angersock

It doesn't reflect poorly on you as a person.

People whining about your complaints are just failing at being empathetic. They lack the context or the decency to hear you out politely.

It doesn't reflect poorly on you as a person.

Not having $X_DOLLARS in your savings account due remittances back home (or, hell, whatever else you spend it on) doesn't mean you're a bad or a weak person. It just means you didn't or couldn't optimize for that account balance in your life.

It doesn't reflect poorly on you as a person.

For what it's worth, you mention that you spend 20 hours working, sleeping, and commuting. Sleep is important, but don't give the bastards more than 8 hours of your life per day (including commute) unless they're compensating you well for it. Valuing yourself and your time here about some corporate masters is important.

It doesn't reflect poorly on you as a person.

I find it highly unlikely we are going to be able to trust "mediated" access.

Also, maybe bluetooth and USB devices don't need to be on the net.

It's also not so much a matter of law as it is professionalism.

Why do you think otherwise?

Criticism, behind closed doors or strictly in the company of other engineers with the correct training and experience, is not dangerous.

Criticism shared with non-engineers amounts to second-guessing and degrades the trust of the public in the profession as a whole, which has tangible negative outcomes for everyone.

Imagine if every project you'd been on had another developer bending the ear of management saying "oh, that's the wrong editor...oh, that's not the right algorithm to use..."! It'd be awful.

For mechanical and structural engineering, both much more difficult and unknowable than software, it is of the utmost importance not to foment doubt and uncertainty in people who are by definition unqualified to properly understand the criticisms and weight them.

That's a fine view to take! But don't come rattling the cup around going "but poor founders, so lonely, nobody to talk to" when they've made that choice.

This article is a fraud, and the author is a hack.

Don't act like founders are unique in this affliction.

Maybe if they stopped treating themselves like some anointed class and shared the equity with their employees instead of viewing them like lower-class citizens it wouldn't be so hard to find comrades.

They should be rewarded proportionate to the growth they create and catalyze.

Shouldn't the more pressing concern of--oh, I don't know--massive and rampant homelessness in SF be a higher priority?

I don't really care what the answer was, as personally I think either position is workable. I was just curious what rayiner thought.

It is left as an exercise for the reader to assess where we are at with each box in contemporary America.

You mean like the people who keep lending money to students who aren't going to be able able to pay it back?

If you just want to be a statistical script kiddie you do you. :)

We used to call them the Sunday paper.

How is money made in healthcare? Is it made by administrative paperwork and compliance? Is it made by selling drugs and treatments aggressively? Is it made by finding ways of cutting corners and increasing efficiency of care so hopsitals can pay less? Does any of that have anything to do with the perceived quality of life increase for a patient? Insofar as it does, what market forces exist to keep those things in check?

Who actually pays for healthcare? Under what circumstances? How much administrative overhead is introduced to make that happen and protect against fraud? How much of that overhead does your software have to deal with/take into account?

How resistant are healthcare systems to change? Is there any significant difference in the mindset of physicians today than there was back when they mocked folks for washing hands before delivering babies? What roadblocks exist to prevent systems from wasting time with crazy ideas from motivated and noisy physicians--and how do those roadblocks impact people doing software?

Who are the main players in healthcare IT? How did they get there? What measures have they taken to decrease competitiveness in their sectors, and how have they achieved vendor lock-in? To what degree, if any, can hospital systems work to circumvent or reinforce that lock-in?

What does the regulatory environment look like? How long does it take to do a "simple" FDA 510k filing (personal experience suggests a year and change depending on how you do bookkeeping, but that's neither here nor there)? What standards must you comply with? Are those standards public, or do you have to pay money for each and every one?

I could go on, but this should help.

That said, it's a moribound industry. Don't do healthcare if you can avoid it--you'll get paid better as a developer nearly anywhere else, and it won't be a third as frustrating.

Counterargument: he was in the right place, at the right time, and happened to be working in a sector that made it easy to pivot into online retail.

Not to say that his skill/leadership wasn't involved in going from say 2bn to 100bn, but he lucked out in timing.

I'd say some big factors are:

It's more authentic than almost any other site. Moderators/janitors are pulled from the userbase, content is sourced directly from the users, and there isn't much behind the website beyond "we have stupid high amounts of traffic, let's get some ad revenue". The site is honest about what it is.

The site has a core feature set and doesn't do anything else. It's like Craigslist--it does one thing, and doesn't mess about with other things.

The site is remarkably uncensored, favoring containment boards. So, love it or hate it, 4chan is very free in the speech allowed. Everybody on the site knows the culture of whatever boards they visit, and there is a culture of mockery for people who are too thin-skinned. The flip side of this is that content that people really don't want to see (furry stuff, political stuff, etc.) has a clear place to go. This is the best strategy for that sort of work, since it keeps resentment from building up and makes it easy for users to avoid stuff they don't like.

Users feel empowered to enforce norms. Even using archaic tools, users feel directly responsible to call out ("sage") things that don't belong on their board. By contrast, a lot of sites have userbases who basically whine at mods and don't take responsibility for their culture.

The site has room for everybody, but it doesn't take itself seriously. There is a cooking board, a board for hardcore pornography, a board for papercraft and origami, a board for torrents, a board for animals, a board for nazis, a board for lgbtq+ folks...basically, there are clear communities available for everybody. And every board makes fun of itself.

Users are anonymous and posts go away. This is the one that always gets brought up, but the fact is that by having ephemeral accounts and posts, people are free to speak their mind and to change their position later without ill effect.

If you want better money, or just to get paid the equity you're worth, you are forced into management roles.