Founder's Blues
economist.com
economist.com
>> The lean startup methodology, the accelerators and the standardised term sheets for investments are all signs that the knowledge required to run a startup is becoming codified and commoditised. This has tilted the balance of power between investors and entrepreneurs, he writes. “Investors have won, and their dealings with the entrepreneur class now look far more like the dealings between management and labour.”
Women and minorities hardest hit.
In the fall, I had fallen into that spiral as I was removed from our product (due to a few reasons) and neither myself nor my cofounder were in a "high" when we received a serious blow. We almost/did quit and try to move on to something new. Only to realize that was a mistake and picked ourselves up again.
Yes, it's hard running a startup; and yes, every startup we consider successful has many issues. I just wished this article tried to provide a serious insight into solving startup stress rather than trying to sell one more article.
Pale? Pale?? WTF is this writer talking about? Could s/he mean Indian (so not quite black)? Or East Asian (paler than Indians but not "quite white"). This obsession with skin colours of founders is getting absurd.
Updated lesson from this article? Being white is no longer the only way to be bad ( or "not great" as the writer puts it ). Now you're bad if you're "white or pale." Sorry, Asians, Jews, and unlucky Mexicans, you're one of us now!
This article's amok boundary-drawing makes me look forward to the days of more women in tech, if not merely so I can see the rags manage to berate them for not somehow conjuring non-whites within their own ranks.
And just look at this atrocious grammar! Please tell me the large number of sentences beginning with the word "But" doesn't belie the writer's lack of insight:
> But beneath this fervour there is often a world of uncertainty. > But many still want to give it another try. > But on the whole the startup world, even more than other forms of business, leaves little room for life beyond work. > But Mr Rao’s analysis goes deeper. > But it puts a different light on startups and accelerators, suggesting that they are less about identifying the next Mr Zuckerberg or Mr Jobs than about providing a new system to train workers for the knowledge economy. > But since most of these businesses are small, so are the absolute numbers of jobs they generate.
You can tell it's a quality article when the publisher manages to omit its author's name!
<< Part of the answer is that The Economist is maintaining a historical tradition that other publications have abandoned. ... Historically, many publications printed articles without bylines or under pseudonyms—a subject worthy of a forthcoming explainer of its own—to give individual writers the freedom to assume different voices and to enable early newspapers to give the impression that their editorial teams were larger than they really were. The first few issues of The Economist were, in fact, written almost entirely by James Wilson, the founding editor, though he wrote in the first-person plural.
But having started off as a way for one person to give the impression of being many, anonymity has since come to serve the opposite function at The Economist: it allows many writers to speak with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed and debated each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. Accordingly, articles are often the work of The Economist's hive mind, rather than of a single author. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. >>
That is why I didn't finger the anonymous author for a single fracture, but instead implicated the > "large number of sentences beginning with the word "But".
Prior to posting, I wasn't sure, so I researched my answer before I posted it. My research indicated that is not incorrect, however "but" should be used "carefully and efficiently, else your text might become choppy" [1].
I also learned that "Of course, like any other word, but may be overworked." [2]
Others declared it "No, not fully acceptable." [3] and it "can be an effective rhetorical ploy in informal and semi-formal writing, but only if it isn't overused." [3]
Another article pointed out it's okay "assuming you do so in moderation" [4]
Many sources described it as okay in informal writing, e.g. " the more formal your writing needs to be, the less you should use "but" or "and" to start a sentence. There's usually a clearer way to get your point across. I work in technical writing and shy away from it on the job as a matter of course. But in more creative writing and/or informal writing (such as journaling or letter writing or posting things on Yahoo Answers!)" [5]
Another writer said "However, it is slightly informal. If formality is your goal, choose more formal language." [6]
All of these darts at formality indicate a transgression in a business publication.
However, my friend, if your read my words closely, you'll notice there's a much deeper implication to which I invite the community for consideration which has slipped under the radar. I have claimed a much deeper link between the writer's atrocious, immoderate use of the word and his hazy chain of thought. I imagine this thought to be substantially more controversial and much less easily assailed.
[1] While it is acceptable to use such conjunctions to start a sentence, you should still use them carefully and efficiently, else your text might become choppy. [ http://www.dailywritingtips.com/can-you-start-sentences-with... ]
[2] http://grammar.about.com/od/grammarfaq/f/butsentencefaq.htm
[3] http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2190190
[4] http://dodgingcommas.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/weekly-grammar...
[5] http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2006061311073...
[6] http://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2005/11/...