5 ms·

I have to agree with Atwood, sort of. I actually see it as a wider condition. You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss has a very specific "you" in mind: the kind of p

by tel 19y ago

I have to agree with Atwood, sort of. I actually see it as a wider condition. You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss has a very specific "you" in mind: the kind of people who are aching to become founders (well, obviously). That's in no way a bad thing, but it is worth noting that earlier essays by pg had a wider audience. It's not narcissism, it's focus. It's a symptom of "nearly all the programmers I know are startup founders".

bumbledraven 19y ago
I don't think so. This comment by Peter on the original article summed it up well: "What gets PG's goat, it seems, is that relatively privileged, smart, hard-working kids should want to participate in this awful existence known as 'the 9 to 5', rather than strike out on their own and attempt to do something great -- possibly something even world-changing. And watching these clones root around some cookie-cutter downtown Palo Alto cafe performing some absurd exercise is more than he can stand. These kids could _be_ something -- they could _do_ something, but instead, some nutjob decided it'd be cool to send them on some wacky easter egg hunt. They could be busy trying to save the world, but instead, they're busying conditioning their brains to be subservient to the dictatorship that is modern corporations."
- Alex3917 19y ago
  Phrased that way, the scenario is reminiscent of Plato's cave allegory.
- tel 19y ago
  Hah, that's a great quote. I think we're both looking at it the same way. PG is in a fantastic position where he gets to spend most of his time around some of the smartest, most driven, and most interesting people all the time. He loves it, and with good reason. His essays are targeted toward those people who could become the kind of person he respects, and they have not a little bit of force behind them because he believes in what he says a whole lot.
Xichekolas 19y ago
As a 9-to-5-er that feels caged, I can attest that I read the 'you' as me (and people like me). It seems like everyone that dislikes working the day job just loved his article, and everyone that likes their day job loves Jeff Atwood's... does it really matter?
- sofal 19y ago
  Incorrect. I for one hate my day job at a large corporation and will quit soon. Many of the things that PG says about big companies resonates with me. I truly feel like a caged animal and I look around me and I see some of the things that PG describes. I feel so different from people that work here that sometimes I wonder if I'm a different breed of person. I have a rebellious inclination toward all of the rules and traditions here. From this experience I've become more inclined to work in a smaller company or as a researcher (and possibly a startup some day). However, I found the article to assume too much about what is natural and fulfilling for programmers. I realize that there are reasons for being biased towards creating startups, but the essay really does come across as being very skewed and not very well rounded because of it. Jumping into a startup can come with huge risks and sacrifices that can be anything but natural and fulfilling for some people. Startup companies can vary widely in the actual benefit they have to their customers as well, which is an important criteria for some people's fulfillment. Is the startup just about satisfying the customers' desires for entertainment and socializing, or is it helping people in a much deeper way? Is it just about pandering to the flawed values of the audience, or is it about pushing the state of the art? For many people it can't just be about financial freedom and being bought out. There are so many different aspects of "natural" and "fulfilling" and Paul seems to ignore a lot of them, possibly even misrepresenting some.
  - Xichekolas 19y ago
    So I'm confused... what exactly was incorrect about what I said? I was preparing for a good rebuff, and then you just restated what I said with more words...
    - sofal 19y ago

by tel 19y ago

bumbledraven 19y ago

I don't think so. This comment by Peter on the original article summed it up well: "What gets PG's goat, it seems, is that relatively privileged, smart, hard-working kids should want to participate in this awful existence known as 'the 9 to 5', rather than strike out on their own and attempt to do something great -- possibly something even world-changing. And watching these clones root around some cookie-cutter downtown Palo Alto cafe performing some absurd exercise is more than he can stand. These kids could _be_ something -- they could _do_ something, but instead, some nutjob decided it'd be cool to send them on some wacky easter egg hunt. They could be busy trying to save the world, but instead, they're busying conditioning their brains to be subservient to the dictatorship that is modern corporations."

Alex3917 19y ago
Phrased that way, the scenario is reminiscent of Plato's cave allegory.
tel 19y ago
Hah, that's a great quote. I think we're both looking at it the same way. PG is in a fantastic position where he gets to spend most of his time around some of the smartest, most driven, and most interesting people all the time. He loves it, and with good reason. His essays are targeted toward those people who could become the kind of person he respects, and they have not a little bit of force behind them because he believes in what he says a whole lot.

Xichekolas 19y ago

As a 9-to-5-er that feels caged, I can attest that I read the 'you' as me (and people like me). It seems like everyone that dislikes working the day job just loved his article, and everyone that likes their day job loves Jeff Atwood's... does it really matter?

sofal 19y ago
Incorrect. I for one hate my day job at a large corporation and will quit soon. Many of the things that PG says about big companies resonates with me. I truly feel like a caged animal and I look around me and I see some of the things that PG describes. I feel so different from people that work here that sometimes I wonder if I'm a different breed of person. I have a rebellious inclination toward all of the rules and traditions here. From this experience I've become more inclined to work in a smaller company or as a researcher (and possibly a startup some day). However, I found the article to assume too much about what is natural and fulfilling for programmers. I realize that there are reasons for being biased towards creating startups, but the essay really does come across as being very skewed and not very well rounded because of it. Jumping into a startup can come with huge risks and sacrifices that can be anything but natural and fulfilling for some people. Startup companies can vary widely in the actual benefit they have to their customers as well, which is an important criteria for some people's fulfillment. Is the startup just about satisfying the customers' desires for entertainment and socializing, or is it helping people in a much deeper way? Is it just about pandering to the flawed values of the audience, or is it about pushing the state of the art? For many people it can't just be about financial freedom and being bought out. There are so many different aspects of "natural" and "fulfilling" and Paul seems to ignore a lot of them, possibly even misrepresenting some.
- Xichekolas 19y ago
  So I'm confused... what exactly was incorrect about what I said? I was preparing for a good rebuff, and then you just restated what I said with more words...
  - sofal 19y ago