I am genuinely confused and alarmed by the rhetoric of your post. It feels beyond personal
I am genuinely confused and alarmed by the rhetoric of your post. It feels beyond personal
Doesn’t this sound like tribal, us-versus-them, reductive explanation for the behavior of those you disagree with?
Sounds like chesky and pg want to turn the tide on that dominant culture in software companies. And I couldn't agree more! A big problem IMO is that most "professional software managers" are taught a management style that focuses on risk. Risk-aversion permeates every decision from compensation to project priorities. It's so pervasive it's like the air they breathe, they don't even realize their doing it. This is how things run in 99% of companies.
So, my fellow hackers. There is a better way. It's neither the Steve Jobs model nor the John Sculley model. Looks like pg has not yet found it. I hope he does, though. It would be great for YC to encourage experimentation here.
Spence signalling[1] won the econ Nobel back in 2001. It says that the cost of signalling in a market for imperfect information ends on the one emitting the signal.
For education and jobs, the signal is your degree (hence the huge career difference between dropping out one week before getting a degree and completing). The cost of the degree will fall on the student.
The employer can easily diminish the hiring problem by pre-sorting applicants by education. Students know there is a large difference in career outcomes between university education required jobs and the ones below that.
Colleges want to extract as close to 100% of this lifetime earning difference as they can.
The main question at this point in education research is "how much" signalling is a component of education versus actually teaching skills.
For tech, almost no certificate provides a comparable signal to a real degree.
I'm a huge capitalist and I think we need to be honest about where capitalism isn't working. It's always due to free market mechanics being removed from the equation by layers of obscurity. I don't know the right answer but this shit is not working
It really depresses me that in 2024 we have some of the smartest, most privileged people in the world deciding that this is what they’re going to dedicate their life to
Shouldn’t we be doing exactly the opposite? Getting people to stop flying
It reads as they're great and there's not a lot of people as great as they are when in reality it's probably more like the overlap between the set of people they desire and the set of people that desires them is impossibly narrow. This sounds like a tough personal problem that they can 100% work through by looking in the mirror and working on themselves.
I'm too great to ever find someone as great as me is frankly a piss poor attitude and outlook on life and I feel really bad for them to be stuck like that.
Largely, the make up of the audience in HN. I sincerely doubt that the hard core of people doing startups, thinking of doing a startup, or just very interested in the topic has gone away or changed attitude very much.
But the profile of HN has grown. It's a miracle that it's still an interesting and curious group, but from comments I'd be astounded if there were not a far greater proportion of people who are here because they are generically interested in tech topics and not specifically startups. That broader group was always there, of course, just its proportions relative to the hard core of entrepreneurs has changed.
I'd love to see some objective analysis of how things changed after the twitter and reddit kerfuffles, but I don't believe the article's thesis that the zeitgeist is the cause.
PS I could live without the stories that violate the precept of "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." ... but it's still pretty good here.