4 ms·

No engineer wants to hustle. You're still only thinking in terms of startups. I'm thinking about landscapers and ticket scalpers. No engineer is doing that. Bu

No engineer wants to hustle. You're still only thinking in terms of startups. I'm thinking about landscapers and ticket scalpers. No engineer is doing that. But if you were willing to, you'd make money.

kerkeslager 1y ago
You're not communicating well--it's unclear what you mean by "hustle". It's also pretty unlikely that speaking in absolutes ("no engineer") is correct here. It sounds a lot like you're saying "all engineers are lazy" and that's just obviously wrong.
- vinceguidry 1y ago
  Using the words of the person I was discussing with. > providing the most barely functioning product at the cheapest prices, and making enough revenue by volume This is hustling.
  - kerkeslager 1y ago
    And if that's what you're saying, you're unambiguously wrong on your overall point. Plenty of engineers are building barely-functional products as fast (cheap, because time is money) as can be and doing a ton of volume. The entire Bangalore contractor scene was built this way, as well as a ton of small Western contractor shops. You honestly think no engineers understand undercutting competition? Really?
    - vinceguidry 1y ago
      Some engineers are alive to the hustle game. But if you're focused on quality you're not hustling. I'm not sure though I'd call business folks with software products that are hustling engineers. Different mindset.
      - kerkeslager 1y ago
        Committing to either "hustle" or "quality" is equally stupid. Quality is a means to an end goal, and eschewing quality is also a means to an end goal. And again, there are both business folks and engineers who are smart enough to choose when a focus on quality fits their goals and when it doesn't. It sounds like you've bought into some ridiculous "sigma grindset" nonsense and you're now gatekeeping it as an identity. For your own good, stop. Contrary to what you seem to believe, hustles do fail, and if you close your mind to that possibility you're going to eventually hustle on the wrong thing and burn yourself out on a hustle that doesn't work. And even if you don't, you'll make yourself intolerable to anyone you'd want to interact with. It's not a good path.
        vinceguidry 1y ago
        > Committing to either "hustle" or "quality" is equally stupid. Of course it is. > It sounds like you've bought into some ridiculous "sigma grindset" nonsense and you're now gatekeeping it as an identity. This kind of rationalistic bullshit is exactly what I make it my mission to rail against on HN. Speaking in a general sense can only be done well from an intuititionist perspective. My original post on this garnered 25 upvotes, quite above average these days. You're the one mistaking my generalization for gatekeeping, and it's precisely because you're holding on to a rationalist mindset, so you project that onto others. All I was doing was committing to the bit. No half-measures for me. Nobody follows threads after the first day or so anyway. No harm in continuing discussions past the sell-by date.
        kerkeslager 1y ago
        > This kind of rationalistic bullshit is exactly what I make it my mission to rail against on HN. Speaking in a general sense can only be done well from an intuititionist perspective. The terms "rationalist" and "institutionalist" you're using have too many different meanings in different contexts for this to be a meaningful set of sentences. Care to define your terms or use different ones so I can tell what you're talking about? > My original post on this garnered 25 upvotes, quite above average these days. I do not care how popular a wrong idea is. This is especially true on HN, where the focus on profit over humans has led to extremely harmful ideologies becoming popular. > All I was doing was committing to the bit. So this was supposed to be a joke? It was pretty unfunny.

kerkeslager 1y ago

You're not communicating well--it's unclear what you mean by "hustle". It's also pretty unlikely that speaking in absolutes ("no engineer") is correct here. It sounds a lot like you're saying "all engineers are lazy" and that's just obviously wrong.

vinceguidry 1y ago
Using the words of the person I was discussing with. > providing the most barely functioning product at the cheapest prices, and making enough revenue by volume This is hustling.
- kerkeslager 1y ago
  And if that's what you're saying, you're unambiguously wrong on your overall point. Plenty of engineers are building barely-functional products as fast (cheap, because time is money) as can be and doing a ton of volume. The entire Bangalore contractor scene was built this way, as well as a ton of small Western contractor shops. You honestly think no engineers understand undercutting competition? Really?
  - vinceguidry 1y ago
    Some engineers are alive to the hustle game. But if you're focused on quality you're not hustling. I'm not sure though I'd call business folks with software products that are hustling engineers. Different mindset.
    - kerkeslager 1y ago
      Committing to either "hustle" or "quality" is equally stupid. Quality is a means to an end goal, and eschewing quality is also a means to an end goal. And again, there are both business folks and engineers who are smart enough to choose when a focus on quality fits their goals and when it doesn't. It sounds like you've bought into some ridiculous "sigma grindset" nonsense and you're now gatekeeping it as an identity. For your own good, stop. Contrary to what you seem to believe, hustles do fail, and if you close your mind to that possibility you're going to eventually hustle on the wrong thing and burn yourself out on a hustle that doesn't work. And even if you don't, you'll make yourself intolerable to anyone you'd want to interact with. It's not a good path.
      - vinceguidry 1y ago
        > Committing to either "hustle" or "quality" is equally stupid. Of course it is. > It sounds like you've bought into some ridiculous "sigma grindset" nonsense and you're now gatekeeping it as an identity. This kind of rationalistic bullshit is exactly what I make it my mission to rail against on HN. Speaking in a general sense can only be done well from an intuititionist perspective. My original post on this garnered 25 upvotes, quite above average these days. You're the one mistaking my generalization for gatekeeping, and it's precisely because you're holding on to a rationalist mindset, so you project that onto others. All I was doing was committing to the bit. No half-measures for me. Nobody follows threads after the first day or so anyway. No harm in continuing discussions past the sell-by date.
        kerkeslager 1y ago
        > This kind of rationalistic bullshit is exactly what I make it my mission to rail against on HN. Speaking in a general sense can only be done well from an intuititionist perspective. The terms "rationalist" and "institutionalist" you're using have too many different meanings in different contexts for this to be a meaningful set of sentences. Care to define your terms or use different ones so I can tell what you're talking about? > My original post on this garnered 25 upvotes, quite above average these days. I do not care how popular a wrong idea is. This is especially true on HN, where the focus on profit over humans has led to extremely harmful ideologies becoming popular. > All I was doing was committing to the bit. So this was supposed to be a joke? It was pretty unfunny.