Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I think you're underselling the challenge in the parts of the business that aren't coding. Which is exactly why this guy's decision is such a bad one.

He's basically said "I have skill set X, which I'm trained in and have been honing for years. For my company, I need skill sets X and Y. So I'll do Y and find someone else to do X."

No matter what X and Y are, that's just the wrong way to solve that problem. The key issue in this case being that he is assuming the marketing/user acquisition stuff is so easy that he can just pick it up on the fly with no prior experience.




No matter what X and Y are, that's just the wrong way to solve that problem.

I don't know, If I can't do Y how am I going to hire an A player at the Y game. Being good at X means I can evaluate others in skill X.


OK, but here are your outcomes if you are good at X and need X and Y:

You do X, hire Y - You have one skilled person, one question mark.

You do Y, hire X - You have one unskilled person, one question mark.

Seems pretty simple to me that the first is better. I suppose that you could make the argument that Y may be easy to pick up, but if that's the case it should be all the easier to just hire someone else with a proven track record.


Just to elaborate what i think stonemetal's point is that. You are good at X. you hire someone to do X. prob. of X being useless <<< prob. of y being useless(if you don't know y and hire for Y)


My thought exactly, those two question marks aren't equal. One I am capable of evaluating, both before and after I hire for the position. The other I am incapable of evaluating both before and after I hire for the position.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: