4 ms·

I feel like you didn't read anything in the article. The point is that you don't advertise it unless you're full of shit. It's a bullshit marketing/hiring tact

I feel like you didn't read anything in the article. The point is that you don't advertise it unless you're full of shit. It's a bullshit marketing/hiring tactic. If you really want to change the world, you make a thing, and focus on the thing, not on how you're "changing the world".

AndrewKemendo 9y ago
I suppose you could assume a portion of that argument from the paragraph on companies that have "changed the world" not setting out to. However a lesson like "don't fake it till you make it" wasn't the takeaway. I interpret the last paragraph: "Set out to do good work. Set out to be fair in your dealings with customers, employees, and reality. Leave a lasting impressions on the people you touch, and worry less (or not at all!) about changing the world. Chances are you won’t, and if you do, it’s not going to be because you said you would." as: You shouldn't try to make a huge impact because just saying you would won't get you there. Which by the way DHH is wrong about what Jack Dorsey wanted Twitter to be. A few of his early quotes "My goal is to simplify complexity. I just want to build stuff that really simplifies our base human interaction." "We get to design what we want to see in the world rather than doing what other people think should be done." Doesn't get much more "changing the world" language than that.
- rimliu 9y ago
  > Doesn't get much more "changing the world" > language than that. Actually it does. If he said "We want to change the world" that would be much more like it. What he says there is "be the change you want to see".
- rileyphone 9y ago
  He isn't saying you shouldn't try to make an impact, just to acknowledge that what your doing is only going to really effect a subset of people. DHH himself has made a huge impact, by virtue of RoR, but this only changed the world for some thousands of developers. Maybe you can make the argument that this "trickles down" to the rest of the world, but all in all, your best chance at making impact comes from vastly improving the lives of what turns out to be a very small part of humanity rather than aiming for it all.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    acknowledge that what your doing is only going to really effect a subset of people. That's a self fulfilling prophecy though, is it not? If you aren't somewhat delusional (aka optimistic) about the scale of what you set out to do, then the probability of major outcome - is going to be reduced. Basically, if you set small local goals then the chances that you'll even desire a global goal - let alone reach them - are likely an order of magnitude smaller than possible. Using his example, had Zuckerburg followed this advice he would have sold to yahoo having optimized locally. Instead he said, no I want to change the world (aka literally connect the world) so I am going to try and do that.
    - dasil003 9y ago
      Watch out for the founding story narrative here, even Zuckerberg himself would tell you, he didn't initially set out to build Facebook, the megacorp. He just put one foot in front of the other. The fact that he got serious traction and it led to ever greater potential is what inspired the grand vision. By the time Yahoo made their offer in 2008, Facebook was already the biggest social network that had ever existed with an incredible growth curve. At that point it's not just some naive pie-in-the-sky dream, it's a calculated risk. This is very different from the thousands of wannabes that paint this grand vision in order to attract naive young talent. That's what DHH & co bristle against—the mythology of SV perpetuated by VCs to get the best and brightest to work 16-hour days to increase their wealth for a risk-adjusted return way below what they could get at a normal job. Personally with a couple decades of experience under my belt it's hard not to be a little cynical about the whole dog and pony show. I got into this because I liked to build things on computers, not because of some founder's charisma or promises of riches.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

I suppose you could assume a portion of that argument from the paragraph on companies that have "changed the world" not setting out to. However a lesson like "don't fake it till you make it" wasn't the takeaway. I interpret the last paragraph: "Set out to do good work. Set out to be fair in your dealings with customers, employees, and reality. Leave a lasting impressions on the people you touch, and worry less (or not at all!) about changing the world. Chances are you won’t, and if you do, it’s not going to be because you said you would." as: You shouldn't try to make a huge impact because just saying you would won't get you there. Which by the way DHH is wrong about what Jack Dorsey wanted Twitter to be. A few of his early quotes "My goal is to simplify complexity. I just want to build stuff that really simplifies our base human interaction." "We get to design what we want to see in the world rather than doing what other people think should be done." Doesn't get much more "changing the world" language than that.

rimliu 9y ago
> Doesn't get much more "changing the world" > language than that. Actually it does. If he said "We want to change the world" that would be much more like it. What he says there is "be the change you want to see".
rileyphone 9y ago
He isn't saying you shouldn't try to make an impact, just to acknowledge that what your doing is only going to really effect a subset of people. DHH himself has made a huge impact, by virtue of RoR, but this only changed the world for some thousands of developers. Maybe you can make the argument that this "trickles down" to the rest of the world, but all in all, your best chance at making impact comes from vastly improving the lives of what turns out to be a very small part of humanity rather than aiming for it all.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  acknowledge that what your doing is only going to really effect a subset of people. That's a self fulfilling prophecy though, is it not? If you aren't somewhat delusional (aka optimistic) about the scale of what you set out to do, then the probability of major outcome - is going to be reduced. Basically, if you set small local goals then the chances that you'll even desire a global goal - let alone reach them - are likely an order of magnitude smaller than possible. Using his example, had Zuckerburg followed this advice he would have sold to yahoo having optimized locally. Instead he said, no I want to change the world (aka literally connect the world) so I am going to try and do that.
  - dasil003 9y ago
    Watch out for the founding story narrative here, even Zuckerberg himself would tell you, he didn't initially set out to build Facebook, the megacorp. He just put one foot in front of the other. The fact that he got serious traction and it led to ever greater potential is what inspired the grand vision. By the time Yahoo made their offer in 2008, Facebook was already the biggest social network that had ever existed with an incredible growth curve. At that point it's not just some naive pie-in-the-sky dream, it's a calculated risk. This is very different from the thousands of wannabes that paint this grand vision in order to attract naive young talent. That's what DHH & co bristle against—the mythology of SV perpetuated by VCs to get the best and brightest to work 16-hour days to increase their wealth for a risk-adjusted return way below what they could get at a normal job. Personally with a couple decades of experience under my belt it's hard not to be a little cynical about the whole dog and pony show. I got into this because I liked to build things on computers, not because of some founder's charisma or promises of riches.