6 ms·

Lack of autonomy is the most draining thing. Not many have the luxury to do what they think makes sense. I've been running my own small business for years. It'

Lack of autonomy is the most draining thing. Not many have the luxury to do what they think makes sense. I've been running my own small business for years. It's lonely to not have coworkers but work is extremely enjoyable. The author, too, had autonomy but doesn't seem to make a point of that. The system that we've built is why people aren't enjoying their work. The bigger the organization, the less autonomy an individual has. Markets are beautiful things when they work. They allow individuals to offer their services to the world in exactly the way they find best. Which feels good. And is great for a positive sum society. The amount of people employed in small businesses or self employed is shrinking and has been for a while. The rules are too complex to start a business. In tech, there is no common protocol to speak. You are a surf of the platform you find yourself on. They extract the value. To help people find meaning in their work, we must first force open protocols, interoperability, and regulations that are gradual by business size.

hypeatei 11mo ago
> In tech, there is no common protocol to speak. You are a surf of the platform you find yourself on. Can you expand on this statement? It's a bit ambiguous and I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Other than that, I agree with your comment. Even doing independent contracting on the side seems like a minefield w.r.t. quarterly tax payments, estimated tax, etc.. in the US at least. I'm sure I could figure it out but just earning income for some side work seems like a liability and a big headache.
- jonas21 11mo ago
  > Even doing independent contracting on the side seems like a minefield w.r.t. quarterly tax payments, estimated tax, etc.. in the US at least. I'm sure I could figure it out but just earning income for some side work seems like a liability and a big headache. It's really not hard -- it takes maybe 15 minutes per year, and if you own any stocks outside a 401k, you probably already need to make quarterly estimated payments. If it's too much trouble, you can just hire an accountant to take care of it for you. At any rate, it shouldn't be a significant obstacle to contracting.
  - stronglikedan 11mo ago
    > it takes maybe 15 minutes per year It takes at least four times that per quarter, really. And especially if you're small enough to not be able to afford an accountant just yet.
    - SoftTalker 11mo ago
      The shortcut I always used was to take my effective tax rate from last year's return (i.e. total tax owed / gross income), multiply my self-employment income for the past quarter by that rate, maybe round it up somewhat, and pay that. It usually worked out to be close enough that I didn't owe any penalty for underpayment of estimated tax and it was much easier than using the IRS suggested calculation.
  - hypeatei 11mo ago
    > if you own any stocks outside a 401k, you probably already need to make quarterly estimated payments. That's true, and I do. I guess I'm referring more to the accounting side of it. My brokerage reports/tracks all that for me and hands me a form later. With contracting work, it's all up to you to track and there might be better ways than a text file with some dates and amounts but maybe it really is that simple. I'm not sure.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
- immibis 11mo ago
  The word they meant is serf: a low class in feudalism. Like a slave but with subtle differences that don't really matter. Does everything their master says, or is killed. More importantly, avoids all the emotional outbursts one would trigger by using the word "slave".
  - throwaway13337 11mo ago
    Yes. Thanks. Serf. Share-cropping on the lord's land. The lord gives you exactly as much as you need to live but can extract the rest. This isn't good for anyone as, history tells us, people are less motivated that way.
  - Aurornis 11mo ago
    > Like a slave but with subtle differences that don't really matter. Anyone using slavery as a metaphor for participating in tech platforms is out of touch with what slavery really is. Nobody is owning you as person and forcing you to work for them without any freedoms because they opened an app store or let you make a Facebook book. Minimizing the brutality of actual slavery by drawing comparisons to putting apps in app stores (or other tech platform things) is really distasteful
    - immibis 11mo ago
      > More importantly, avoids all the emotional outbursts one would trigger by using the word "slave". Thanks for providing an example. A serf also did not feel like a slave, being forced to do things. A serf felt his lord was being generous by letting him use the lord's land, for the low low cost of whatever percentage of his crops, plus being required to go and fight in battle and sometimes die, when there was a battle. Which is oddly analogous to how we feel about tech companies. We don't feel like we're being forced to use e.g. YouTube; we feel Google is being generous by letting us use it, for the low low price of endless advertisements, having our minds altered by propaganda, and randomly getting banned by AI. Although obviously not as much actual death is involved, but then again, Google can unperson you.
- throwaway13337 11mo ago
  Monopolies become entrenched because of network effect. Phone companies had the same problem until the government stepped in. Web standards are great. And the web is really something special. No one owns the web. I can publish my own website with a ton of different vendors offering hosting. There's a power law distribution of provider success but it's still a fair game. App publishing is owned by two companies. Messaging is siloed. Discoverability is pay to play. There is no townsquare not owned. The way to solve these problems is forcing platforms over a certain size to open their protocols. So We can make on own messaging client that communicates with the gatekeepers. We can offer, without the app stores, our software to their users in the same way that the gatekeepers allow. Monopolies kill markets. Allowing a fair market on network effect platforms would make the categories competitive. Smaller businesses could compete. The margins would lower for the gatekeepers. The consumers would benefit from lower prices and more innovation. Most of all, we'd finally be able to reverse the trend of cynical software - 'enshitification' - that comes when a monopoly understands that they no longer need to compete.
  - hypeatei 11mo ago
    I see what you're getting at now, thanks. I left a comment on a thread about iOS recently[0] where Apple is only making their things open in jurisdicfions where they're forced to which was kinda infuriating/nonsensical to me. Governments have obviously caught onto this but Apple is still trying to squeeze out as much rent as possible while they still can. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45822302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45822302
  - Aurornis 11mo ago
    > Discoverability is pay to play. There is no townsquare not owned. And yet anyone can publish a website, like you said. Anyone can create an Instagram or TikTok profile and start selling things. Millions of small businesses do this all the time and grow on these platforms without "pay to play". > So We can make on own messaging client that communicates with the gatekeepers What does this have to do with letting people create businesses? Who's going to pay you (one way or another) to use your messaging client to connect to these open services when they can use the official client or anyone else's client? I think idealists imagine a world where tech giants are forced to open their platforms for free and they can use their own apps to connect to Reddit and YouTube and other platforms while avoiding the ads. It's a pipe dream to imagine that regulators will come in and force businesses to be unprofitable for the good of the public. Platforms need to make money to exist. They can either charge admission or show ads. There isn't a third option where they're forced to become a public good so that other businesses can freely benefit from their infrastructure.
thewebguyd 11mo ago
> The rules are too complex to start a business. Not to mention the taxes, depending on where you live. When I actually went to register my side gig wedding photography business it was the most confusing mess I've ever had to slog through. It's not clear, at all, what licenses you need because of the nature of the business. There's state, then there's also local/city licenses, and it's not clear on if you need one for every city you photograph at, or just one for the city you reside in (your business address). Some cities require it some don't. Then the taxes here are also just as confusing. Different rates depending on the business activity. Session fee revenue is taxed differently than digital photo sales revenue, etc. Then sometimes the service itself is subject to sales tax, sometimes not, depending on how (and where) you deliver the photos matters too. You can't be on the legal up and up without hiring an accountant and maybe an attorney to go through the process with you, which is definitely not something I wanted to do for a side gig. It should not be this convoluted or difficult to legally open a business, especially under a certain amount of revenue per year. I'm not making millions here, we're talking less than 100k/year in gross revenue. There's a reason most photographers here just....don't bother to register with the dept of revenue. Most don't get caught anyway so a lot of times its worth the risk to just..not pay the taxes. None of that bureaucracy should exist for businesses under a certain size/under a certain revenue.
- stdbrouw 11mo ago
  In the US income from a hobby can just be added to your personal filing [1] and in Belgium, where I live, there is a similar arrangement for "diverse sources of income" [2]. If you do start a business, in the European Union you're exempt from filing VAT if your yearly revenue is below a certain amount [3]. Europe has also been pretty aggressive in getting rid of licensing requirements for various occupations and trades, certainly a photographer wouldn't need a license here. I think the trouble you faced, resulted from being at the edge of these kinds of simple systems that do exist -- big enough to need to set up a business, but small enough that hiring an accountant or spending time to familiarize yourself with the legal requirements was out of proportion to the expected revenue. That's unfortunate, of course, but doesn't necessarily reflect on the amount of red tape that exists in general in a country. [1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/heres-how-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-hobby-and-a-business-for-tax-purposes https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/heres-how-to-tell-the-differenc... [2] https://www.vlaanderen.be/economie-en-ondernemen/een-eigen-zaak-starten/bijverdienen-zonder-zelfstandige-te-worden https://www.vlaanderen.be/economie-en-ondernemen/een-eigen-z... [3] https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-exemptions/index_en.htm#inline-nav-2 https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-exemp...
keybored 11mo ago
> Lack of autonomy is the most draining thing. ... > Markets are beautiful things when they work. They allow individuals to offer their services to the world in exactly the way they find best. Which feels good. And is great for a positive sum society. Modern markets (capitalism) is the direct cause of the problem you describe. And if you think “big organizations” are the problem? The modern market system always tends towards larger corporations since they outcompete the small businesses. > To help people find meaning in their work, we must first force open protocols, interoperability, and regulations that are gradual by business size. If this is the egalitarian idea of everyone being closer to a small business owner instead of many smaller businesses but most people still being employees, well that ideal is over a century out of date. It’s dead-end idealism.
- throwaway13337 11mo ago
  Markets tend toward monopoly like democracies tend towards dictatorship. In both cases, we need checks and balances to ensure that does not happen. When it does, that group tends to be weaker for it in the long run so evolution takes its course. Changing a failing system is very hard. I agree. Maybe it's not possible. But we need to have some vision of a positive future for the negative to not win by default. Cynicism is self-fulfilling.
  - keybored 11mo ago
    > Markets tend toward monopoly like democracies tend towards dictatorship. Democracies tend towards dictatorship? Oh right, most nominal democracies are liberal democracies. Makes sense now. > Changing a failing system is very hard. I agree. Maybe it's not possible. But we need to have some vision of a positive future for the negative to not win by default. Cynicism is self-fulfilling. What you need is a better system. Not hopes and prayers.
    - 9rx 11mo ago
      > Democracies tend towards dictatorship? Strictly speaking, no. A dictatorship takes power away from the people. A democracy sees the people give the power away. The people don't have to give power away in a democracy, technically, but in practice they always do. Democracy is hard work and people have bigger fish to fry, like keeping food on their table and a roof over their head. For most people it is most sensible to allow a "leader" to take power away from them. So casually speaking, there isn't a difference. In both cases power isn't in the hands of the people. The reason for why the power isn't held differ, but that is understood to be immaterial with respect the context of discussion.
giantg2 11mo ago
"Lack of autonomy is the most draining thing." This. I recently moved from a developer team to a non-dev team. I've written more lines of code in the past month than I had in the last 6 months on the dev team. No vague requirements to deal with. No picky reviews or politics from other devs or TLs. Freedom to write moderately high coverage, fairly robust test suites (compared to minimal coverage with low value checks). To be fair, this is green field development, so there is a fair amount of easy code and it's not spaghettified yet. However, I am also training non-devs on the team to run an maintain the repo, so there's that.
agumonkey 11mo ago
it's one key factor, whenever i'm forced to follow something unfit for the goal or my brain, i crash
billy99k 11mo ago
"The system that we've built is why people aren't enjoying their work. The bigger the organization, the less autonomy an individual has." I think it depends on your position. I've worked for big companies, where my department (and I) had it's own autonomy. Sure, you had to answer to the hire executives at some point, but it wasn't that rigid. Autonomy is usually earned after years of work, through trust. I know lots of people that basically stop working and try to do nothing, when they are given full autonomy (Many examples of this in the OE subreddit). I had my own small business for 7 years and am now a consultant. I automatically just get work done without being asked or watched. Most people don't have this mindset and need to be told what to do and monitored.
Aurornis 11mo ago
> The rules are too complex to start a business. I really don't think this is the reason. It's easier than ever to start a business now that there are so many free, accessible resources to help you through the process. There are even services like Stripe Atlas that will walk you through incorporating, getting an EIN, and setting up your billing: https://stripe.com/atlas https://stripe.com/atlas The reason few people start businesses is that it's really hard to make a good living. Running your own business is highly risky and takes a lot of work. For every success story there are countless failure stories that people don't speak of. Being an employee, especially in tech, can be an extraordinarily good deal. It can be frustrating like any job, but predictable pay that comes in well above median compensation for work that poses very little risk to yourself is a luxury. A lot of us have gone back and forth between self-employed and being an employee, and you don't really appreciate how nice it is to get a regular old job doing a narrow piece of work until you've dealt with the stresses of running your own business from top to bottom. > we must first force open protocols, interoperability, and regulations that are gradual by business size. What does this even mean? Very few business types would even benefit from "forcing" platforms to have open protocols. If regulators came in and forced Facebook or Instagram or even Hacker News to open their protocol and allow other businesses to interoperate (whatever that means) what makes you think individual small businesses would thrive, as opposed to other large companies coming in to take advantage of those forced-open platforms?
alliao 11mo ago
yeah autonomy and agency are the biggest work perks

hypeatei 11mo ago

> In tech, there is no common protocol to speak. You are a surf of the platform you find yourself on. Can you expand on this statement? It's a bit ambiguous and I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. Other than that, I agree with your comment. Even doing independent contracting on the side seems like a minefield w.r.t. quarterly tax payments, estimated tax, etc.. in the US at least. I'm sure I could figure it out but just earning income for some side work seems like a liability and a big headache.

jonas21 11mo ago
> Even doing independent contracting on the side seems like a minefield w.r.t. quarterly tax payments, estimated tax, etc.. in the US at least. I'm sure I could figure it out but just earning income for some side work seems like a liability and a big headache. It's really not hard -- it takes maybe 15 minutes per year, and if you own any stocks outside a 401k, you probably already need to make quarterly estimated payments. If it's too much trouble, you can just hire an accountant to take care of it for you. At any rate, it shouldn't be a significant obstacle to contracting.
- stronglikedan 11mo ago
  > it takes maybe 15 minutes per year It takes at least four times that per quarter, really. And especially if you're small enough to not be able to afford an accountant just yet.
  - SoftTalker 11mo ago
    The shortcut I always used was to take my effective tax rate from last year's return (i.e. total tax owed / gross income), multiply my self-employment income for the past quarter by that rate, maybe round it up somewhat, and pay that. It usually worked out to be close enough that I didn't owe any penalty for underpayment of estimated tax and it was much easier than using the IRS suggested calculation.
- hypeatei 11mo ago
  > if you own any stocks outside a 401k, you probably already need to make quarterly estimated payments. That's true, and I do. I guess I'm referring more to the accounting side of it. My brokerage reports/tracks all that for me and hands me a form later. With contracting work, it's all up to you to track and there might be better ways than a text file with some dates and amounts but maybe it really is that simple. I'm not sure.
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
immibis 11mo ago
The word they meant is serf: a low class in feudalism. Like a slave but with subtle differences that don't really matter. Does everything their master says, or is killed. More importantly, avoids all the emotional outbursts one would trigger by using the word "slave".
- throwaway13337 11mo ago
  Yes. Thanks. Serf. Share-cropping on the lord's land. The lord gives you exactly as much as you need to live but can extract the rest. This isn't good for anyone as, history tells us, people are less motivated that way.
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  > Like a slave but with subtle differences that don't really matter. Anyone using slavery as a metaphor for participating in tech platforms is out of touch with what slavery really is. Nobody is owning you as person and forcing you to work for them without any freedoms because they opened an app store or let you make a Facebook book. Minimizing the brutality of actual slavery by drawing comparisons to putting apps in app stores (or other tech platform things) is really distasteful
  - immibis 11mo ago
    > More importantly, avoids all the emotional outbursts one would trigger by using the word "slave". Thanks for providing an example. A serf also did not feel like a slave, being forced to do things. A serf felt his lord was being generous by letting him use the lord's land, for the low low cost of whatever percentage of his crops, plus being required to go and fight in battle and sometimes die, when there was a battle. Which is oddly analogous to how we feel about tech companies. We don't feel like we're being forced to use e.g. YouTube; we feel Google is being generous by letting us use it, for the low low price of endless advertisements, having our minds altered by propaganda, and randomly getting banned by AI. Although obviously not as much actual death is involved, but then again, Google can unperson you.
throwaway13337 11mo ago
Monopolies become entrenched because of network effect. Phone companies had the same problem until the government stepped in. Web standards are great. And the web is really something special. No one owns the web. I can publish my own website with a ton of different vendors offering hosting. There's a power law distribution of provider success but it's still a fair game. App publishing is owned by two companies. Messaging is siloed. Discoverability is pay to play. There is no townsquare not owned. The way to solve these problems is forcing platforms over a certain size to open their protocols. So We can make on own messaging client that communicates with the gatekeepers. We can offer, without the app stores, our software to their users in the same way that the gatekeepers allow. Monopolies kill markets. Allowing a fair market on network effect platforms would make the categories competitive. Smaller businesses could compete. The margins would lower for the gatekeepers. The consumers would benefit from lower prices and more innovation. Most of all, we'd finally be able to reverse the trend of cynical software - 'enshitification' - that comes when a monopoly understands that they no longer need to compete.
- hypeatei 11mo ago
  I see what you're getting at now, thanks. I left a comment on a thread about iOS recently[0] where Apple is only making their things open in jurisdicfions where they're forced to which was kinda infuriating/nonsensical to me. Governments have obviously caught onto this but Apple is still trying to squeeze out as much rent as possible while they still can. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45822302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45822302
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  > Discoverability is pay to play. There is no townsquare not owned. And yet anyone can publish a website, like you said. Anyone can create an Instagram or TikTok profile and start selling things. Millions of small businesses do this all the time and grow on these platforms without "pay to play". > So We can make on own messaging client that communicates with the gatekeepers What does this have to do with letting people create businesses? Who's going to pay you (one way or another) to use your messaging client to connect to these open services when they can use the official client or anyone else's client? I think idealists imagine a world where tech giants are forced to open their platforms for free and they can use their own apps to connect to Reddit and YouTube and other platforms while avoiding the ads. It's a pipe dream to imagine that regulators will come in and force businesses to be unprofitable for the good of the public. Platforms need to make money to exist. They can either charge admission or show ads. There isn't a third option where they're forced to become a public good so that other businesses can freely benefit from their infrastructure.

thewebguyd 11mo ago

> The rules are too complex to start a business. Not to mention the taxes, depending on where you live. When I actually went to register my side gig wedding photography business it was the most confusing mess I've ever had to slog through. It's not clear, at all, what licenses you need because of the nature of the business. There's state, then there's also local/city licenses, and it's not clear on if you need one for every city you photograph at, or just one for the city you reside in (your business address). Some cities require it some don't. Then the taxes here are also just as confusing. Different rates depending on the business activity. Session fee revenue is taxed differently than digital photo sales revenue, etc. Then sometimes the service itself is subject to sales tax, sometimes not, depending on how (and where) you deliver the photos matters too. You can't be on the legal up and up without hiring an accountant and maybe an attorney to go through the process with you, which is definitely not something I wanted to do for a side gig. It should not be this convoluted or difficult to legally open a business, especially under a certain amount of revenue per year. I'm not making millions here, we're talking less than 100k/year in gross revenue. There's a reason most photographers here just....don't bother to register with the dept of revenue. Most don't get caught anyway so a lot of times its worth the risk to just..not pay the taxes. None of that bureaucracy should exist for businesses under a certain size/under a certain revenue.

stdbrouw 11mo ago
In the US income from a hobby can just be added to your personal filing [1] and in Belgium, where I live, there is a similar arrangement for "diverse sources of income" [2]. If you do start a business, in the European Union you're exempt from filing VAT if your yearly revenue is below a certain amount [3]. Europe has also been pretty aggressive in getting rid of licensing requirements for various occupations and trades, certainly a photographer wouldn't need a license here. I think the trouble you faced, resulted from being at the edge of these kinds of simple systems that do exist -- big enough to need to set up a business, but small enough that hiring an accountant or spending time to familiarize yourself with the legal requirements was out of proportion to the expected revenue. That's unfortunate, of course, but doesn't necessarily reflect on the amount of red tape that exists in general in a country. [1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/heres-how-to-tell-the-difference-between-a-hobby-and-a-business-for-tax-purposes https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/heres-how-to-tell-the-differenc... [2] https://www.vlaanderen.be/economie-en-ondernemen/een-eigen-zaak-starten/bijverdienen-zonder-zelfstandige-te-worden https://www.vlaanderen.be/economie-en-ondernemen/een-eigen-z... [3] https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-exemptions/index_en.htm#inline-nav-2 https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-exemp...

keybored 11mo ago

> Lack of autonomy is the most draining thing. ... > Markets are beautiful things when they work. They allow individuals to offer their services to the world in exactly the way they find best. Which feels good. And is great for a positive sum society. Modern markets (capitalism) is the direct cause of the problem you describe. And if you think “big organizations” are the problem? The modern market system always tends towards larger corporations since they outcompete the small businesses. > To help people find meaning in their work, we must first force open protocols, interoperability, and regulations that are gradual by business size. If this is the egalitarian idea of everyone being closer to a small business owner instead of many smaller businesses but most people still being employees, well that ideal is over a century out of date. It’s dead-end idealism.

throwaway13337 11mo ago
Markets tend toward monopoly like democracies tend towards dictatorship. In both cases, we need checks and balances to ensure that does not happen. When it does, that group tends to be weaker for it in the long run so evolution takes its course. Changing a failing system is very hard. I agree. Maybe it's not possible. But we need to have some vision of a positive future for the negative to not win by default. Cynicism is self-fulfilling.
- keybored 11mo ago
  > Markets tend toward monopoly like democracies tend towards dictatorship. Democracies tend towards dictatorship? Oh right, most nominal democracies are liberal democracies. Makes sense now. > Changing a failing system is very hard. I agree. Maybe it's not possible. But we need to have some vision of a positive future for the negative to not win by default. Cynicism is self-fulfilling. What you need is a better system. Not hopes and prayers.
  - 9rx 11mo ago
    > Democracies tend towards dictatorship? Strictly speaking, no. A dictatorship takes power away from the people. A democracy sees the people give the power away. The people don't have to give power away in a democracy, technically, but in practice they always do. Democracy is hard work and people have bigger fish to fry, like keeping food on their table and a roof over their head. For most people it is most sensible to allow a "leader" to take power away from them. So casually speaking, there isn't a difference. In both cases power isn't in the hands of the people. The reason for why the power isn't held differ, but that is understood to be immaterial with respect the context of discussion.

giantg2 11mo ago

"Lack of autonomy is the most draining thing." This. I recently moved from a developer team to a non-dev team. I've written more lines of code in the past month than I had in the last 6 months on the dev team. No vague requirements to deal with. No picky reviews or politics from other devs or TLs. Freedom to write moderately high coverage, fairly robust test suites (compared to minimal coverage with low value checks). To be fair, this is green field development, so there is a fair amount of easy code and it's not spaghettified yet. However, I am also training non-devs on the team to run an maintain the repo, so there's that.

agumonkey 11mo ago

it's one key factor, whenever i'm forced to follow something unfit for the goal or my brain, i crash

billy99k 11mo ago

"The system that we've built is why people aren't enjoying their work. The bigger the organization, the less autonomy an individual has." I think it depends on your position. I've worked for big companies, where my department (and I) had it's own autonomy. Sure, you had to answer to the hire executives at some point, but it wasn't that rigid. Autonomy is usually earned after years of work, through trust. I know lots of people that basically stop working and try to do nothing, when they are given full autonomy (Many examples of this in the OE subreddit). I had my own small business for 7 years and am now a consultant. I automatically just get work done without being asked or watched. Most people don't have this mindset and need to be told what to do and monitored.

Aurornis 11mo ago

> The rules are too complex to start a business. I really don't think this is the reason. It's easier than ever to start a business now that there are so many free, accessible resources to help you through the process. There are even services like Stripe Atlas that will walk you through incorporating, getting an EIN, and setting up your billing: https://stripe.com/atlas https://stripe.com/atlas The reason few people start businesses is that it's really hard to make a good living. Running your own business is highly risky and takes a lot of work. For every success story there are countless failure stories that people don't speak of. Being an employee, especially in tech, can be an extraordinarily good deal. It can be frustrating like any job, but predictable pay that comes in well above median compensation for work that poses very little risk to yourself is a luxury. A lot of us have gone back and forth between self-employed and being an employee, and you don't really appreciate how nice it is to get a regular old job doing a narrow piece of work until you've dealt with the stresses of running your own business from top to bottom. > we must first force open protocols, interoperability, and regulations that are gradual by business size. What does this even mean? Very few business types would even benefit from "forcing" platforms to have open protocols. If regulators came in and forced Facebook or Instagram or even Hacker News to open their protocol and allow other businesses to interoperate (whatever that means) what makes you think individual small businesses would thrive, as opposed to other large companies coming in to take advantage of those forced-open platforms?

alliao 11mo ago

yeah autonomy and agency are the biggest work perks