4 ms·
For a philosophy professor, I really don't get the thesis of this post. Is the point that engineers like to build stuff and most stuff they build won't be a suc
by dvt 3y ago
For a philosophy professor, I really don't get the thesis of this post. Is the point that engineers like to build stuff and most stuff they build won't be a successful startup? This seems extremely trivial and doesn't solely apply to internal tools (in fact, it applies to everything one builds). Is the argument that the signal is worse when it comes to internal tools rather than non-internal ones? Could be true (I dunno'), but there's no supporting evidence.
Genuinely confused.
- altdataseller 3y agoTo be fair his bio says wannabe philosoph professor, so I don’t think he actually is one?
- jolt42 3y agoYeah, also confused. I will say that when I look at off-the-shelf stuff often I'll find something that is %80 of what is needed, and that other %20 is more difficult to retrofit than something from built internally that can grow with the company.
- adamsilkey 3y agoI think the point is that engineers are capable of rebuilding internal tools, so internal tools as a product to sell to other companies may not be a great startup idea. It'd be different if you were building internal tools for a group that couldn't replicate your work, like accountants or HR. At least, that's what I got from it. (And I'm not saying I agree with the thesis.)