442 karma · joined June 5, 2012
So, yeah, it helps your 401k, but in the mean time you don't have a job. And if you do have a job, your salary is not increasing in line with inflation...
It’s bad advice.
Here’s a famous paper on why:
http://www.sympoetic.net/Managing_Complexity/complexity_file...
You shouldn’t “fall in love” with anything
Everything is always changing. Consumer “problems”, their goals, their constraints.. its all changing, all the time.
Instead, commit yourself to delivering progress to consumers, and adapting to what that entails
Knowledge work requires the brain to wonder...to explore a problem and possible solutions freely.
Michael Jordan wasn't trying to create anything new, he was trying to develop a physical skill. Physical skills are made via repetition.
Things like stress and distraction destroy knowledge workers. This is something every experienced engineer knows.
I taught myself programming (C++) when I was 15 (1995). I made simple puzzle games on my Mac.
The internet got big and I got into HTML and JS.
I didn't go to college for Computer Science b/c it sounded like I'd end up wearing a white coat and working at IBM.
I went to Art School b/c it was the closest thing to programming. Programming and Art are the same in that you create something from nothing.
When coding became "cool" (2004 ish) I picked it up again.
There's no (or little) money to be made doing it.
Maybe in the future when collecting and modeling such knowledge is cheap. For now, it's not cheap.
I'd say that those workers were successful in spite of Taylorism. Don't fall into the trap in thinking that just because a methodology was applied, that it contributed to success.
The best evidence I can give in support of this is Deming:
Taylorism is why, for example, some companies still use lines of code written as a measure of productivity.
Check out the faculty list at Harvard Business school [link below]. I randomly looked at profiles of 14 of them and not a single one had real world business experience. If there are any who do have real world experience, it's often superficial.
To carry on this article's analogy, business schools are the Catholic church of 1500: incestuous, detached, and self-serving.
Harvard Busisness school faculty: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/browse.aspx
1) They are a parent. 2) They have used their suggested technique on their own children.
Does a Trump presidency discourage immigrants from coming to USA to work & start businesses?
Joel Spolsky also lends his support to what Mark says.
The argument from YC was (more or less) "businesses shouldn't let political differences stop people from working together."
Here's my question to the YC community: At what point does the activities of an employee / partner bring potentially unwanted attention to a business?
Yes, I wouldn't fire an employee for having different political opinions from me. BUT I would fire an employee for going around publicly campaigning and publicly donating vast sums of money to a political agenda.
Again, it's about bringing potentially divisive attention to the business - not about political differences.
Definition of Socialism: "A political and economic theory of social organization..." (via Google)
When a government enacts socialist policies, it is considered Socialist. Why? Politics is the mechanism by which economic and social policies are implemented and enforced.
This confusion about Socialist vs Fascism is common because - as you point out - they enact similar policies, e.g. high taxes.
There are numerous differences between the two. The biggest has to do with the relationship between the state and the individual:
In a Fascist / Authoritarian regime, the individual is subordinated to the state. E.g. "The state knows what's best for me. I'll do whatever they tell me to do." That's why Nazi = "National Socialism..."
In a Socialist government, the state is subordinated to the individual. This is also sometimes referred to as "active state liberalism". E.g. "The state exists to ensure we all live a happy life that enables us to pursue our own interests." France is a good example of this.
These are in contrast to what is called "classic" or "minimal state" liberalism. A liberal will say "The state exists to make sure that no one oppresses me, but it's not the state's responsibility to take care of me". This is the original version that comes from Locke, Mills, F. A. Hayek...
I remember when Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla because he donated $1000 to a campaign to block gay marriage.
Paul Graham has called Peter "eccentric, but earnest." but now he is actively supporting Trump with a great deal of money - many times more than what Brendan Eich gave.
Related:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12097606
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/785792413797199872
"Paul Graham: SOPA Supporting Companies No Longer Allowed At YC Demo Day"
https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/22/paul-graham-sopa-supportin...
Deming's 3rd deadly disease: Annual rating of performance. “It is purely a lottery”
Making it = profitable and no debt.
As odd as that may seem, a great many companies don't do that. E.g. Uber (for now).
Empathy = mental simulating of how an action will affect another.
Compassion = a desire to help another.
Responsiveness = the ability to recognize changes in someone's emotional state, and then develop and engage in a course of action based upon that change.
More info: Heinz Kohut - Reflections on Empathy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ6Y3hoKI8U
What data do you have on this? How is such figure(s) being calculated?
Your claim also doesn't jive with the "Secret Tesla Master Plan":
"The strategy of Tesla is to enter at the high end of the market, where customers are prepared to pay a premium, and then drive down market as fast as possible to higher unit volume and lower prices with each successive model."
https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-j...
Yes...but you can't build the products of tomorrow when you're primarily focused on selling the products of today.
i.e. don't hate tha playa, hate da game.
Systems can be tremendously complex. There are countless unknown and unknowable variables in play. Moreover, the interactions between those variables can also be unknown and unknowable.
The intellectual world (academia) is based upon professors and schools who can teach the "right way" of doing things and thinking. That's how PHDs work--you have to come up with a "new" idea to get your PHD. As you can see, it creates a conflict of interest.
It would be much better if academia taught simple principles, variability, and how to think.
It seems you're more interested in dicing up and attacking what I said, instead of what I mean.
I'll re-articulate it for you once more: We don't have a way to mathematically prove a drug for depression or to explain psychological phenomena. The studies in the article are talking about those which rely on empirical observation.
Go home.
My point is this: Something is true whether one accepts it or not. E.g. the earth was proven to be round before anyone actually went around it.
Another example is climate change deniers. To them there's no proof of; 1) Climate change; 2) That it's man made.
Another example is people who believe the earth is 10,000 years old (I'm not joking millions of ppl believe this). They will deny any evidence you put in front of them.
That's the beauty of maths. If you can prove it mathematically, it's true. Whether or not you believe it is irrelevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
You're missing the point of what I said w/ the Einstein example. He proved it via maths. Whether or not it was empirically validated is irrelevant. It was true mathematically
Today, this cannot be done with fields like medicine and psychology. No one can create a mathematical proof for a cure for cancer, make a treatment based upon that proof, and have it work on the first try
We don't have a way to mathematically prove a drug for depression a psychological phenomena.