khazhou

Well, I don't have all the data points, but it seems to me that snakeoiler should stand out as an anti-pattern. Maybe VCs see it differently. Maybe they'd inform me that the snakeoil CEOs are sometimes frauds, but the non-snakeoil CEOs always fail (not enough energy, not charismatic enough to attract talent, etc).

("Huckster"... that's the word I was looking for)

There's a lot of discussion here of how this was predictable given the absence of a visible prototype for so long, and the over-the-top secrecy of the project. However, for me this was a predetermined failure when I first read an interview with the founder. Classic Super-Visionary snake-oil salesman. He could say nothing about the product, except for how it would change the world more than the world had ever been changed in the history of world changes. Sure, ok. I don't remember Larry and Sergey being like that (because they had a real product). Or Bezos, etc.

Frankly, I'm shocked at how the investors couldn't see past this CEO.

Ironically, I knew you knew. Does that make me a super-pedant?

Did anyone else smell poop while reading this?

(there's gotta be a word for that effect)

Pretty sure he knows that.

No one is saying a company should operate without a leader. And also, no one is claiming that just anyone can be a good CEO. Some competence in the unique CEO skillset is required. Every CEO is expected to keep their organization from devolving into tribal chaos, for example.

I don't remember reading anything to that effect.

I could easily be wrong but I didn't think he meant the engineer literally worked 48 hours without sleep or rest, then literally slept for 48 hours. I took it as: the engineer regularly shut out everyone for ~2 days straight and did long, extremely focus coding sessions, then shut out all work for a couple of days to decompress. Taken that way, it's not bi-polar or mental-health issue at all. Seems like this engineer just had the guts to stand up to everyone's ordained-from-the-heavens schedule of interruptions: "I'm gonna ignore distractions for two days to work, then ignore distractions for two days to rest."

All CEO bios like to begin by noting how early they wake up, and how the work out every morning at 6am at the very latest. I used to think this was a form of self-aggrandizement. "I'm a powerful CEO because I have superhuman discipline and stamina that you can't even imagine!"

Now I just wonder: am I lazy?

I can't tell if you mean "part of the furniture" is good or bad.

I've been at several places, usually in the 3-5 year range. But at this exact moment, I'm a bit envious of people who have been at the same company for 8-10 years, and get to enjoy mastery over the system, organization, etc.

Trying new things is fun, but it can be a drag always playing catchup.

I suspect your starting point was different than OP's. He is describing (I think) a crippling nervousness. This is very different from just tensing or run-of-the-mill nervousness.

All your advice is great, but (from personal experience) it's not enough to overcome phobia-level tension.

I think many people don't understand what phobia-level tension even looks/feels like. My own worst moment: presenting an architectural diagram to a VP, I started panicking, and repeated the phrase "...and we're going to build an abstraction layer..." three or four times in a row, in a slow monotone voice, until someone in the room snapped me out of it. Embarrassing is an understatement.

I always say: Analogies are like raccoons.

I would suggest, if this is at phobia-level for you, it's worth thinking about why you're getting so nervous.

I went from enjoying public speaking to absolutely dreading it (feeling like I'm falling off a cliff, trembling voice, sudden drops in blood pressure leading to complete loss of train-of-thought). This was literally career-limiting, and I could see how I was being excluded from projects that would require presenting to VPs + execs.

I spent a lot of time reflecting on it, and realized what had happened was that I had taken over management of a failing project, and I wasn't turning it around. Our VP was extremely harsh, and drew out everyone's professional failures/limitations. But I realized that my sudden and complete inability to present, was linked to me "knowing" that my work sucked, or knowing that no matter what I said, it was gonna end badly with me looking like an idiot.

So I would suggest you might think about whether the public-speaking nervousness also happens when you're asked to present something you're happy, proud, and knowledgable about, or whether it's connected to insecurity in your work, project, or your own mastery of the material you're presenting.

When the first web browser came out, for me (and, I've heard, very many others) it was a "where were you the day of..?" moment. I literally remember the afternoon X-Mosaic came out. Computer lab, 1993, a group of grad students huddled around a SPARCStation, I walked over and tried out this new program. No, I didn't see the huge eventual potential that day (the World Wide Web would remain an ad-free space for a few more years), but it was a definitely a "today everything changed" moment.

It is better when you can decide, yourself, to exit to another company, rather than being pushed out and then having to find a new job. Certainly, a competent engineer SV will land on their feet, but you lose significant negotiating power when you're not actively employed.

Is this still state of the art for ultra-fast exposures, or is there newer better technology?

Gender non-conforming is a much wider net. This study you link of 9th and 11th graders, it is not surprising that a large percent (2.7% as you said) reported as trans or GNC.

The original comment above stated "trans", though, not T+GNC.

That was me. I am you. I'm welcome.

Yeah, that part kinda frustrated me. The boxes highlight, e.g., that Simone Biles and Michael Phelps has world records in their teens... so what exactly is the takeaway? I'm happy for them, I'm not sad about myself for it -- it's just random trivia.

Unclear message.

A random article from 5 years ago doesn't own this concept.

1-3% does not pass the sniff test. Way too high.

A quick search gives the number 0.6% according to a 2016 study.

Sounds better than the alternative, which I'm all too familiar with.

"Did everyone get a chance to read the doc I added to the calendar entry last night? No? Ok, I'll just review the main points. So for starters, let's go talk about why we're here...."

I know your question was likely rhetorical and you know this, but I'll say it anyway...

He is actively looking for ways to antagonize California. This issue and homelessness, he couldn't give two craps about. He is just looking for ways to make California look bad or powerless, and he's just starting a fight because he's going to use that fight on his red-state roadshow. California will never give him its electoral votes and therefore it's of no use to him. BUT, Trump is astute, and knows that people across the country don't give two hoots about California either, and will be happy to trash talk them.

Many people live their lives or conduct their work by seeking out friends and allies. Trump actively seeks out enemies. And, it works (if you concede that ascending to the most powerful leadership role in the world is a success), so is he a dummy or a genius?

Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Nietzsche (esp. Walter Kaufmann preface edition). It's an energetic, angry, poetic, and often rambling tour de force on mankind overcoming its smallness. Halfway through you'll start wondering if Nietzsche is a genius or a lunatic, and the answer is Yes.

The medical examiner officially ruled it a suicide, so that's where it stands today.

HN users are a varied bunch. There is no reason to not believe him.

Not long ago Saudi Arabian money and PRC money was just fine

Wait, did something change this morning? AFAIK it's still fine and dandy to take Saudi money (esp. if you're the US government) and Chinese too.

Oh I know, me neither. But I've been denied headcount several times. I don't want 2000, but envy the magical ability to get at least a bigger number.

Unfortunately, time and again I've seen that the person who grows that big team, etc, is an unqualified idiot asshole. Good guys don't frequently win.

I am going to admit out loud something that I suspect many people here also feel:

I am envious of Anthony Levandowski

Not his unscrupulous behavior, theft, and all that. But rather the fact that his confidence, swagger, and the ability to talk to Thrun and Larry and Sergei and Travis as equals (or as inferiors, actually, in this technical domain) gave people such a high impression that they bestowed him with $centi-million bonuses.

I'm well-paid in silicon valley but my stock grants have been flat for years. I haven't been able to grow a large team (let alone 2000 people like Levandowski at Uber apparently). If I'm caught in an elevator with our Senior VP, I don't really know what to say (and I'm certainly not invited up to the executive floor to continue the conversation afterwards).

And yet here we have a guy who did all this by orders of magnitude and at multiple companies. I don't want to be a dirtbag like him, but I will admit I am envious.

Prometheus... now there's a name I've not heard in years.

"App Engine", to non-googlers.