Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | jroseattle's comments login

> I've always lost fat when I gained muscles without changing my diet that much.

The fat-burning aspect of muscle growth has been fundamental for me. 45 minutes of weight-lifting has had a far greater effect on fat reduction than 90 minutes of cardio.

I don't know that I can say it's "weight-lifting" vs. "cardio", but rather the specifics of what those entail. I do free weights, and feel like I work my body out better than the cardio work that I've done.

But I'm with you in that respect -- building muscle is effective for fat loss for me, and I achieve that better through weight-lifting vs. cardio.


It seems that government may have found a lever against a well-funded global operation that wants to do business in their jurisdiction.

Get ready for updated regulations in many areas where Uber is doing business now.


The only advice I can pass on to the "younger" crew is to simply be prepared. You can do so in two ways, both of which are necessary:

- Stay relatively current but continually grow your knowledge depth. Imagine a full-stack developer who has little awareness of anything new in the past ten years...don't be that person. Complacency for your career will kill your prospects fast. An advantage that you develop over time is that the latest tech is often nothing new, and is instead just a repackaging of prior concepts. Leverage that advantage.

- The "past your 50s" monicker is a moving target. Do not assume that 50 is the threshold that you cross when you have to start dealing with ageism. It will be different for many (it's often much earlier), and you won't see it coming. One day, you'll be relatively dismissed by someone younger than you due to your "age", and you'll think "what the $#@% just happened?"

In the end, I'm still an eager beaver who gets excited at seeing interesting ways to solve engineering problems more effectively than the past. And because of that, I feel like I keep the best parts of what is normally considered a youthful approach.

As always, your mileage may vary.


Do not assume that 50 is the threshold that you cross when you have to start dealing with ageism. It will be different for many (it's often much earlier), and you won't see it coming. One day, you'll be relatively dismissed by someone younger than you due to your "age", and you'll think "what the $#@% just happened?"

One of the things that galls me about this industry is its belief that experience (which is not the same thing as age) is a negative.

If you come from Microsoft or Google, you'll be assumed to be "political". If you come from a no-name company, people will think you're a loser who wasn't good enough for the tech giants or elite startups. If you have failed startups on your CV, people assume that you'll be bitter about the ones that got away. If you were at one job for too long, that counts against you; but if you had too many jobs and were a "job hopper", that ruins you as well.

It's ridiculous. It makes no sense. How are people not able to get past the idea that people are more than their experiences, and that most people improve with experience (even of the negative kind) and age rather than becoming "damaged goods" because they weren't millionaires by age 27?

End rant.


> One of the things that galls me about this industry is its belief that experience (which is not the same thing as age) is a negative.

I see this as something that shifts during economic cycles. For example, right now nobody appreciates much that came from those who survived the dot-com bust. Those skills will be invaluable in the next downturn, whenever that happens.

Regarding "TwiFaceGoogSoft": there is an old maxim -- never hire anyone directly from {big-tech-co}, if that's the only place they've ever worked. (In the 1980s, it was IBM. In the 1990s, it was Microsoft. In the 2000s, it was Google.) The maxim developed because those ex-big-co employees were perceived as failures when encountering a non-advantaged environment. The prevailing wisdom was to hire those people "once-removed" from those companies, so they wouldn't learn those lessons on your dime. It might not be fair, but the perception has remained for a long time, even as the big-co name has changed.

In the end, as an industry we need to simply get better at hiring. All these biases only serve to screw us up.


Industry attitudes have changed quite a bit over the past 15+ years I've been around it. Engineers from failed startups were actually pretty popular to hire after the initial dotcom bust, with the theory that they would recognize mistakes. I distinctly recall many clients preferring experience in a failed business for both devs and manager candidates.

Being at one job too long does often count against you, but primarily if (as is mentioned elsewhere here) you were in one role (one team, one tech, one product, etc.). EDIT: (Not condoning, just reporting it)

I had clients years ago that would only hire candidates who had been at their current job for over 5 years. That attitude has changed substantially, and movement is accepted in the industry so long as the movement is 'positive'. You can have several employers and not be a job hopper.


The title seems odd to me -- the Single Founder? Maybe I'm missing content somewhere, but I was looking for something related to you, as an individual entrepreneur, going it alone.

This would do just as well for me as "The Entrepreneur's Handbook."


Very meta here, but I don't understand your confusion. That's exactly what it is. It's "Single Founder" as in solo entrepreneur/solopreneur. Does that clarify it?

I do include a discussion of taking on a cofounder in the book. Personally, I don't think that having a cofounder is bad per se, but having a bad cofounder is significantly worse than having no cofounder at all. The downside to taking on a cofounder is that your ambitions for what to build need to increase proportionately because now it has to support 2 people, not just one. It's no longer just a matter of getting 2x the work done. Basically everything doubles.


“having a bad cofounder is significantly worse than having no cofounder at all”

^^^ This is so true.

For anyone thinking of bringing on a business partner, I highly recommend the book “The Partnership Charter” — it does an excellent job of taking you through the things you really need to address before you just jump in and get to work.



Thanks for the reply, Mike. I was referring to the bullet-point list of "How will this help you?" on the webpage. I haven't read the book, so my feedback is entirely based on the website content.

I've been both the single entrepreneur as well as a co-founder. I found that list to be entirely applicable to both scenarios. (Good list, BTW!)

Anyway, just offering some feedback that I thought there would be a greater emphasis on the unique challenges for a solo founder vs. a team.

Indeed, I'm not sure there's a more concrete example of "judging a book by it's cover." :-)


You're absolutely right about the fact that the list applies to both. Then again, it was easy to come up with since it came mostly from the table of contents and that was based on what people emailed me about during the development of the book.

If you look around at that "traditional" startups covered by news or accepted by YC, they don't talk about single founder startups. In my circles (MicroConf, Micropreneur Academy, etc) it's virtually nothing except single founder companies. So there's a misconception that single founder startups aren't possible or don't work.

For VC's and huge scale startups, that may be true. But I know of hundreds of small scale software companies that are doing just fine that would beg to differ. It's a matter of what your goals are and what you want out of life.

The title is meant more to draw attention to the fact that if you're a single founder, this book is for you. That doesn't change the fact that it's useful to small teams or to any software startup. But when you have two people working on something, the discussions tend to be different than the ones you have in your head.

I wrote the book in such a way so as to be that other voice saying the things you would have needed to hear from a cofounder. It's not necessarily about the message itself in many cases, so much as the subtle nuances of how that message is communicated that will make them more understandable and resonate better with a single founder.

In some ways, the title is a marketing strategy too.


Very good points, and thank you for adding that context. By all accounts, sounds like a wise book.


Mike's blog is at http://www.singlefounder.com/ so the book name must be playing off that. www.entrepreneur.com was probably taken!


> I've been thinking about this idea to build something like a "tech-farmer colony".

Now that is one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time. Knowing how farms work, I could find a ton of ways for this to be difficult, but we're engineers -- let's solve hard problems. :-)


I grew up on a farm. Not surprised to see this decision in the slightest. Farming is tough -- physically, financially, and in the end emotionally. But it is still a very rewarding life.

I can remember sitting on my grandfather's lap, riding on his John Deere two-cylinder (it was called a Johnny Popper.) Pre-school? I went to pre-farming. I was probably 3 years old the first time I rode a tractor.

By the time I was 8, I was driving that popper while two of my grandfather's farm hands tossed hay bales onto a flatbed trailer. We drove back to the barn, and I scampered up to the second floor and waited as those guys tossed those hay bales up through a huge opening. I had to stack the hay bales, and had to run my ass off to keep up. Then, we'd do it all over again until the barn was full. I was exhausted every day, but my grandfather allowed me to drink my first beer with those guys when we were finished. It sounds awful, but it was an amazing experience.

I'm no longer out in the field. For me now, the feeling of working on something with my hands is cathartic. Some of my best days for relaxing involve doing simple yardwork around our house.

The farm life works for some people, but not for others. What is great is that no one need debate whether that choice is right -- it only matters to yourself. Good for this guy, I think he made a great choice for himself.


"The farm life works for some people"

I agree. I couldn't do farm, I have bad allergies to pollen, dust, and too much time under the sun and I become red as a lobster, and it is painful

But programming is what I love to do. So I will say "The programmer life works for some people"

I wouldn't call the original article "The death of a programmer", I would call it "The born of a farmer". He figure out were he feels happier, and that is good thing which sometimes means leaving behind what is hip for the masses, but that is not a failure, that is centering


>I have bad allergies to pollen, dust

Interestingly enough, if you had grown up on a farm, you many not have developed allergies...




I grew up around farms and have a really bad pollen allergy. Still gets bad even in NYC around this time. Still, I don't think people should fear the outside because of it– my reaction sometimes takes me out for a couple days at a time, but it's still better than what it feels like to always be avoiding it and then one day getting a blast of discomfort that you aren't used to.


Key word /may/. I grew up in the backwoods of interior northern california.

And have terrible allergies. I take allergies shots, two nasal sprays, and antihistamines. They still only go away in the snow and rock above the treeline.


Anecdote: Grew up on a vineyard and blueberry farm ... did not stop allergies from crushing my sinus cavities aka chronic sinusitis


To all the replies to this (at this time), he said "you MAY not have developed allergies", so please do not refute what he is saying by using yourself as an example (as it is just one sample in the overall population).


I grew up on a farm and had terrible allergies as a kid, so bad that I couldn’t go outside sometimes.

They cleared up a year after leaving that life.


As much as we "say" we love programming and farming if ever we became so filthy rich that we could pay other people to do these things for us... we would.

I've never heard of a tech billionaire profess his love of programming so much that he's diving right back into the trenches. We're all human, we may love programming and farming, but let's be real, programming and farming are still work and we're all working toward retirement: a state where we no longer need to work.


I just saw a tweet of Notch

> Turns out unrolling tight inner loops really speeds them up! 38% speedup from that alone. Makes sense, it's doing one eight of the branching


Even billionaires may want to micro-optimize! Bonus point: he is developing for a "20 years old platform"


There's always outliers, which is what I think Notch is... Without quantitative data I may be totally wrong though.

I still think most people would stop coding once they had the resources to command other people to do it for them. Take for instance, Elon Musk, I'm pretty sure he's no longer in the trenches. That guy started coding at 12.


Most of those people though simply can't go back to the trenches coding because their time become too valuable.

Some of them actually miss it. In most Bill Gates interviews he alaways remember his days hard at coding as the most fun.


Some of us aren't just "saying" we love programming; we do. If I were a billionaire, I would no more pay someone to do my programming than pay them to take my vacations.

I think your talk of "the trenches" is telling, though. The more money I have, the less I have to work on other people's projects and the more I can work on my own. Just as travel-lovers with more money can do less business travel to unpleasant destinations and more personal travel to favorite places, those of us who love programming just dream of doing more projects of our own choosing, not of escaping this terrible chore called programming that we only "say" we love.


Don't get me wrong. I love programming too, and I certainly have my own projects on the side.

But work is work, which this person is doing. People who say that working as a coder is like going to disneyland everyday because their totally enamored by programming... I find it hard to believe that many people are like that. Burn out is a real thing.


I agree with you here, that even for someone who loves programming, working as a hired coder to implement other people's plans can become very tedious if you don't care about the project personally, and few programming lovers would liken it to a trip to Disneyland. Also, that burnout is a real thing.

So, it sounds as though we agree that many people really DO love programming, they're not just saying they do, and would go on doing it even if they made billions, but loving programming doesn't mean loving all programming work. There are programming jobs that people who genuinely love programming don't love at all and wouldn't do if they didn't need the paycheck.



Matthew Dillon doesn't need to work but keeps working on DragonFlyBSD.

Also it is possible to live and work as in retirement http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/fisherman.html


Addendum to that. The story in the link actually seems to be "Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral", by Heinrich Böll.


An English translation as PDF:



I can appreciate the story - it's a paean to a lost world when we didn't need to be competitive. The thing is, money provides more power for the fisherman, which he would need if his environment changed:

-rebuilding after an earthquake -fleeing if the local government goes bad -dealing with a crash in tuna price

We all still live in a competitive environment. Hunter-gatherers were replaced by massively-reproducing (but probably unhappy & unhealthy) farmers. In the example, fishing represents pure surplus value, produced from nothing - and in economic situations like that, producing less than others means you'll eventually be out-competed and replaced.

In reality the same tragedy of the commons applies to fishing, and we haven't solved it there either.

Until competition is restrained, we've gotta compete. Individuals can opt out but they're just removing their traces from the future - those left will still be struggling until we have a way to globally eliminate environments which force people to be maximizers. And in a big universe, it's uncertain whether we can ever really control enough to be able to relax. It may even be computationally impossible to really stop the continuous evolution of competition in how we live life


> Matthew Dillon doesn't need to work but keeps working on DragonFlyBSD.



It is known, kind of an axiom.

While I don't have access to Dillon's finances, his personal site http://www.backplane.com gives some hints: BEST Internet was an incredible successs successs [sic] These days most of my attention is focused on the The DragonFly Project


He isn't the only one, many open source developers contribute because they want to do it and not expecting any monetary compensation.


I don't think their is any quantifiable data to prove what either of us say... but I think what I say applies to most programmers, not all.


"If you really want to do something you’ll do it at night. You know, Bruce Wayne had a day job. He was Batman at night. If you really want to get something done you’ll just do it." - Nicholas Gurewitch (of pbfcomics.com)

I'm semi-retired and living in Thailand where the cost of living is a fraction of my (modest for a programmer) life in the US. I don't code as much as I used to, but I still write a fair bit. But it's not for the same reasons; now I'm coding in order to teach my children, and hopefully eventually other children too.

I certainly don't see myself spending my time coding another database-backed CRUD web application any time soon; instead it's games and art and possibly soon music. It changes things, but it lets you do it for the reasons that matter instead of just to feed yourself.

> if ever we became so filthy rich that we could pay other people to do these things for us... we would.

I disagree; "programming" is far too broad a field to make generalizations like the parent makes. I suspect "growing food" is too, though I agree it's probably true of any farming on a scale larger than your own back yard.


I love to cook, but I don't love to peel potatoes. Just because a chef pays someone else to do the drudge work doesn't mean he doesn't love to cook.

When people say they love programming. They mean they love building interesting things, solving interesting problems, and using interesting tools.

Unfortunately, actual programs are full of boring parts. Yes, most programmers would pay someone to finish the boring parts, but I don't think that means they don't love programming.


Yeah I get it. I love programming too.

There certain folks who claim that going to a job everyday is like going to disneyland because they're doing what they love. I find this concept hard to believe. I'm just trying to express: yes people may love programming, but programming at work is still "work" which is very different from "play"; both of which can be done with a programming language.

I should mention lest I get accused saying everyone is like me, that there are outliers. There exists people who love programming so much that they never burn out.


I guess it is impossible to say for sure, but I feel like if I had billions, I would still want to farm commercially – just with much nicer equipment than I have now. Something like 30% of farmers are 65+ years of age. I would suggest it is not because they cannot afford to retire, especially with the price of land these days, but because it is something they love to do.

Anecdotally, a neighbour of mine made millions with the sale of his company (not tech) and then started farming with those proceeds.


I think most people wouldn't go into farming. They'd use the billion dollars to chase some crazy dream, retire, party hard, spend extravagantly, go on vacation, travel the world, start a new venture... anything but farming or doing something totally plain... but that's just my opinion, I'd actually like to see some hard data on what billionaires do with their time.


We can ascertain that at least 50 billionaires are classified as farmers[1] in the USA. How involved they are with the operation is more difficult to quantify, but being completely hands off would surprise me.

Even for my own farming operation, it only takes about four weeks out of the year of my time. It's not like I'm up at sunrise 365 days per year, breaking my back until sunset, like some people seem to picture. I consider it to be my vacation away from the day job as a programmer. I mean, what is more fun than operating highly advanced heavy equipment that costs more than high end sports cars? I can't imaging having billions of dollars at my disposal making that less exciting – it is a tech nerd's paradise.

[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/11/07/50-billio...


Anecdotal, but Mark Zuckerberg was (and may still be) committing code at Facebook very recently. Some of us actually love programming for its own sake.


Dabbling in coding and being in the trenches are two different things.

Look up Bill Gates. Unlike Zuckerberg, who was just a mediocre programmer, Gates was actually an elite programmer who "loved" programming. Nowadays he mostly travels the world with his family, and does philanthropy.


Bill Gates said on his Reddit AMA he still writes code. Not everyone is like you dude.


He dabbles in code, on occasion. I'm talking about a love of code that takes you back into the trenches. I never said everyone is like me.

But in my opinion most people are like me. If you look at the world around you and how career paths are set up, how society is setup and the general nature of most human beings... imo it is the most logical conclusion.


Actually, you did:

> We're all human, we may love programming and farming

> we're all working toward retirement

I also appreciate how Bill Gates transformed from an elite coder into a dabbler as soon as it suited your argument. You're evidently not someone who ever let facts got in the way of a good story.


>Actually, you did:

>> We're all human, we may love programming and farming

>> we're all working toward retirement

ok my bad, I didn't mean everyone as in everyone on the face of the earth. There's obviously outliers, I made a mistake for not specifying that.

> also appreciate how Bill Gates transformed from an elite coder into a dabbler as soon as it suited your argument.

What the hell is this? Can we not have a civil conversation without insulting each other?

I am NOT Changing my argument. As of what I KNOW, Bill Gates is currently a dabbler. He doesn't code regularly he's not part of any big coding projects. But back in the heyday he was an excellent coder and his code was responsible for much of early success in Microsoft.

Your attitude is not conducive to civil conversation and you're really pissing me off. You accused me of changing my argument even though from my perspective I did not. You say stupid shit about me like this:

"You're evidently not someone who ever let facts got in the way of a good story."

I understand we may have different perspectives, but there are better ways of expressing it then being excessively negative. You could of asked me what I meant by things that have been inconsistent in our conversation, you could have politely asked about the conflicting details. There is no need say I am "obviously" someone who ignores facts.

Please refer to proper etiquette below:


That's my last word. I'm not going to continue on with a whole flame war and populate this thread with anymore shitty comments that no one wants to read.


"Billionaire" might be a stretch but there's plenty of people in tech that wouldn't need to work at all if they didn't want to. It would surprise me if Torvalds et. al would have to wait for retirement before they didn't actually _have_ to work.


Actually Linus Torvalds isn't that rich according to his post from Google+ [1]:

> Linus Torvalds: 3840x2160 resolution - it's the Dell 28" UHD panel - for $299 thanks to Microsoft's black Friday deal. Thanks MS!

> Vladimir Odessit: At a net-worth of $150M I wouldn't think that you would care for black friday deals :)

> Linus Torvalds: +Vladimir Odessit I wish. Not even close. My net worth means that I can happily avoid Walmart and feel good about myself, but it's nowhere near the number you seem to think it is.

[1]: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/4MwQKZhGkEr


I am a hobbyist programmer. I've never had a job where my primary role was programming. Nearly all of my programming in the past 5 years has been for open source projects.


As a child, I interacted with the first computer, a TI-99/4A, on a farm. So, for me the best programming inspiration is mixing nature with computers.


I somewhat in the middle too much programming it mentally exhausting too much farming is physically exhausting but if i don't do some hard physical work from time to time i cannot enjoy programming.


I also grew up on a farm - a dairy farm in northern Wisconsin to be precise, which my father and younger brother still operate.

Farming can be awesome. The hard physical work and exercise are satisfying, and you'll often encounter problems that need to be solved quickly and ingeniously (e.g. some implement breaks and you need to come up with a quick fix while the sun's still up). You can really build a camaraderie with your family members / coworkers after slogging through some really physically challenging jobs or solving mentally challenging problems together.

The downsides are that the work never ends and you can never take a vacation. The cows always need to be milked (on a very annoying schedule I might add) and fieldwork needs to be done quickly when the weather is right (e.g. "make hay while the sun shines"). And it's really hard to find good hired workers to help out, because nowadays no one wants to do strenuous physical labor for relatively low pay. So on my dad/brother's farm, if one of them gets sick or hurt (another not uncommon danger), it's a big strain for them because they only have a couple high school-aged randos working part-time to help fill in the gaps.

For me the big thing that made me want to get away from the farm was the lack of free time to get lost in your own thoughts. All the menial labor, maybe excluding driving tractor, doesn't give your mind a lot of time to wander. Which, after we got our family computer when I was 10, I often found it wanting to do...


> The downsides are that the work never ends and you can never take a vacation

Agriculture workers in Britain are entitled to paid holiday, sick pay, etc. Does anyone know how this works in practise in the UK, or any other Western/Northern European country? (Is their leave fixed at the employer's convenience, are temps employed in the worker's place, or what?)

[1] https://www.gov.uk/agricultural-workers-rights


You're comparing apples to oranges.

The underlying assumption for an agriculture worker in the UK, who is entitled to these protections, is that he is an employee ... not an owner.

Contrast this to your parent comment which was very likely a family owned farm at wich they were self-employed. They didn't have worker protections as there was nobody from whom to be protected.

Also, it should be noted that your parent comment was speaking of a dairy farm which are notorious for being "prison sentences" - you really can't ever take a vacation if you own your own dairy farm. It's the worst case scenario that he is skething out.


In Finland, municipalities keep a certain number of "substitutes" in their payroll, who are more or less able to cope with most of the tasks of a typical farm. And then the farmers (who are considered a special class of entrepreneurs) can have a maximum of 26 days of holiday per year. These people also jump in when a farmer needs a sick leave. The Finnish term is "maatalouslomittaja".

Edit: I found a description in English: http://www.mela.fi/en/farmers-holiday-and-stand-scheme


". And it's really hard to find good hired workers to help out, because nowadays no one wants to do strenuous physical labor for relatively low pay" I wonder why :)


I also spent a good amount of time on the farm. I sit here, a successful tech entrepreneur that now never has to work again after an exit. I achieved my life goals (at least the ones I set in my twenties). I took time off to break the need to work, then once again I'm on a new adventure starting a new tech company. I really enjoy my daily tech challenges, but how many lifetime memories have I made in my tech career? I'm not so sure, but it doesn't compare to my childhood and college years. This article is a good reminder that we need to connect with life.


Trivia: a Johnny Popper is a John Deere model M. I am currently in the process of restoring one. It is called a popper because of its distinct sound, caused by the non-180 degree angle between the two cylinders on the camshaft. I dream about every day to become a farmer.


Excellent. Those tractors were rockstars, and ran for years and years. I can still recall that popping sound in my head, many years later. Very distinctive.


I made friends with two brothers one was a farmer (Wheat most with some mustard and rape seed). For three years my two week vacation was farming during the morning and than water skiing for the evening at their farm. Went to bed dead tired and than continue to work on the farm. I had a desk job and I enjoyed every second of the farm work. I certainly would not want to be a farmer but man it was a ton of fun to do temporarily.


I have the [un]fortunate opportunity to know exactly how hard baling hay really is.

I am not always certain the vitality and character gained is necessarily worth the emotional drain. However I am sure there are mainy farms/ranches that get by without the _nepotent_ servitude that comes with it. :)


"Tuition costs about $21,000 a year..."

I love the incentive and ambition, but $21k/year makes this inaccessible to the kids and families this would most benefit.

Maybe the long-term plan is to scale in order to bring costs down? Can anyone shed some light on this?


It solves one the problems in the most important class of problems in the world: inconveniences facing young wealthy residents of Northern California.


Fiorina is known for leading the acquisition of Compaq Corp. in 2001 in the largest tech merger in history. In doing so, she would show cost savings by layoffs of a certain chunk of employees. "Cost synergies" was the label. I think the expected number at the time was around 10k. http://www8.hp.com/us/en/hp-news/press-release.html?id=23061...

In the next 4 years, Fiorina would sell off the printing business (which had higher margins) and double-down on the PC business (with lower margins.) Timing as it was, the dot-com bubble burst which affected every hardware maker (since tech companies needed to buy hardware to operate.)

She basically made the absolute wrong bets, and as a result many jobs were destroyed. Between HP and Compaq, the collective companies lost more than $13 Billion in shareholder value. Other companies did at that time as well, but HP was by far the worst.

When tracing the history of HP performance during Fiorina's tenure as CEO, she is arguably one of the worst who has ever guided a publicly-traded US company. A simple before-and-after of the company's position from the day she took leadership until the day she left is not a pretty picture.


She also spun out the original HP business of test and measurement equipment, chips, transceivers, etc as Agilent (now Keysight). I never ever thought of HP as a computer company. To me HP was oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, network analyzers, and lightwave measurement gear. Spinning Agilent out was shocking to many people at the time.


When she sold off printing and spun out Agilent, what were the results? If they did better on their own then with HP, then that was a smart move, even if "HP" as a company was diminished. If she sold them for cash and invested that poorly, then that was not a smart move.



Those who say that the firings were justified are probably correct, but if Fiorina is running for a position where she is expected to “create jobs,” her record at this task should be front and center.


I don't think you can put someone in the "worst ever" category without bankruptcy. There has been a lot of very shitty CEOs over the years, some of them criminal.


Bankruptcy and criminality? Enron[1] comes to mind.

Kenneth Lay[2], the founder and final CEO of Enron, was convicted of multiple counts of conspiracy and fraud, and would have been one of the few CEOs to have actually been sent to prison. However, he died before the judge had the chance to sentence him. Enron, of course, suffered bankruptcy.

Jeffrey Skilling[3], who stepped down as CEO of Enron (to be replaced by Lay), is currently serving a lengthy prison term.

HP may have suffered under Fiorina, but at least they're still alive.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay#Indictment_and_tri...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling


> you could run this in the cloud and not worry about physical machines, but that will probably be more expensive.

I question what the current cost structure looks like. As a public company, my guess is that investors will do the same as well.

In a world where Instagram deals with orders of magnitude more customers with a whopping five engineers, it's a pretty high bar to show why so many resources are necessary for this particular operation.

I'm sure the Etsy guys are sensitive to that as well, but from the outside it's hard to believe there isn't a better way to use resources more efficiently.


I instagram loses a photo, nobody cares. If etsy loses an order is deal-breaker.

Not the same problem domain.

edit: Instagam has not that many customers. Has many users. That's a real diference.


Very good point. A transaction involving a user's money carries a great deal more weight in terms of reliability, accuracy, etc.

That said, the resource difference between these two companies is considerably large, and the tech in question (e-commerce) is not exactly an area of unknown innovation. From a technical standpoint, that's sufficiently a solved problem.


As with anything, "{insert-name-here} sucks" can be applied in plenty of scenarios. I consider myself competent in plenty of languages, including C# and Java. Recounting my experience with OOP languages, relative to the objections listed:

Regarding data objects to functionality: couldn't agree more, and that's why my data access libraries never contain anything of a functional nature within them. It's simply good practice, and makes for more maintainable architectures. Nothing about OOP prevents me from accomplishing this.

I've dealt with Date and Time objects plenty, and it turns out it's really no big deal. If you care about those things in terms of allocation to the heap and/or stack, there may be a point of consideration, but mostly it's just a matter of syntactical preference. It matters very little to any applications that I've participated in producing and maintaining.

Data-type definitions: the specific comment in the article refers to a location, as in a single file to locate data definitions. Again, this goes to code organization. Separation of concerns is good practice in many disciplines, and this is no different. If a person is sloppy with their code, it doesn't matter what type of language they use.

Private state: I'll refute the suggestion in the article that "OOP says to hide state." That's way too broad a brush stroke. The concept is encapsulation, and best practice says that the scope of state within an object refers only to itself. The article refers to system state, which is well beyond the scope boundary of a single object in OOP.

Again, these are all just tools to get a job done. How one uses the tool is the most important consideration.



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