the 20th century. Trust between corporations and employees, and indeed the longevity of corporations themselves has now been so eroded that no one is willing to continue playing the long game of R&D. Take into account the insanity of how the patent system protects all the wrong people and has on balance the exact opposite of its intended effect, and I see the current situation as a bit of a Darwinian inevitability.

Being a software engineer is still a kick-ass job compared to almost anything else out there today.

Being a software engineer is still a kick-ass job compared to almost anything else out there today.

No, I really don't think so. If I were to do it over again, I would rather be an Alaskan fishing boat operator than a software engineer doing 99% of the stuff that paid programmers have to do.

My body is mediocre. It works, there's nothing wrong with it, and I'm probably in the top 33% for physique, but I'm not Olympic material, so using my body for mediocre physical work does not offend me. It seems about right.

I think I would be happier in medieval times when there was no expectation that a smart person would do high-quality work. You did harsh physical work for 45 years and then died. Seems more fulfilling than this corporate bullshit where a bunch of well-connected high priests don't merely do less work and make more money, but the fuckers think they earned it!

My mind, on the other hand, is Olympic material and any time someone tries to coerce me into using it for the grunt work they don't want to do, it just makes me homicidal.

This comment is the worst piece of crap I've read here. It reads like the worst kind of egotistical, entitled, and insular stereotype of people in this field. You ought to be ashamed.

You mind, "_is_ Olympic material". Bollocks. Did your Olympic class mind research the fatality rates and lifestyle for Alaskan fisherman? Happier in medieval times? Are you out of your damn mind? God help you that you have to deal with a boss that makes more money then you and doesn't recognize what a snowflake you are. I can't believe you have to deal with mundane tasks like the rest of us peons.

EDIT: I read the civility note, but how does the parent comment have positive points to engage with constructively? Honestly. It is pure tripe. I bet that 6.8 billion on the face of the planet would do anything to trade place with this guy, and he's wishing that he lived in a time when 1/3 of children died before age 5 and 1/5 of women died because of childbirth? Just because he is suffering from malaise? Can't he watch Office Space or Fight Club to get it out of his system? Didn't more than 1000 Bangladeshis die in a sweatshop less than 1 month ago? What a stunning lack of perspective and empathy.

Lack of empathy, sure. But this is orange sunshine perspective.

You hold strong opinions for how little you understand.

I am aware that there's a higher fatality rate for Alaskan fishermen than software engineers. However, I don't really worry about dying. I do worry about subordination, which I find to be worse. If I'm to die, I'll die. But the slow death that takes 50 years (subordination) is one I can't tolerate even thinking about.

Also, let's talk about the emotions that come along with robbery and crime.

Let's say that someone robs you at gunpoint and take the contents of your wallet. Lucky for you, you only have $3 in your wallet at the time. So the financial loss is trivial. You're still traumatized, and no one likes being robbed. No one. Even with only $3 lost, you'd probably rather this never happened, and avoid the place where the robbery occurred for a long time.

Yes, there are horrible things in the world that I can't control and those are far more awful than the state of the software industry. That's true. If I could change them, I would; and I'd feel awful if I didn't.

However, people are fundamentally local in how they engage with the world. They tend to focus on things they can change, the robberies in their neighborhood rather than half a world away. And, fundamentally, what we need as software engineers is a neighborhood watch for our industry.

The problem with Work (the social-climbing game, not the activity) is that when you get robbed, it's taken to be entirely your fault. If someone steals from you and fucks up your career, you're the loser, not him. He probably got a promotion for that shit.

What is the matter with you? Why do you write like this? Are you trying to build a personal online brand? Talk like an actual human being.

I don't need 5 paragraphs of explanation about why we deal with problems that are immediate to us. That is obvious. Prairie dogs understand that. Granted, that was not what I objected to in your original post, but I'll give you a pass on that.

Now, your last paragraph would be interesting if it weren't the fundamental point of (most recently and noteably) Karl Marx, who, interestingly enough, lived his entire life and wrote out a far better though-out version of your rant before there was a single computer. This is the what the rest of us have referred to as, "shit happens" for centuries.

I probably wouldn't have created a throwaway in the first place if it weren't for the unbearable arrogance in your posts when you're talking about something that philosophers have been discussing in far better depth for centuries, and the myopic belief that this is unique to software. Even if you switched too commmercial fishing you'd probably be the one complaining that he's stuck at deckhand because some other guy kissed the captain's butt to make first mate.

While the bitter negativity is a step to far, I also think that you romanticize serfdom. Read The Prince and tell me that corporate political ethos is not the same as 15th century court intrigue. All your work in either case is at the whim of those in power.

I don't "romanticize serfdom", but there is one advantage of pre-industrial serfdom over modern subordination. It lasts half as long; if you're lucky, < 1/50 as long.

You imply that malnourishment, lack of medical care, and hard labor, all contributing to an earlier death very soon after the end of productive capacity to be superior to a longer, less physically taxing, existence with more (Maslovian) needs met- that also has a high probability of retirement;

given 98% of your productivity in both systems profit other before yourself: your goals are clearly suicidal or trolling

If you would rather be a serf, then you can go - now - to some random country in Africa and try your hand at subsidence farming. The experience is pretty much the same as serfdom was, and your current economic situation is likely to let you start with a big step up over most of the locals.

> If I were to do it over again, I would rather be an Alaskan fishing boat operator than a software engineer doing 99% of the stuff that paid programmers have to do.

I usually find your comments thought provoking but as somebody who is familiar with this industry I assure you that this is not the case.

No need to even go into the conditions, which are probably more horrible than you imagine (in terms of the work itself, workers' physical safety, interpersonal interactions that usually range from unfriendly to physically abusive, and overbearing managers which we all know you despise). Those are obvious. But if you think that VC's exercise undue influence on the tech industry, and if you chafe against this kind of control (as it seems you do), you would not enjoy an industry where people doing the actual labor and putting their lives on the line (really) make very little compared to the extremely large companies that bankroll the operations and distribution.

A nitpick, I know, but... software development is still not a bad industry to be in compared to most.

I have to assume he is trolling here as he is quite a bright lad after all, and he had nothing to say when I called him out in my reply. As a troll it was one of the most effective I've seen in a while just by reply volume.

I have go call bullshit on this. You are probably younger than every Alaskan fishing boat operator today and you could go do that tomorrow if you really wanted. Also, why would it be better to pay 80% of your labor directly to a king who would let you starve after a bad harvest or two than it would be to deal with some douchey suits?

I mean you can't really be serious with this, it's just a diatribe against the existing corporate hegemony, am I wrong?

> Also, why would it be better to pay 80% of your labor directly to a king who would let you starve after a bad harvest or two than it would be to deal with some douchey suits?

Most of the time its literally the same thing: pay 80% of the value of your labor to someone who doesn't care if you starve in a drought.

In medieval times what you produced had intrinsic value. If you work in a corporation it's impossible to isolate the value you are creating from the company itself. Maybe they take 80% of your value, or maybe you are extracting a paycheck and providing negative value. In any case though, I find it disingenuous to seriously compare this to being essentially enslaved by a feudal lord.

Companies are built on employees creating more value than they are paid. That's obvious. The fact that its harder to measure who produces how much doesn't change the dynamic, it just means you have to do the analysis statistically instead of individually.

The other thing companies are built on is employees being able to create more value within the company than outside of it. Every single employee has the option of quitting and founding their own business. Several do. Many take a pay cut to exercise this right.

This is a crucially important point. The question becomes: to what extent does the accumulation of capital, expertise, equipment in a corporation render a software engineer able to produce more value than working on their own, or in a partnership, or other arrangement?

I would imagine this varies dramatically by industry. I know several of the biosciences, for example, do require a lot of specialized people, equipment and tons of cash... Many of the areas we're seeing disrupted by startups are areas where you'd hit diminishing returns (from, say, more equipment / capital) rather quickly.

Right, but that was true of feudal structures too.

I'm not sure if you're trying a reductio ad absurdum or what, but your point is lost on me because the comparison is foolish on its face.

It's funny, I actually met a guy once who worked on Alaskan fishing boats and decided to move into programming. I don't think he regretted the move.

FWIW, if you'd really prefer to be an Alaskan fishing boat operator than a software engineer, that option is open to you. I have a friend that spent 6 months on an Alaskan salmon-fishing boat before taking a job at an economics consultancy. He said the work is back-breaking, the job conditions are dangerous, the hours are insanely long...but it was overall a pretty good experience, because he learned that maybe office work wasn't so horrible. (He forgot it a couple years later when he quit and decided to party it up in Thailand off savings later, but that's another story...)

Also FWIW, I used to think my mind was Olympic-class material as well, and certainly had the test scores and comments from accomplished adults to back it up. Maybe it still is, but I care a whole lot less now, because I've learned that beyond 120 or so IQ, EQ matters a lot more. And if my mind is actually that awesome, I could use it to increase my EQ rather than complain about how nobody recognizes how brilliant my IQ is.

"I would rather be an Alaskan fishing boat operator"

Having spent a week on a trawler in the North Sea (and coming from a family where most of my males ancestors for ~300 years were fishermen) I can emphatically state that I like having a job on dry land.

It is incredibly hard work, uncomfortable, risky and unpleasant in just about every way possible.

I love being a software engineer, but I would quit in a second to become a crew member under Han Solo on the Millenium Falcon. Until that opportunity shows up software developer is one of the best jobs on the planet. Go work physical labour for awhile, then make a decision. If you like it better than switch, if you don't like that then switch again. There are no limits besides those we create for ourselves. Oh, you do have to let go of the thinking that money matters, you might have to get a cheaper house or have some hard discussions with your wife or friends. If they love you though they'd rather live in an apartment with a happy person than a huge house with an unhappy one though.

If I was not a software engineer/tech entrepreneur, I would be Alaskan Bush Pilot.

As someone who actually lives up in Alaska, I think you guys may be romanticizing it just a tad. Sure, it's adventurous and everything, but do you really want to live somewhere where you have multiple feet of snow nine months out of the year (or more - we had a snowstorm just about a week ago. Yes. In May.) Everything is more expensive, jobs are hard to come by unless you want a two-weeks-on two-weeks-off rotation to somewhere where it's even colder (-50 F plus wind chill is pretty normal for the Slope), etc.

If you do want to deal with that, good-for-you, but it's not like the grass is verdantly greener here.

And yes, I know you both were probably only half-serious. It just amuses me when people refer to Alaska like its some sort of mystical Last Frontier. It is pretty cool up here, I must admit.

I had the great opportunity of interning at HP Labs during my Junior year summer, and it was (in its own way) the kind of R&D haven that you describe. My team was comprised purely of PhD scientists, many of them former Xerox Parc exiles from down the road. Brilliant, wonderful people who could spend decades as engineers and researchers and be appreciated for their technical contributions.

It definitely had to deal with the corporate mandates, but (at least in my team) the team manager was a player/manager (MIT PhD who could do EE, ME, and CS) who was quite deft at managing the politics.

I imagine the place is being slowly eroded, especially given how poorly the company has been doing as of late, which is really a shame and I wish I were in a position to do something about it.

I think you nailed it right there. Corporate R&D can be the best of the best, but there's no default mechanism to turn that brillance into money.

If you read a few of Dijikstra's comments from the 70s and 80s, I think you'll find the software industry was a wreck then too.

>A large part of it is that big companies have given up on trying to innovate (they just buy innovations, at a panic price) and the people from whom innovation typically came are now a pariah caste of almost-unemployable miserable geniuses.

Why innovate when the miserable genius idea generates a 10% cap rate and you can borrow from your wall street pals for 3% and run the company like crap so it only generates a 5% cap and it still makes money?

The miserable genius eco-system has very expensive money. Meanwhile, up in the wall street/VC jet stream, money is easy to come by.

That term, "R&D," it sounds so retro and quaint!

I guess a lot of large corporations and their shareholders have stopped thinking that they can or want to do creative/innovative work, and have decided to focus on doing repetitive work more profitably.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com