

Do Great Things - dabent
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/20/do-great-things/

======
badclient
<rant>

About the author: _At Facebook, he was technical lead in charge of Facebook's
Pages, Facebook's "Like" button, and was responsible for Facebook Beacon_

I guess I am just not seeing "greatness" here.

In the pickup artist world, there is a phrase called "keyboard jockey" used to
describe people who love to type ideas and tips about meeting women but in
reality, they are just recycling _ideas_ they have read and spend very little
time actually talking with women. _Keyboard jockeys_ are not respected and
called out on.

I'd argue the tech world is increasingly getting filled with keyboard jockeys
- folks who can _write_ and _preach_ seemingly-inspiring shit all day but
don't actually eat their own dog food. /rant

~~~
lpolovets
Those are pretty cool things to be a tech lead for. While I agree that those
projects are not earth-shattering or incredibly innovative[1], Facebook's
traffic numbers make everything technically interesting. For example, the Like
button is served 3 billion times per day[2]. I'm sure FB has a lot of
infrastructure for that kind of load, but knowing that you might have 3
billion daily hits leads to some interesting technical challenges.

[1] Although perhaps somewhat earth-shattering just because hundreds of
millions of people use those features.

[2] <http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/07/facebook-like-buttons/>

~~~
badclient
Except neither "cool things" nor "technically interesting" have much to do
with the author's core message: doing great things and changing the world for
the better.

It is especially humorous to see someone who worked on Facebook Beacon deride
coupon startups and social games:

 _I do not doubt that services like social games and coupons bring delight to
people’s lives, and I mean no disrespect to the hard work that has made them
possible. But in the face of threats to humanity’s future on the one hand and
the extraordinary potential of mankind on the other, at some point we must
ask: are we capable of more?_

------
colinsidoti
Solving the talent dilution is as simple as paying the talent a ridiculous
salary, and/or giving the talent work they enjoy.

Getting by in the US is incredibly easy for a programmer, especially young
ones that live off virtually nothing. I can freelance for a week and live a
month without a problem. I don't really need more money.

Unfortunately, my work options are usually narrowed down to these: 1\.
Freelance a little on things I'm not wildly interested in, but save enough
money to spend the majority of time working on something I actually like.

2\. Spend all my work time on things I'm not wildly interested in and have
some more money, but nothing ridiculous.

Maybe I'm weird but given the choice, I'm going with #1 every time.

However, there are two circumstances where I might end up working for someone
else: 1\. Give me ridiculous compensation 2\. Let me work on something I want
to work on

Paying a ridiculous salary is easy in a lot of cases, but nobody ever does
that (and honestly, I don't know why).

The better option, IMO, is just letting people work on what they want to work
on. I don't understand why companies are so awful at describing the positions
they have available. If you have positions that are appealing to work on, I'm
sure you can find people to do it. If not, whip out the checkbook, or expect
poor quality talent.

Having interviewed with Asana for the Product Engineering role, I could say I
still have no idea what I would have been building had I gotten the job. This
made it impossible for me to be excited, I was running purely off the fact
that "product" was in the title. Luckily, they had #1 (private chefs and a
normal work day sold me), but I imagine they want people excited about the
work too.

Tell me what you're doing, let me understand how I can help, that will make me
more excited.

------
Aloisius
Oh for goodness sakes. I'm sick of this woe-is-me, I-wasn't-around-for-
the-90s, entrepreneurship is killing Silicon Valley bs.

It is hard for Facebook to get an engineer. It is hard for Google to get an
engineer. It is not particularly hard for a reasonably funded startup to get
an engineer.

I have a startup in San Francisco. When I post job opening, I get 50+
applications. When I email my network, I pick up even more. Because I'm picky,
it probably takes 100 resumés before I find someone I'm looking for. However,
there are plenty of people out there that, with six months of training, could
easily meet your needs. Unfortunately as a small startup, I can't really
afford that. Facebook can. They choose not to.

Further, I would like to point out the difference between doing Big Things and
doing Great Things. I was the Chief Architect of Napster. I did Big Things.
Were they Great Things? Probably not. Is the Facebook Like button or Facebook
Pages a Great Thing? Almost certainly not.

~~~
badclient
These posts are nothing short of slimy and the authors should be called out
for their scumbag moment. I am tempted to call them outright scumbags but I'll
give them the benefit of doubt for now.

Personally, I have no problem if they believe that more of their talent should
stick around and not do startups of their own. But if that is your position,
just state it. Don't wrap it around a seemingly noble message like "do great"
when in fact your real message is "fuck I hate these programmers who just
wanna do their own thing and not work for me."

------
lincolnq
If you're interested in changing the world, it's worth considering the path of
"make lots of money, then spend it on something good". Check out
<http://80000hours.org/> and Jaan Tallinn's talk about how to make an impact,
[http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2011/10/jaan-...](http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2011/10/jaan-
tallinn-speaks-at-singularity-summit-2011/)

------
badclient
Translation: My start-up is having a really hard time retaining tech talent
and keeping them from doing their own start-up.

\--

It's amazing how we see the same _evil_ bitching from these founders
deceptively repackaged as something more noble. First from Sean Parker, now
this guy.

------
chauzer
When I initially read that article, it really rubbed off on me the wrong way.
But then I read all the comments on it and seeing friends and others
comment/repost it on FB as well and they were all positive comments fully
agreeing with the author. I thought maybe I just didn't get it or something.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one that feels the way I do about the
article. It seems too much preaching and there's a sense of elitism in the
post. It seems hypocritical that the author left Facebook (where by some
standards he was doing great things and making a huge impact), to co-found his
startup, Asana. Like others in the comments here, I agree that if this message
came from someone else, doing something different (i.e. someone doing research
in curing cancer) it would mean a lot more. Nothing wrong with Asana, and I
think it's a good product, but it's not doing great things in the world and
changing it amazingly for the better.

------
haasted
A wake-up-message that gets published every few years. Here's the last one:

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10045321-36.html>

Still relevant, though.

------
AznHisoka
For most people, our options in life are: 1) Being stuck in a dead-end, soul-
crushing day job 2) Being able to have freedom to do your own gig.

When those are your options, getting that freedom is your first priority. You
don't worry about whether you're going to benefit the world in a positive way.
You worry about that later.

I would argue you can't even focus in any meaningful way on great things when
the thought of being chained to a corporate job for 40+ years is on your mind.

