Thanks
198 karma · joined August 11, 2010
There is no escaping the system. :)
A relative escape may be possible, but definitely not an absolute and complete escape from 'all' systems.
You go live in a jungle, you have to adapt yourself to the 'system' there.
You may be able to escape the laws of a more civilized country by living with some tribes in Papua New Gunea or the Amazon, but you would have to start living by their laws (formal or informal).
I know some people in India who successfully use these to get regular payments from customers in the US.
But whichever way you choose, its likely going to be complex in the start. If you keep at it, it will start getting easier sooner or later.
Good luck.
I am assuming you have completed your undergrad in CS or a related field. You should be able to grow faster if you give it a serious try. It can also allow you to add practical skills while getting paid and when you are waiting for your big idea to come up.
Good luck.
Ideally I would want somebody who could bring strong readily usable skillsets. Two other long time friends-advisors (one in software marketing, one a software whiz) both have heavy constraints against making a risky move such as joining a startup.
I have some very strong strengths and some very strong weaknesses. The thought behind going for this friend is, if I can't find somebody I trust, who can bring strong strengths along with being able to counter my weaknesses, I might as well as bring somebody in who can counter my weaknesses. And this guy can do at least that, if he is willing to join and really contribute.
Unfortunately, one of my weaknesses is building rapport quickly with people:). I am working on it, but can't bank on becoming good at it fast enough to build a good team quickly.
Thats true, I would not be able to afford to spoon feed him about what he can, he should or how he can do different things. I would have to spend more or less full time on development, finances and customers. He would have to be a self starter and go about trusting his own instincts, if he joins this company. But currently it looks like I have more trust on his instincts than he has on them (at leaast with respect to this venture)
Have come across some really awesome articles that were immediately applicable to my situation, some are absolute crap though.
The moderating mechanism has been a good source of constructive feedback for my communication skills, which are far from great. (still, long way to go)
Came across some great perspectives on some issues, as well as some crappy ones. Overall, I am glad I found it.
If you are passionate about something and want to get in depth exposure, there is nothing stopping you from
1) reading up all the books you can get hands on on that subject,
2) develop theories and do all the analysis you can do on that subject,
3) meeting/interacting with as many experts on that subject as possible.
If you love it, go for it.
(but yeah, do graduate, that degree paper can carry a lot of weight, especially in getting the first job)
Good luck.
That was a good one!
The newsletter can work well as a brainstorming tool in coming up with names for ideas one may have.
It sure was tough to come up with names for some ideas that popped up a while ago.
"I think you're going down a rat-hole by trying to frame things in terms of "points of information". There's a lot more to "experience" than the simple collection of data points."
After I replied to it, on examining my own reply, I found out your comment was the perfect example for a good enough analysis to find a good enough solution to a problem of mine. Now my challenge is to practice that solution enough to make it effortless.
Coming back to "judgment" and "wisdom"
What is wisdom, but accumulated knowledge, hopefully filtered through the sieve of common sense? (irrespective of whether that knowledge is factual or purported to be factual)
What is judgment, but a decision based on that accumulated knowledge, once again, irrespective of whether that knowledge is factual or purported to be factual?
I believe that, whether one is conscious or not of them, we are predominantly slaves to our beliefs (while still being capable of modifying them, and of course, the beliefs themselves are subject to change because of stimulus, whether it is internal or external stimulus). So I think it is worth to keep developing beliefs that are 'good', 'strong' and 'reason' based.
This development of the "meta-belief system" is sort of an experiment of my own, based on certain observations and personal convictions, and also inspired by TPS (Toyota Production System), the Zero defect goal (impossible to achieve, but gives rise to the right actions), COS, (Cummins Operating system, people don't follow it all the time, still it gives rise to the right efforts more often than not), the mission statements extolled in six sigma classes and big corporations.
All these are simple set of words that are not meant to put out in detail what one should do in each and every situation, but still are remarkably efficient in ensuring that most actions in particular situations are in particular direction (hopefully the right one) more often than not.
So that's how a "meta-belief system is supposed to work, at least in my definition of it. Its supposed to be like a substratum/foundation for beliefs on which other beliefs can exist on the basis of reason, or like an equation in maths or physics from which one can derive more practical equations that can be applied to different practical problems.
Well.. if you check with me in 10 years, I think I would have collected enough wisdom to know if this judgment to develop this meta-belief system and try to live by it was right or not. And you can tell me then if my judgment was skewed or not :)
End of the day, however it is gained, first hand or second hand, it is all knowledge.
To quite some extent, if one is low on one type of knowledge, one can make up with increasing the knowledge from another source.
Imagine a 3-d space filled with points. Some points may be of one color, some of another color, some bigger, some smaller, but all can be used if you want to make a network of points/pattern (that is, form an idea using that knowledge/points)
In fact, though not explicit, the benefits of having a network(the people type) is this, to have access to a much bigger universe of points than one's own, to increase the ability to find solutions(which is an idea, at the end) to one's problems.
I have seen some successful companies actually have similar strategies in their people development policies.
They have strategies to develop people with breadth of experience that would make them good for certain roles like project leaders. They also have strategies to develop people with depth of experience that would make them good for other roles like functional excellence leaders.
Its just I don't think they formulate based on the phrase 'points of information' but simply call it experience or exposure.
I agree that many employers/managers don't care. But there are good managers and bad managers, there are companies with great people development policies and ones with the bad policies. So have hope. :)
Not trying to justify, but its just my process of refining, if I can't explain, then I have to work on it.
My answer would be this:
From the perspective of those already who have already done college: YES and NO
More people going to college increases supply, decreases pay - of course this itself is just one facet of the real situation. Another facet is, if there aren't enough people to support an organization, that organization will have to move to a place where there is enough supply to sustain itself. The incumbents might even lose their existing jobs because of that move.
From the perspective of a company or nation: NO
It is critical for the sustenance of a company or a nation, that there be enough 'qualified' people. 50 years ago, high school was quite often qualification enough for the majority of jobs. Because of the advancement of technology, that is not the case anymore. Companies and nations do need more people to go to college to be able to sustain themselves.
All of the most successful entrepreneurs, I am sure they are among the smartest people. Its just being a scientist, the typical tag for 'smartness', may not have been their aspiration.
Jobs, Gates, Theil, these are all very smart people who went on to be entrepreneurs.
At the same time, not allowing them to cash in for a very long time, could backfire as they may become frustated and start being a pain.
A good balance might be to have a staggered vesting period for different percentages. example: if their total stake is 35%, then let them divest, in increments of 5% (max) each year, starting from end of year 2.
End of the day, you have to figure out what is the best and a reasonable configuration (for both parties) that will sustain your company while rewarding those early contributors.
"Many barriers are in our heads and only in our heads. Don’t let your constraints stop you. Embrace them. You don’t need to be a genius, or own lots of money, or be networked with key people, or be skillful, funny, or good-looking to meet your goals. The ones who were remarkable in life were those who understood their limitations and bent them to their advantage."
I do believe, it is the sustained attempts at overcoming constraints and often overcoming them, that makes a person or company awesome.
There is nothing wrong with having a high paid job, you will be supporting more economic activtiy that provides more job opportunities than somebody with a lesser pay. In fact the best thing you can do is to maintain your ability to keep that high paying job or keep getting a higher pay, so that you can cause more economic activity here, where you live.
And the chosen few are not always a chosen few, they might have been the most hardworking and ingenious few. And quite often its those few who build places like University of Chicafo (Rockfeller), build 3000 libraries (Carnegie), build Stanfords, Yales, Harvards which create more people like you. Even if I want, I would not be able to help as many people to that an extent because I am not rich.
The problem is there are not enough rich people, to create enough economic activity to provide enough jobs. A 20,000 sqft house will employ more people in its construction than a 2000 sqft house. 1000 caddillacs will provide more work than 1000 Neons. Its not that the rich are more important than the poor. The truth is that the rich need the poor to get richer, the poor need the rich to get richer.
Have you considered, you are in a minority in your town, because you may be in the minority who may have decided to work harder and study more than others in your town?
I think thats one area that one can help to change the tides, work with and convince youngsters to take on the tough subjects, the ones that can sustain high paying jobs.
A123, Tesla, SpaceX, Amgen, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Medtronic all these are in the US, not to mention most of the biggest companies in the world.
The problem is all those patents are definitely turning into profits, quite a lot of which does get distributed to Americans directly or indirectly, but definitely not by generating enough jobs to keep everybody employed.
May be the number of patents that are being produced has to be increased, to generate enough jobs to overcome the producctivty gains caused by new technology?
Of course, for that to happen, there should be the ability to produce still more patents, for which in turn the bottlneck is people, that is, qualified people.
1) Increase in stock prices by getting good growth and profits (irrespective of where those come from) is generally a better wealth creator than distribution of those profits
2) companies desperately need to hold on to profits, as it is ammunition in a war of survival, whether its by parking in tax havens or some other way, so that they can deploy it when and where required to continue their survival
3) its more important for companies to have the ability to survive and provide employment to people in the long run than to distribute profits for making people happy in the short term
I would be curious to know which side you would go with.
What exactly would you do to throw your lot with whichever side you would go with?
What would you be ready to sacrifice personally to make that side win?
would you be ready to give up some time? how much?
Would you be ready to give up some money? how much?
What if you were to look back deep into history and find out that the symibotic and parasitic (both going both ways) relationships between the two parties, the corporates and the people, always existed simultaneously?
Just curious.
(btw, what, why, how, they are my favorite words, sorry to bore you all with them1)
But at the same time, the solution he suggests could backfire very badly. If it were a case where the US was the only technology leader, then protectionism could have been possibly used to re-establish local manufacturing. But thats not the case, there are competitiors there too, japan, Korea, Taiwan, not to mention China.
If the US does resort to protectionism, it would put at stake the massive revenues that american companies are getting from foreign markets. For many of the top American companies, the foreign markets are the fastest growing markets and in many, they have started being more than 50% of revenues.
The moment American companies start being 'idealistic' or the government starts protectionistic, that would set american companies at a massive disadvantage in foreigh markets. Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese and Chinese companies would be more than willing to take advantage of those disadvantages that American companies would face.
The evntual losers would be the investors in American companeis, that includes the multitudes of Americans who invest in them through pension funds, mutual funds, 401s, etc. Of course, they will lose in other wasy if they keep losing the manufacturing jobs too.
This is like a highly complex Game theory scenario with multiple players, multiple possible strategic moves, with gains and losses for each move. A simplistic or idealistic answer would not solve it
I think what the Gates foundation is doing, spending on education to increase the supply of more highly qualified people within the US, in the future, is definitely a move in the right direction.
As for Grove, I think he is just doing his best to serve his masters the best. Earlier his masters were the investors in Intel, so he was making sure that it was profitable and keeps surviving. Now, that he no longer has to serve those previous masters, he has decided to serve his primary master, the USA of which he is a citizen
(Please note, my use of the words 'masters' and 'serving' is not meant to be derogatory, he is just doing his patriotic duty now that there is no conflict with his corporate duties. I am not going to judge him based on that, life is not black and white, and he still remains very high in my list of idols.)
Be patient with yourself, don't let frustration get the better of yourself, keep trying, get immersed and give yourself some time.
For me, it took quite some time of interspersed half-hearted attempts, then accidental and incremental opportunities to do increasingly complex tasks that I could learn and scale (on different environments, SAP, NC, Excel Macros, JMP), then some big time immersion over 4 weeks with David Power's books (his style clicked for me). I am no expert now, but am doing stuff that I didnt' think I could.
Would have to disagree about the "Natural" part of your comment. Keep working at it.
Good luck.
For a small PHP app, they did be great. They have awesome customer support, very friendly, helpful and have been able to take care of my requirements and questions everytime.
Their main(and the only one in my perspective) drawback is they do not provide dedicated servers.
In case you do decide to go for them, do know that you can get one domain free if you take even their basic hosting package.
Btw, they have unlimited dbs/tables, unlimited domain hostings on a single account (but only one https per account) also.
Try this:
Have
1)long term deadlines, (Quarterly?)
2)mid term deadlines (Monthly?)
3)short term deadlines (Weekly?)
At least on a weekly basis, review the deadlines and tasks with the team/functional leaders, and see if there are any issues that would prevent any of the deadlines from being met. If there are such issues, then brainstorm for solutions and then follow up.
Keep following up on fixed schedules and keep asking for reasons if any of the deadlines are not being met.
In fact, a better idea would be to let the team decide on the deadlines and commit themselves to delivering them. If they are too loose, push for tighter deadlines (over time anybody would develop a good sense of judging the deadlines - if they are too loose). That can make them push themselves hard when required to deliver by their own deadlines and they do get a sense of achievement.
And do your part to be the facilitator, to help them reach those deadlines. It could mean to provide hard resources, soft resources, to iron out political problems, to be a cheerleader, a hard driver/nudger, be a sounding board or whatever you need to be to help them deliver those deliverables.
Other than the work/task ownership aspect, another reason why I prefer this approach is, often the ones with hands on experience are the ones best qualified to estimate the effort required.
At least thats the way I prefer to work. Keeps the management time overhead low too (relatively)