_curious_

The author seems to be a good writer but it getting old hearing people wax poetic about their opinions on the valley - anyone got facts to support anything?

I believe it, though there is plenty of opportunity for earned media - its not PR firm, ads, or nothing...

Sounds like you have a high standard, as you should!

"otherwise they are a founder and should be rewarded accordingly with equity."

Of course - as they were. My point was on cash money comp. Never said they worked for free hence their title of technical cofounder which implies equity.

"...and actually be effective at it is extremely rare. What you'll usually find is someone at the beginning of their career that doesn't really understand what they are getting into."

The onus is on the founding team to be sufficiently compelling to attract such a rare breed and if they execute correctly there is no short end to the stick to be had.

Care to elaborate on what "rich with availability bias" means? I've never heard that one before.

Also, the individual in reference wasn't the of the gender you're assuming.

Agreed, it's not even about the money.

My last company had a technical cofounder who by all means was highly sought after and managed a team of 15-20 other developers in their primary dev consulting company meaning not only did they rock technically but also had biz acumen.

That individual worked FOR FREE for 3 years 25 hrs/week before collecting any money.

Don't ever think you have to pay a developer some market salary (or any salary) upfront. If the idea + company + team is legit, they will jump at the chance to be involved.

It's the right idea but the wrong tool. Debt is actually the enemy of the founder/entrepreneur IMO...but building equity in yourself through moonlighting, side hustle, etc - is a better pathway. This is known as hard work = 60-80 hrs/week combined type of stuff.

Debt will creep up and crush you eventually, do not go into debt to "fund" your startup.

For some founders & entrepreneurs, it forces them to work smarter - not necessarily harder - and that's the goal, to figure out what isn't working right and change it to reduce/eliminate the anxiety caused by an under-performing startup.

"You need the best PR firm you can get to return your calls."

Saying someone "needs" something (ie paid PR) in order to succeed could also be deemed terrible advice.

"You're going to end up with a bunch of rich white dudes as founders (because very, very obviously the other way that people can afford to take smaller checks is if they have a lot of money in the bank)."

There are many founders of various social identities who are not rich yet have managed to succeed with bootstrapping or small seed/accelerator investments because they are capable.

To assert that some people are inherently advantaged or disadvantaged as founders and/or entrepreneurs based on such factors as race and gender is the definition of prejudice.

Interesting thoughts Carol, thanks for sharing. It's important to have this sort of conversation with yourself when considering the foundations of starting a company. The fact that you've expressed it in such a way that others can tap into may be valuable for those like you at or approaching this crossroads. Fascinating thought process!

Not enough entrepreneurs/founders are able to have such a pragmatic and mature dialogue up front about the pros and cons. It's imperative that they do for the sake of their time and emotional well being - at the least. Kudos to you for going through it and making a decision which suits your needs.

You've said: "Setting goals like working at a certain company, promotions (up to positions like CTO) and building a specific type of thing aren't less ambitious than building a successful startup." ... and I would ask you to elaborate on that, like is there anything more "ambitious" than building successful startup or how do you perceive the scale of ambition in the context of say business/professional pursuits?

PS - I didn't know that hey.com was considered a "huge, groundbreaking" product...certainly captured some hearts and minds of the early adopter meets anti apple/establishment crowd but is it (yet) recognized outside of that bubble?

"...I guess my point is, I think all I cared about was the geography and temperature profile, and the lifestyle the place would bring me. The actual company I'd work for came after these."

This approach/reasoning is too often overlooked. Smart and capable people get to pick and choose where they want to live.

But isn't the chance implicitly always there?

"most people want to do more than just get by" maybe so, maybe not?

There's a massive gap between wanting something and doing what it takes to get it. If you were to ask people vs. watch what they do, you'll see the truth; it's never about what people say but instead what they do.

And I'd welcome any supporting research demonstrating that, based off their actions, "most people want to do more than just get by" as stated. My anecdotal observation is that most of (working age) society actually does just enough to get by for today, this week, or maybe the month...

This is the second experiment/invention video of yours I've come across over the past year and equally enjoyable - keep up the great work!

Over the past few years in tech, I have interacted with and observed (as a fly on the wall) a wide variety of recruiters, hiring managers, etc. from companies as small as a dozen (usually around the time a founder/CEO brings in external "support").

There exists an incredible amount of arrogance and ego among them by-in-large. The best are humble and curious while maintaining clear and direct communication. To be fair, they are often tasked with making important judgement calls sans complete information, though that's the fault of the leadership/culture as to a poor approach.

"Most established professionals are not interested in a 10 week trial period after which they might be back on the job market."

Why not? If the position isn't a fit for either side after X time on-the-job, that's OK right?

I don't see why @IG_Semmelweiss comment here is dead, it's not wrong...banks were incentivized to provide capital to their highest debtors / longest clients who otherwise were at greater risk of default and loss to the bank shareholders. It's not complicated, they acted in their best interest because there was by design nothing stopping them.

The issue with this line of thinking is that it doesn't end...until it does. Neither you nor I will likely be alive, but our children may very well be :/

You're not wrong

How does the invisible hand of the market determine "those who did not really need it" ?

Some people - and the companies they operate - will, given the option, on principle, not take money which they have not earned.

In the event that they did/do accept said money they did not earn, and that money was applied effectively and literally saved their asses in an emergency that they were not properly prepared for - they would never forget it and do whatever it took to repay this money that saved their life because they are grateful.

These examples do exist, I know personally know of some and maybe you do too...or not? But that's what I am getting at: everyone has different morals and values. Further, it's helpful to know what those are (when manifested into the form of a corporation) because then we get to make informed choices about who want to work for and with based on value systems. We vote every day with our feet, our dollars, and our attention.

Would I rather work for an employer who did what it took to navigate the Covid shitstorm on their own dime or the one who needed a lifeline and didn't even have the decency to pay back what was never theirs to begin with? Obviously.

Why do you think people are so interested in this data set? Many are acting on this intel in more ways than you think!

"but we can now keep an eye on those who did not really need it." Who's to say?

So will your employer be paying the "loan" back?

"It's far too political to introduce/enforce anything that makes unemployment numbers worse. It's like a "too big to fail" on a much larger order of magnitude."

Yes and ?

How interesting it is...not even through the A's yet in my major city and I am seeing peer companies on here reporting more "jobs retained" than they even employ...if that doesn't indicate what a scam this whole thing is, what would it take to make that clear?

Edit to add: further down the list I am seeing tech co's that actually laid off large % of employees that received millions still.

They probably were not counting on this information becoming public (though it obviously is/should be by default)...any respect I may have had for them is no more. Disgusting behavior.

Why do you think that is?

"I hope more content creators will mirror their videos on services they pay for and have more control over."

I think this is the key...using the YT up/until you no longer can and then (presumably once an audience is present) reverting to your backups/hosting and going 'indy'.

In the not-to-distant future, this might actually play out IRL considering the direction some people want to take things...you sound like a thought leader who is ahead of their time and therefore may I suggest posting to LinkedIn meanwhile if you have not already and just get the ball rolling already because there are those out there who want to believe.

"Imagine if you could fund a tech startup by pre-selling product to customers"

I know of a couple tech ventures that did exactly this...they (1) had established a minimum viable audience and then (2) queried their people for what they wanted and how much they would pay for it, and (3) developed technology that delivered above and beyond functionality at (4) less cost than people expected which resulted in (5) a lot of pre-orders that (6) they delivered on which (7) that was the genesis of how they raised $VC to scale rather quickly.