3 ms·
> It really calls into question the dominant Silicon Valley culture and narrative that we should join startups and change the world with new technologies. This
by jstandard 9y ago
> It really calls into question the dominant Silicon Valley culture and narrative that we should join startups and change the world with new technologies.
This sounds like a non sequitur. The main reason you joined Google over Lytro was money and quality of life.
There's nothing wrong with that. You didn't have as strong of a desire to change the world by building Lytro's new camera technologies. Others who were likely in similar situations balanced that equation differently.
- s73v3r_ 9y ago"You didn't have as strong of a desire to change the world" That's a rather dickish thing to say. Especially because, as we've seen time and time again, very, very few of these startups are actually "changing the world". More and more, being asked to join a startup is just being asked to overwork yourself for peanuts and then be screwed out of equity.
- kup0 9y agoYeah, the phrase has become meaningless marketing drivel that a lot of startups use to describe their likely not-world-changing products.
- jstandard 9y agoThanks for pointing this out, I can see where what I wrote could be misinterpreted. What I meant was the full sentence. GP specifically wasn't interested in what Lytro was building strongly enough to take the pay cut. Agree the "we're changing/disrupting the world" meme gets misused. I'll make an edit for clarity. Disrespect was not my intent. Edit: the edit window on my original post just closed.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoOk, I understand what you mean now. I will still go on record as saying that, regardless of how strong you believe in something, you shouldn't take pay cuts to do it, especially given the record startups have for shafting employees. One really only has about 40 years to earn all the money they're going to earn, and that time can go by rather quick.