> In the town near our house there's a shop with a sign warning that the door is hard to close. The sign has been there for several years. To the people in the shop it must seem like this mysterious natural phenomenon that the door sticks, and all they can do is put up a sign warning customers about it. But any carpenter looking at this situation would think "why don't you just plane off the part that sticks?"
I usually refer to it as a "problem-solving mindset" – a way of thinking where you approach a situation as something that could have a universe of solutions, but then learn to break down what exactly you want to solve, whittle down solutions to try, or whether you even need to reframe the problem, etc.
Another related thought (sorry but I don't remember where I saw it) is the idea of solving a problem vs making a problem go away, which are slightly different things. Solving a problem is like removing toxins from a car's emissions. Making the problem go away is to stop the car from having any emissions in the first place.
But the carpenter analogy is apt also because software people tend to think that the solution for many things is software (since that's what we're skilled in), whereas in some cases it's a human collaboration solution or something else.
This analogy is also a good example of how perceived solutions always stem from what people are comfortable with (the every problem is a nail when you have a hammer). A door installer may see the sticking door a see it as an alignment issue and adjust the hinges.
I think the shop-owners, the carpenter, and the door installer all actually had a problem solving mindset. The shop-owners solution was to post a sign, the carpenter to plane, the installer to adjust. Each just had a different knowledge and experience base to work with.
I really identified with that part too. I also really liked what you said about the idea of solving a problem vs making a problem go away. Tell me if you think I'm wrong, but I've always believed that the 4 things those two different philosophies/approaches have in common is that they both require:
1.) elevating others' needs (the problem you're solving) above your own
2.) Sensitivity to others' needs
3.) Earnestness
4.) A world/psychology/personal belief system that's positive sum and collaborative in a global sense (outside of context-dependent contests and competition that are limited in scope).
I find that being able to put yourself in another person's shoes (whether you're understanding their motivations when designing solutions) etc, is absolutely key in performing all those.
But it's also important to adapt a solution to an environment where there are bad actors that do act in their self interest or incentives that are different in different places/professions/cultures.
For example, I am very curious about any AI-based solutions in the legal world where all the incentive structures are skewed heavily towards hourly billing. How are you going to get law firms to adopt technologies that might cut their billable hours in half?
Startups make tons of money for the startup factory. They don’t work out for the average founder. Of 4000 startups, less than 100 were not ridiculous failures. The rest wasted a good part of the founders’ best years, time that could have been spent enriching themselves in FAANG, or gaining experience on a truely worthwhile projects (YC funds some really dumb shit). And now Paul Graham is indoctrinating these poor kids with the cult of the startup, as more meat for the meat grinder. Must have run out of college students to exploit.
> They don’t work out for the average founder. Of 4000 startups, less than 100 were not ridiculous failures. The rest wasted a good part of the founders’ best years
I'll admit that I've been the FAANG sellout at times, and my partner keeps that steady salary in our household, but I think this take is correct (but myopic), but negative.
Yes, most startups fail, and most startups don't make their founder any money, never mind FAANG money, and def not Bezos money. That said, while YC maybe has 100 happy endings, plenty of people find fulfillment and enough money to pay middle-class bills through "small businesses".
Not every entrepreneur should try to start a hyper growth tech company. Plenty of opportunities exist for people to start consultancies helping small businesses use Ansible, or configure their WordPress site, or whatever. Plenty of people make a living on Shopify plugins, and sales funnel optimization services, and similar. Will all of these succeed? No, all businesses will fail given enough time, and some may do so before making any money and getting any customers.
We, the tech community, need to reclaim the definition of entrepreneurship from venture-backed enterprises (I say on HackerNews...). Individuals forging their own path, providing value they generated themselves are entrepreneurs even if they never made $100M ARR.
Don't try to start "Google", try to start "Larry and Sergey's new Website", and go for the ride.
How is giving people $500k to what on what ever they want "exploitation"?
>spent enriching themselves in FAANG
This is some serious tunnel vision nor everyone works at a FAANG. And it is not possible for everyone to work there. Especially if your out of the United States.
Also, the FAANGs with lucrative jobs would not exist if everyone took the "average" route of Job security with high probability of success.
I have worked on two failed startups so far and had a "real job".
I vastly find working on a startup more exciting (even with worse pay & more volatile prospects) than being a cog is some large prestigious corporate machine where your ideas pretty much don't matter.
