Bingo. Founders end up taking the lion's share of all the stock. I've seen this over and over again everywhere, don't be a founding engineer, it's financially not worth it. This i the most evident when you're talking about close to 100M just by changing 1 position, into founder/CEO.
Meanwhile, over here in Costa Rica, I've just bought 6 eggs for about $1.50 USD and that's the convenience store price. They are cheaper at the super market.
The price is a proxy for Bird Flu activity multiplied by the intensity of regulations around bird flu incidents.
So either your area has low incidence of bird flu, low regulations around bird flu, or both.
We have high prices because the regulations are strict around dealing with bird flu detections. I wouldn't necessarily interpret low prices as a good thing without the big picture.
In the past... we'd just eat the eggs, get the flu, spread it about a bit, take a day / week off work, go back to work. You know, normal life. Now we overreact and just cull all the eggs and/or chickens and jack the prices up. It seems kind of weak tbh. You're never going to purify the world and make it perfect. One day someone in the future is going to say, "Ew they ate real food instead of processed food pellets?" unironically.
Then a disease will arrive that will make the entire population vanish because their immune systems never had to interact with anything.
I mean this is the same exact thing that happened when calculators where invented. The amount of people who can count in their heads drastically dropped because why waste your time? Ditto for when maps app came out. No more need to memorize a bunch of locations because you can just use maps to take you there.
It's funny, the calculators were incredibly politicized when I was growing up (TI84 generation, so kids were getting caught programming functions to solve exam questions) but GPS was just taken as a given.
Not sure why you are being downvoted when you're absolutely correct. Free resources are usually over taxed and the best way to weed out the uncommitted is to add a cost.
That's not mentorship though, that's just the blind leading the blind. Mentorship implies by default one party has asymmetrical knowledge over the other one. That's how the mentee levels up.
I do agree that partnering up with someone is better than going it alone, but if you're both at the same level, progress won't be as substantial as with a true mentor.
It isn't true at all mentoring takes a lot of effort. It really depends on a lot of factors. My 2 bosses at work are excellent at abstract thinking and mental models. They are usually able to provide significant ways of looking at things differently in just a few minutes of talking with them.
I will say they are hard to find. These aren't your average people.
It also really depends on where the mentee is. If there is a massive gap from where they are and where they want to go, that would be a large undertaking.
However, mentors don't have to expend all that effort. Even just a bit of help from time to time would be preferable to zero mentorship, which is where most people are today.
reply