4 ms·

Hmmmm. The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." It's hard to judge s

Hmmmm. The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." It's hard to judge someone from an article, but if 5% of this sentiment bled through in an interview, I'd take a hard pass too. I just don't want to work with difficult, unhappy people. It's a strange tone to take? The buried lede is: "[I] travel around and work as a digital nomad. I've been doing that for a couple of years now and I work an average of 2.5 days per week on machine learning or web projects and have rebuilt my savings and my whole life." That sounds incredible! Like, the article should be titled "I'm winning at life".

username_my1 6y ago
yeah it's much much less about being an entrepreneur and much much more about not having professional software engineering experience / work etiquette. Most scale up / startups would love ex founders to help them.
everdrive 6y ago
>Hmmmm. The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." It's hard to judge someone from an article, but if 5% of this sentiment bled through in an interview, I'd take a hard pass too. I just don't want to work with difficult, unhappy people. I find a sentiment like this pretty scary. Being competent at a job is not relevant, but just whether or not the interviewer subjectively likes you.
- freedomben 6y ago
  I don't disagree, but have you never worked with a person whose personality was a clash? It's a nightmare. I've quit jobs just to get away from people before. One of my top criteria for accepting a job is whether I like the interviewers. I'm not hardcore in the "asshole geniuses should die" crowd, but if you are a miserable person to be around, go find a job where you work solo. Don't drag your whole team down.
  - everdrive 6y ago
    This topic has come up a few times on hn, and I always find myself in the minority. At my previous job, I never considered likability, and ALWAYS considered what contributions someone had to offer. Whenever I bring that frame of mind here, I always get a lot of push back. "People just want to work with people they like." It's clear I'm the outlier in this opinion, but if you're just working with people you like, you're not really a business, at least not fully. You're at a social club, too.
    - RussianCow 6y ago
      > You're a social club, too. I get what you're saying, but you spend 40+ hours a week with the people you work with, so the social stuff matters. If someone is really good at their job but a complete asshole to their coworkers, nobody is going to want to work with them, which will likely end up being a net negative for the company's productivity.
    - sanderjd 6y ago
      Both technical contributions and a positive social environment are necessary components for a business.
    - ip26 6y ago
      Likability doesn't have to mean they will be your best friend. It can just mean they aren't a colossal jerk. I would probably call anyone who is considerate & constructive "likeable".
    - bckr 6y ago
      Do you tend to have emotional responses to the behaviors of others, or do negative behaviors roll off your back (like so much water off a duck's feathers)? Most people feel bad when people act like assholes. Feeling bad enough, frequently enough, is cause for changing jobs for most people. I'm confused by "you're not really a business". Are you the business owner at most of your jobs? Or do you tend to identify with the business you work for, sort of letting your ego merge with that of the organization during working hours? I think saying "you're at a social club, too", is not a right way to frame it. A place of business is by definition a place where people are doing things together: business is social. Most people want to do social activities with people they can at least tolerate if not enjoy being around. Now, if you are not of such a psychological make up that it really matters to you who you spend the majority of your waking time around, and you're able to compartmentalize strongly, then, it makes sense why you would be in the minority on this subject. I think it could be important for you to realize that this is not really a matter of opinion in the sense of "a perspective on things that can be changed by experience or new information". This is really about folks' fundamental psychological make up.
- thomascgalvin 6y ago
  Both are important. I don't want to be saddled with someone who's incompetent or someone who's an asshole. I spend more time with my colleagues than I do with my family, and I want to enjoy that time.
- striking 6y ago
  What, so we should all tolerate disagreeable people just because they can lay down a few lines of code? It's not "whether the interviewer likes you", it's whether you can work with other people without taking an emotional toll on them. And it is as important, if not more so, than their ability to program. It's certainly a harder thing to teach. (as for this specific quote, I think it's fine to have issues with what companies are working on... But the rest of the article really does just come off as bitter and angry, and for what?)
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Are you suggesting a person’s attitude doesn’t matter at all for how they perform at work? Very few employees are hired and then don’t have to interact with anyone. If a person is a brilliant programmer, but pisses off everyone they work with and drives other employees to quit, they are going to be a net negative.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pc86 6y ago
  Feel free to quote the area where the GP said competency is irrelevant. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of skilled developers in the world, there's no reason to work with bitter, angry people.
- sanderjd 6y ago
  Working well with others is a big part of competency.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > whether or not the interviewer subjectively likes you Yes, because we've been burned by this in the past: firing somebody who's impossible to work with is WAY more difficult than just not hiring them in the first place.
- sushid 6y ago
  If you had technically brilliant but difficult to work with coworkers at your job you'd understand where the parent commenter is coming from.
idrios 6y ago
I don't place any judgement on the author at all. Programming since he was 12, started a company, self taught developer & data scientist. He's been extremely busy, is clearly motivated, and on paper should be extremely hireable. But he's getting dozens of rejections over whiteboard interviews, so he's probably wondering "am I actually just getting rejected for not having a CS degree", which is an extremely frustrating thought when you have the experiences he has. The digital nomad life is probably somewhat relaxing, but he's clearly someone who values his accomplishments over his experiences, so I'm guessing that's why it wasn't the focus of this article.
- anonymouse008 6y ago
  > The digital nomad life is probably somewhat relaxing, but he's clearly someone who values his accomplishments over his experiences, so I'm guessing that's why it wasn't the focus of this article. Ooh, that hits in a soft place for me. Therein lies all of the angst, unsettledness, and general escapisms of this post, and more probably the world. I've seen the happiest people on earth do so very little compared to traditional 'success,' because they mastered what they 'valued' first... then pursued it relentlessly. Here's piece from Hunter S. Thompson (don't know if you really want to emulate all of his teachings), that gets at the heart of this values orientation: "The answer—and, in a sense, the tragedy of life—is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things. We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid. When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. It’s not the fireman who has changed, but you." https://lettersofnote.com/2016/07/18/a-man-has-to-be-something/ https://lettersofnote.com/2016/07/18/a-man-has-to-be-somethi...
  - okamiueru 6y ago
    Thank you for that. The full letter was a pleasure to read.
  - ramblerman 6y ago
    Fantastic letter. Never read anything of his, just saw Fear and Loating, so didn't really know he had this depth. Thank you for that.
sirmoveon 6y ago
Exposing yourself to what you consider your community of peers and being considered inferior is demoralizing. Even if he is winning, or you imply sarcasm, he felt minimized by a system that doesn't make sense to him (and many other software developers).
andi999 6y ago
Yes. When I read 'I was unemployeable' I thought it meant: companies wont hire me. But actually it meant: I cannot stand working for companies (anymore?).
dave_sullivan 6y ago
> The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." To be fair, I did literally have ideological issues with them -- such as the amount they track their users, their stance towards China, their use of patents, or just generally bad reputation in the industry -- there's a bunch of issues I feel strongly about and that prevents me from working with a lot of different companies. I guess that's a bit of a luxury, isn't it? But that's also my choice. I'm not exactly homeless these days, so I still manage to find great people to work with. I am pretty cynical and stubborn... not sure about angry, as you say, "I'm winning at life". > I just don't want to work with difficult, unhappy people. Me neither!
- ysavir 6y ago
  Are you really unemployable if you aren't fitting in with companies with which you would be a bad fit? Sounds more like an issue with your application choices than your employability.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gpvos 6y ago
    They were invitations he received, not applications that he initiated himself.
    - ysavir 6y ago
      That invites even more inquiry. So the author waited for people to come to them, and when nothing worked out, declared themself "unemployable" (despite not proactively looking for work). I get that people can hit hard places, and that the author was in such a place. But I don't think the perspective given is an objective one, especially considering the author has had time for hindsight to settle in. According to the blog post, they didn't proactively apply at companies they were interested in. They didn't bother catching up on new technologies or other skills sought after in the current market, spending their time on building a computer game instead. Interviewers are being vilified for acting in their own best interests rather than the author's conveniences. They then finish up by becoming a digital nomad working 20 hour weeks and building up their savings and loving life. Where are the details that went into making that lifestyle work? Was it not due to being employable? It's hard to sympathize with the author when the narrative is essentially "I put very little effort into getting hired and so had to work a little harder to get a job".
coldcode 6y ago
A friend of mine dropped out of college 1 semester short of a CS degree, wrote some iOS apps, sold them for a lot of money, started several software companies, wrote a book on how to do this, invested in several more startups and lost most of what he had made - and now runs a land clearing company and is having loads of fun and success doing it. Sometimes you don't realize what you really want to do until something bad happens.
- Winterflow3r 6y ago
  How did he lose what he had, if I may ask? Was it the startup investments? What is a land clearing company?
  - coldcode 6y ago
    He invested in startups that failed miserably. Land clearing is how you turn bare land/forest/swamp into something people can build on. i.e he and his employees drive big construction equipment. Actually a profitable business in the right area.
onion2k 6y ago
hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." Being opposed to working for companies that build business models around eroding privacy, delivering adverts faster, or even literally killing people in the case of weapons manufacturers isn't "bitter". Those are valid opinions. Not being willing to work for any company that will give you a paycheck without questioning the impact of what you're doing is a good thing.

username_my1 6y ago

yeah it's much much less about being an entrepreneur and much much more about not having professional software engineering experience / work etiquette. Most scale up / startups would love ex founders to help them.

everdrive 6y ago

>Hmmmm. The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." It's hard to judge someone from an article, but if 5% of this sentiment bled through in an interview, I'd take a hard pass too. I just don't want to work with difficult, unhappy people. I find a sentiment like this pretty scary. Being competent at a job is not relevant, but just whether or not the interviewer subjectively likes you.

freedomben 6y ago
I don't disagree, but have you never worked with a person whose personality was a clash? It's a nightmare. I've quit jobs just to get away from people before. One of my top criteria for accepting a job is whether I like the interviewers. I'm not hardcore in the "asshole geniuses should die" crowd, but if you are a miserable person to be around, go find a job where you work solo. Don't drag your whole team down.
- everdrive 6y ago
  This topic has come up a few times on hn, and I always find myself in the minority. At my previous job, I never considered likability, and ALWAYS considered what contributions someone had to offer. Whenever I bring that frame of mind here, I always get a lot of push back. "People just want to work with people they like." It's clear I'm the outlier in this opinion, but if you're just working with people you like, you're not really a business, at least not fully. You're at a social club, too.
  - RussianCow 6y ago
    > You're a social club, too. I get what you're saying, but you spend 40+ hours a week with the people you work with, so the social stuff matters. If someone is really good at their job but a complete asshole to their coworkers, nobody is going to want to work with them, which will likely end up being a net negative for the company's productivity.
  - sanderjd 6y ago
    Both technical contributions and a positive social environment are necessary components for a business.
  - ip26 6y ago
    Likability doesn't have to mean they will be your best friend. It can just mean they aren't a colossal jerk. I would probably call anyone who is considerate & constructive "likeable".
  - bckr 6y ago
    Do you tend to have emotional responses to the behaviors of others, or do negative behaviors roll off your back (like so much water off a duck's feathers)? Most people feel bad when people act like assholes. Feeling bad enough, frequently enough, is cause for changing jobs for most people. I'm confused by "you're not really a business". Are you the business owner at most of your jobs? Or do you tend to identify with the business you work for, sort of letting your ego merge with that of the organization during working hours? I think saying "you're at a social club, too", is not a right way to frame it. A place of business is by definition a place where people are doing things together: business is social. Most people want to do social activities with people they can at least tolerate if not enjoy being around. Now, if you are not of such a psychological make up that it really matters to you who you spend the majority of your waking time around, and you're able to compartmentalize strongly, then, it makes sense why you would be in the minority on this subject. I think it could be important for you to realize that this is not really a matter of opinion in the sense of "a perspective on things that can be changed by experience or new information". This is really about folks' fundamental psychological make up.
thomascgalvin 6y ago
Both are important. I don't want to be saddled with someone who's incompetent or someone who's an asshole. I spend more time with my colleagues than I do with my family, and I want to enjoy that time.
striking 6y ago
What, so we should all tolerate disagreeable people just because they can lay down a few lines of code? It's not "whether the interviewer likes you", it's whether you can work with other people without taking an emotional toll on them. And it is as important, if not more so, than their ability to program. It's certainly a harder thing to teach. (as for this specific quote, I think it's fine to have issues with what companies are working on... But the rest of the article really does just come off as bitter and angry, and for what?)
cortesoft 6y ago
Are you suggesting a person’s attitude doesn’t matter at all for how they perform at work? Very few employees are hired and then don’t have to interact with anyone. If a person is a brilliant programmer, but pisses off everyone they work with and drives other employees to quit, they are going to be a net negative.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pc86 6y ago
Feel free to quote the area where the GP said competency is irrelevant. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of skilled developers in the world, there's no reason to work with bitter, angry people.
sanderjd 6y ago
Working well with others is a big part of competency.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> whether or not the interviewer subjectively likes you Yes, because we've been burned by this in the past: firing somebody who's impossible to work with is WAY more difficult than just not hiring them in the first place.
sushid 6y ago
If you had technically brilliant but difficult to work with coworkers at your job you'd understand where the parent commenter is coming from.

idrios 6y ago

I don't place any judgement on the author at all. Programming since he was 12, started a company, self taught developer & data scientist. He's been extremely busy, is clearly motivated, and on paper should be extremely hireable. But he's getting dozens of rejections over whiteboard interviews, so he's probably wondering "am I actually just getting rejected for not having a CS degree", which is an extremely frustrating thought when you have the experiences he has. The digital nomad life is probably somewhat relaxing, but he's clearly someone who values his accomplishments over his experiences, so I'm guessing that's why it wasn't the focus of this article.

anonymouse008 6y ago
> The digital nomad life is probably somewhat relaxing, but he's clearly someone who values his accomplishments over his experiences, so I'm guessing that's why it wasn't the focus of this article. Ooh, that hits in a soft place for me. Therein lies all of the angst, unsettledness, and general escapisms of this post, and more probably the world. I've seen the happiest people on earth do so very little compared to traditional 'success,' because they mastered what they 'valued' first... then pursued it relentlessly. Here's piece from Hunter S. Thompson (don't know if you really want to emulate all of his teachings), that gets at the heart of this values orientation: "The answer—and, in a sense, the tragedy of life—is that we seek to understand the goal and not the man. We set up a goal which demands of us certain things: and we do these things. We adjust to the demands of a concept which CANNOT be valid. When you were young, let us say that you wanted to be a fireman. I feel reasonably safe in saying that you no longer want to be a fireman. Why? Because your perspective has changed. It’s not the fireman who has changed, but you." https://lettersofnote.com/2016/07/18/a-man-has-to-be-something/ https://lettersofnote.com/2016/07/18/a-man-has-to-be-somethi...
- okamiueru 6y ago
  Thank you for that. The full letter was a pleasure to read.
- ramblerman 6y ago
  Fantastic letter. Never read anything of his, just saw Fear and Loating, so didn't really know he had this depth. Thank you for that.

sirmoveon 6y ago

Exposing yourself to what you consider your community of peers and being considered inferior is demoralizing. Even if he is winning, or you imply sarcasm, he felt minimized by a system that doesn't make sense to him (and many other software developers).

andi999 6y ago

Yes. When I read 'I was unemployeable' I thought it meant: companies wont hire me. But actually it meant: I cannot stand working for companies (anymore?).

dave_sullivan 6y ago

> The article drips with anger and cynicism, and hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." To be fair, I did literally have ideological issues with them -- such as the amount they track their users, their stance towards China, their use of patents, or just generally bad reputation in the industry -- there's a bunch of issues I feel strongly about and that prevents me from working with a lot of different companies. I guess that's a bit of a luxury, isn't it? But that's also my choice. I'm not exactly homeless these days, so I still manage to find great people to work with. I am pretty cynical and stubborn... not sure about angry, as you say, "I'm winning at life". > I just don't want to work with difficult, unhappy people. Me neither!

ysavir 6y ago
Are you really unemployable if you aren't fitting in with companies with which you would be a bad fit? Sounds more like an issue with your application choices than your employability.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gpvos 6y ago
  They were invitations he received, not applications that he initiated himself.
  - ysavir 6y ago
    That invites even more inquiry. So the author waited for people to come to them, and when nothing worked out, declared themself "unemployable" (despite not proactively looking for work). I get that people can hit hard places, and that the author was in such a place. But I don't think the perspective given is an objective one, especially considering the author has had time for hindsight to settle in. According to the blog post, they didn't proactively apply at companies they were interested in. They didn't bother catching up on new technologies or other skills sought after in the current market, spending their time on building a computer game instead. Interviewers are being vilified for acting in their own best interests rather than the author's conveniences. They then finish up by becoming a digital nomad working 20 hour weeks and building up their savings and loving life. Where are the details that went into making that lifestyle work? Was it not due to being employable? It's hard to sympathize with the author when the narrative is essentially "I put very little effort into getting hired and so had to work a little harder to get a job".

coldcode 6y ago

A friend of mine dropped out of college 1 semester short of a CS degree, wrote some iOS apps, sold them for a lot of money, started several software companies, wrote a book on how to do this, invested in several more startups and lost most of what he had made - and now runs a land clearing company and is having loads of fun and success doing it. Sometimes you don't realize what you really want to do until something bad happens.

Winterflow3r 6y ago
How did he lose what he had, if I may ask? Was it the startup investments? What is a land clearing company?
- coldcode 6y ago
  He invested in startups that failed miserably. Land clearing is how you turn bare land/forest/swamp into something people can build on. i.e he and his employees drive big construction equipment. Actually a profitable business in the right area.

onion2k 6y ago

hints at a few bitter opinions like "...companies I had ideological issues around..." Being opposed to working for companies that build business models around eroding privacy, delivering adverts faster, or even literally killing people in the case of weapons manufacturers isn't "bitter". Those are valid opinions. Not being willing to work for any company that will give you a paycheck without questioning the impact of what you're doing is a good thing.