The fact that this post mentions all benefits and no downsides makes it not very credible to me.
1,376 karma · joined December 27, 2012
> A higher likelihood of having a huge impact (given that most startups fail).
I think it's important to note that regarding money, starting a company does have a very high _expected value_. It's just that it's high risk-high reward, which makes it a bad fit for people with lower risk tolerances. But if your goal is to have as big an impact on the world as possible, risk doesn't matter too much.
https://80000hours.org/2012/01/salary-or-startup-how-do-good...
Currently, you usually take one semester of microeconomics, and another of macroeconomics. This book seems like it covers both micro and macro. But this book also seems to introduce new material on top of the things typically taught in micro and macro classes today. So then it seems like full coverage of the book wouldn't fit into two semesters.
(I intended to make this point in the original post but completely failed to, sorry.)
The main website of The CORE Project does mention a bunch of colleges using it. This points to the fact that colleges are willing to adopt it, but not necessarily to the fact that many colleges will be willing to adopt it.
When colleges do choose to adopt it, I wonder if they'll just pick and choose material that covers more traditional curriculums as opposed to the more modern topics this book covers. If so, the mission of the project will really take a punch.
Interesting idea. Seems similar to what stoicism recommends, from what I understand. I think they say to give up your comforts once in a while so that you appreciate them more. Which seems sensible to me.
- The goal of those with lots of equity, like the founders and investors, is that "collective goal" of company profit.
- The goal of one employee may be to keep their job, provide for their family, and spend as much time with their family as possible.
- The goal of another employee may be to learn as much as possible.
- The goal of another employee may be to get promoted up as high as possible (for social and/or financial gains).
- The goal of another employee may be to do as much social good as possible, regardless of what the effect is on the bottom line.
If a company is like a sports team, then I think it's like one that is thrown together in gym class where each student has a different goal.
- One student may actually be competitive and want to win.
- Another may care a lot about their grade, and only try when the teacher glances over at them.
- Another may just be concerned with not getting sweaty and ruining his/her hair.
- Another may be selfish and want to, in basketball for example, be a ball hog and take every shot.
- Another may just be having fun, and not be too concerned with winning.
I understand that executives may _want_ their employees to act as if they are on a competitive sports team - working really hard together towards a common goal, and then heading home at night to relax and recharge. But the fact that executives want it doesn't make it an accurate description of reality.
> Google is known for its sparse homepage, which, though mostly white space, has, according to analytics firm Alexa Internet, become the world's most-visited website.
I'll provide a few perspectives.
Act consequentialist ("hardcore"): Is the world as a whole better or worse off after you take that action? Probably better off. By taking that action, there'll be less money in your companies pockets. That money may trickle down a bit to Average Joes, but probably will go mainly to rich people who don't need it. On the other hand, you'll have more free time, you'll be happier, and your child will get to spend more time with your son.
Rule consequentialist: Evaluating the costs and benefits of this particular action is error prone, so you're better off just following a good rule of thumb. In this case, I think a good rule of thumb is to oblige by your contract. Your contract as a full time salaried employee is to, basically, give us your time for 40 hours a week and work reasonably hard. If your contract was some sort of fixed price freelance gig, then things would be different, but by signing the contract you did, you gave them your word that you would work reasonably hard for 40 hours a week, and keeping your word is a good rule of thumb.
Rule consequentialist: Evaluating the costs and benefits of this particular action is error prone, so you're better off just following a good rule of thumb. In this case, I think a good rule of thumb is to be honest, and tell your boss.
Deontologist: You have a _duty_ to follow your contract. You should do it _because it's your duty_, not because you think it'll lead to good consequences.
Deontologist: You have a _duty_ to be honest.
Deontologist: You have a _duty_ to be the best possible father you can be, no matter what it takes.
Virtue ethicist: You should follow your contract, because doing so is sticking to your word, and sticking to your word is virtuous. You shouldn't be sticking to your word because you think following that rule-of-thumb will lead to good consequences, you should be doing it simply because it's virtuous.
Virtue ethicist: You should do what is best for your son, because being a good father is virtuous.
Personally, I believe in consequentialism, and I believe that you can use your judgement to decide whether or not to use act or rule consequentialism, based on whether you think you have a decent grasp of the trade offs. If you don't have a good grasp of the trade offs, you can expect a rule-of-thumb to do a better job than your attempted analysis, and should go with the rule-of-thumb. Otherwise, go with the results of your analysis.
In this situation, it seems to me that the trade offs are relatively clear, and that you could go ahead and keep it to yourself. But I wouldn't blame someone for taking the position that the trade offs aren't actually too clear, and it'd be better to fall back on a "be honest" rule-of-thumb.
Note: I expect that if you told them, they would take the program, and either a) use it and fire you, or b) maybe keep you around as a contracter or something to add to the program. You wrote the program during work hours, on a work computer, presumably. So legally, it is there intellectual property. Assuming you don't have some atypical clause in your contract.
1) To what extent do you think it was luck for you to find such a great company?
2) Any job search advice?
3) I'm curious - do you think the investment the company made in you has paid off for them?
I get that being a 0.1x programmer helps with productivity. But don't technical skills _also_ help with productivity?
1) While the value of fundraising is currently overrated, it's important to not go too far in the opposite direction and underrate it.
2) I would have liked to see an objective alternative proposed in this article.
Relevant excerpts:
> The importance of extremely comfy and ergonomically dazzling chairs is exaggerated. There is simply no such thing as a perfect chair: your body isn’t comfortable with any position for hours at a time. The problem isn’t the position that your body is in, but the lack of motion, exertion, and variety of stimulation, and no chair can solve that.
> The best chair might just be two or three simple-but-different chairs used in rotation, including or used in conjunction with an destabilizing cushion, such as a Disc-O-Sit or Sissel Sit, or a fitness ball.
> In my office, I have a standard office chair and a stool, both of which I use in combination with a Disc-O-Sit for plenty of variety.
> And, if you still want a good chair, and if you’ve got the cash, by all means — get yourself a fancy chair! I did. I worried about the cost until I sat in it. I’ve now been sitting in it without buyer’s remorse for about 12 years.
(The chair he bought and is referring to is the popular Aeron chair)
a) It should be pointed out that this is what the article is doing (giving a vote of confidence, not summarizing, not making any sort of thorough or novel argument).
b) I think that thorough and novel arguments are more useful. The following post comes to mind: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2016/09/write-to-say-stuff-wor....
However, this was just one example. I think the article could be greatly improved by giving, like, 50 examples (in an abbreviated form, like "Newton: physics, alchemy, theology"). With one example it's sorta easy to think, "eh that might just be an exception". With 50 example, it's easy to think, "wow, look at all of that; the core idea definitely does seem to be true".