gist

As someone who has a very high end car (ie 2.3 seconds 0 to 60 and that's with what others claim is, um, 'acceleration lag' and a standing stop (ie not the way Tesla apparently does it) in almost all driving you don't go around trying to zip from a complete start. In fact it's actually dangerous to do so (on a consistent basis). (My other car has a respectable 0 to 60 of about 4.3 and I don't do anything like that either). When I drive my wife's car (0 to 60 8 seconds) it fees fine simply because there is no reason to rip from a stop light except in edge cases.

That said the fabulous acceleration is either for special occasions (when other cars are not around and you want a buzz) or in some emergency situation where you need the extra power.

> And the noise, the vibration and the smell of the fumes.

In this day and age? Which car do you 'smell the fumes' or 'the vibration' unless the vibration is intentional (for the experience).

Also see this and note who the OP is: https://gothamgal.com/2024/10/journalism-vs-media/

Wonderful but almost all startups don't have a cultural icon (and btw he was one way back after Apple got started and obviously when he returned) nor do they have the resources to 'hire great people' and fire anyone and replace them.

> I would guess that previous drafts of this essay had concrete examples

It's always bothered me to no end that PG has his essays read by others prior to posting. This isn't academia (or an application to college or a job application) and he's not writing for a journal and requiring peer review (or comments or suggestions). Fine it's his own style apparently.

Now what would be very interesting is to see some of the reply comments on the drafts of the PG essays (and how extensive they are).

> Their advice could be optimistically summarized as "hire good people and give them room to do their jobs."

What's the definition of 'good people' in the sense that nobody knowingly hires 'bad' people. And to my other points (below) how is someone with (very very generally) no actual business experience (or very little ie in or out of college) supposed to know if someone is good (or just faking it even with embelished references) if they don't themselves have an idea of what 'good' is? (Also how well they are able to read people.

> You tell your direct reports what to do, and it's up to them to figure out how. But you don't get involved in the details of what they do. That would be micromanaging them, which is bad.

If you are a startup founder typically you wouldn't be able to anyway because a) You don't know their job and b) You actually don't know that much about business (or operating one) to begin with.

> judging from the report of founder after founder, what this often turns out to mean is: hire professional fakers and let them dr ive the company into the ground.

To my first point because they don't know enough don't have enough actual experience to even know how to vet someone. Welcome to the business world where actual time in business does make a difference.

> Steve presumably wouldn't have kept having these retreats if they didn't work. But I've never heard of another company doing this.

While Steve might have had other reasons for keeping the retreats the fact that PG has never heard of another company doing it could just be because Paul only reads what he reads AND not every company talks about things they do in a public way.

> but largely useless ruling because it fails to define the maximum duration for which property can be held. As such, it's up to the police as to what qualifies as indefinite. If the ruling had capped it to 14 or 30 days, that would be a useful ruling.

Not always correct as a principle.

To define a time period also means the police will tend to keep the property at least as long (or even a bit longer) than the time period listed. If the time is 'reasonable' (and yes that can vary for sure) it's ambiguous enough to make someone wonder if they would be called out as 'unreasonable' and that in itself (in many but not all cases) makes them think a bit more.

For example you will notice that at takeout places there are no signs saying how many forks or ketchup you can take (it's implied 'reasonable'). Imagine if the sign said 'you can take no more than 5 forks' my guess is many people would then think 'it's ok I don't need to forks but since I can I will take 5 forks just in case'.

Anyway to the point how much would people think is 'reasonable'?

10 years - no way 5 years - no way (unless needed for a specific purpose ie a trial) 1 year - probably not 1 month - might be to short

... and so on.

I'm not saying so much a time shouldn't be applied but that it's not always apparent and also people tend to push to the 'last minute' with timing and so on.

Can't afford 'high' prices? Work harder spend less time on play or leisure pursuits. Realize maybe you should have studied harder in high school or picked a career based on earnings rather than 'what you enjoyed'. While this doesn't cover all situations for sure it does cover many 'whiners' who wish things were just easier for them 'because they should be and that's why'.

Not everyone can 'win' and the people who try harder often win more. And of course don't forget 'luck'. It plays a large part as well.

And guess what? Many of those people who win actually worked harder and weren't born or inherited and are from disadvantaged groups. Nobody wants to think that. Everyone thinks the other person has an edge 'and if I just had that edge things would be fine for me'.

(My father came to this country with nothing. My mother grew up and her father died back when there was no social safety net. All the children went to work. And yes because of that and in addition to my personal hard work and attention to school things are better for me for sure.)

We have a DR Horton home. It's really nice and well built. They deserve to make money.

Do I know that she knew that it wasn't Jeff Bezos. Absolutely. That's no excuse for what amounts to slander https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander

"Slander is a false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person. "

I'd like to know what attempts they made in that time period to 'not suffer' meaning exactly what was said by Amazon's attorneys by way of a potential settlement. Nice they fought 'till the bitter end' (and apparently from what is conveyed they won) but not only do we not know the true exact story we won't. Entirely possible they could have avoided that suffering (if you want to call it that).

> "outrage first, thinking never"

This is near exactly my point. The outrage rising to the level as if amazon is just a truly evil entity and all based on perhaps a few bad experiences confirmed by this particular story.

Yes it's called hyperbole and clickbait. By the same token she could have gotten even more attention by claiming the janitor wrote the contract.

First this type of information should be on a web page or blog post. Not a hard to read twitter thread.

Second saying that Jeff Bezos wrote (and further that he tried to imprison her husband) it makes the OP loose credibility (especially as an attorney) for her argument (regardless of the outcome). While it's possible Jeff did write it (in the sense that a plant in the garden couldn't have written it because plants can't write) it's not credible to imply that fact to prove your point.

Also a law degree is not 'helpful no matter what route you take' from my many many years of business experience and interactions it can actually hold you back. Because you might tend to look at edge cases (such as this one) and make judgements based on things you know. Not to mention it takes years of study which detracts from other things you might learn that might be more helpful.

Will note that while not an issue as much today, any 'old timer' might remember that you generally couldn't 'blast the stereo' (when mom and dad left the house) unless you were in a single family home.

> It's the equivalent of not writing about Boeing until the day a 737 MAX crashes right in front of your newpaper offices.

In order to write about Boeing they'd have to have an angle and resources to go on a fishing hunt to create an interesting story for people to read and talk about.

> car stealerships are a relic of the past. There is no reason why a middleman should exist when buying a car. Consumers should have the option to purchase directly from the manufacturer.

This is really such a classic clueless HN comment from someone who both doesn't understand business and hasn't taken the time to understand why things are done the way that they are. (My comment doesn't mean in any way that things can't and shouldn't change and/or can't be improved. But seriously calling them in part 'stealerships'. And 'there is no reason'. Thanks for having it all figured out.

> Notorious for paying below market in engineering and IT

Why assume that good people are only driven by money and pay? Further that good people know all the opportunities and can get a job paying better? Also there is no evidence that I have seen that the places that pay better don't suffer from cyber attacks or ransomware.

A bigger part of the problem (maybe) is the fact that there is a vast amount of info published which helps people improve their hacking skills and make more attacks possible than would be the case if that info was not as easily available. (Note I did not say anything that indicates it wouldn't still be possible or happen but that it wouldn't be as easy to do).

Not a fan of HN posts like this that devolve into a bunch of pile on anecdotes which end up creating chatter which obscures the non anecdotes.

My advice (as an older person) is to 'stop reading and start doing'. You will and can learn and get a feel for business by actual transactions with people and in particular directly with them. Where you can observe reactions (ie facial expressions) and by asking questions or offering information/answers. Especially helpful (again from personal and lucrative experience) is when you can observe reactions from some kind of interaction. (In this order: in person, by phone, by email, by text). Each has it's advantages and disadvantages (ie 'in person' less interaction (travel time etc.) but more info gleaned.

This is quite different than traditional 'manage by numbers' or 'do surveys'.

There are many reasons for this and as mentioned one is employee theft. If you've ever owned or operated a retail type business you would know there is much involved in reconciling the cash sales vs. what the register shows.

Also important to note that the items mentioned are discretionary and entertainment. As such it's not unfair at all to have to pay more if you want to pay in a way that the business requests. There is no obligation for a business to support payment methods that require them to increase costs (in theory) for all customers to cover the loss of dealing in cash. (Also removes potential issues somewhat with money laundering).

Very creative and interesting ie 'use whatever tools/knowledge you have' but:

> The internal hard drive uses SCSI with an unusual connector.

This is literally never an issue as old connectors are easily obtainable (in particular 'in this day and age').

> Adapting it didn't seem straightforward, and we weren't confident the old file system (HFS) would be easy to read from a modern system.

Simple search pulled this up. Honestly that reason didn't make any sense to me at all. The other way might be interesting and fun but I don't think this is a reason not to attempt mounting the old file system.

https://www.matthewhughes.co.uk/how-to-mount-hfs-classic-dri...

> Thinking is a background process.

If you try to remember what you are trying to remember on the spot often you can't. Then you stop trying and all the sudden (and later) the answer comes to you. (One example: Happens often when trying to remember the name of an actor 'I know who that is' then later 'ok it was...')

I think this is also related to why some people don't test well. A question in a test format or information requested formulated as a question (that need an immediate answer) doesn't work for many people with facts that are memorized. In fact extreme pressure can sometimes prevent recall just because of the anxiety alone that that produces.

"To answer the question, what you do next is to remove yourself from further inputs. As long as you keep feeding your brain with more data, the queries never resolve, and eventually the stuff you fed it first will fall out of the context window and amount to nothing."

Similar/Related: If you are trying to fall asleep, and you mind is filled with thoughts, a solutions is to count (does not need to be sheep just count numbers). Counting distracts and occupies your mind from being distracted with whatever your anxiety (or excitement) thoughts are. (Source: It works for me). Anything can really be substituted for counting as long as it's not exciting or anxiety producing.

Similar in US we typically say 'the University' however on HN I frequently see just 'University'.

(Note I had the same thought as you but assumed (w/o a search) it was for the reason stated by your reply).

Oh that is not going to stop law enforcement (who as a general rule doesn't have to be truthful). They can say they have evidence that you were there and on the spot (if you decide to talk to them) they can get you for lying or asking when and why you were at the location in question (and the reasons). Plenty can be done with this even on a hypothetical. I think this is (in the hands of the right interrogator super helpful. It's not like someone who commits a crime is going to be up on the latest forensic tests and it does sound possible.

> Apparently it turned out to be stress from work, his hours, his fear of failing. Who will ever know

You are saying that 'it turned out to be stress from work, his hours, his fear of failing' but then 'who will ever know'.

Also why does it matter that he was such an apparent (to stress) academic high achiever? That doesn't make you immune in any way to anxiety or making other life choices that could be detrimental to your health. Understand that you are adding color to your story but really the 'loved, funny, played a mean guitar' why does that matter?

Easy answer appears to be he was pushed by others (or himself) and went into a field that he was not (mentally) able to do. After all most Physicians are not killing themselves (high achievers who go to Harvard or a less impressive school). Literally the same thing could have happened to him if he went into any number of high pressure fields or had other mental issues.

Typical large amount HN uniformed comments where people espouse what they think and either don't or only lightly back up what they are saying in any meaningful way. Thinking there are just simple solutions to a very complex and entrenched issue.

This one hanging under the current top comment as an example:

"It's the same in the US, Italy, etc Doctors are a cartel receiving a monopoly from the State. That's all there is to it, really"

Forgetting the reasons (sure - it's all some grand program by the AMA et al to keep up current Physician pay) for a second thinking that if you can just churn them out like you do 'coders' with some quick program that doesn't require many many years of training and residency programs as well as hospitals and other infrastructure. And of course the cost to do all of this.

In almost typical HN fashion it's always a scam. Everyone else is getting away with being overpaid and undertaxed except top software engineers who of course deserve the pay they are getting.

The particular Physician in question is in Australia and is a surgeon. So you want to just be able to pluck people at random and give them a chance to be a surgeon as if there isn't something special that is required for that specialty.

Also, that Surgeon details some of his bad experiences but not how often that has happened. And doesn't even detail what he has done in terms of fixing it with the hospital administrators just continues to be a martyr getting beaten up by the system. Not claiming it's his job to try and get change at his hospital. But by the same token this idea that he has to do what he does or 'people will die' does not fly. Your own health and sanity is more important than that (as is your families).

> There are many, many other sucker buttons.

Sucker buttons? How about (this is addressed to a certain group of people not everyone) spend your time trying to make money in some way rather than trying to max small amounts that you get from credit cards, reward programs what not. As if everyone is just some kind of retired person with time on their hands to think about miles, rewards etc as a way to keep busy.

Similar using " " to quote for reply vs. >.

> If you look at the lists of the richest people that occasionally get published in the press, nearly all of them did it by starting their own companies.

And actually it's a stupid point to begin with; making a point by choosing the absolute top percentage as if there is nothing other than 'really' rich (forget whether that is even a good thing I'd argue it's not a plus to have that much money and notoriety). There is of course 'lots of money' or 'comfortable'.

Irony also that Paul is probably not on that list but even if he was it's not because he 'built a google' but rather he decided to be an investor and incubator spreading bets over many potential winners.

Also ironic that Paul had decided rather than making more money he'd rather spend time with his family.