4 ms·

Did you read the article? In paragraph 4 he specifically tells us he takes the founders age off the table.

by muzz 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago
I know that the OP did take it off the table. I'm not doing so. It's important, and here's why. I'm sure he's extremely talented. Most 17-year-olds aren't programming at all. However, this is an HR acquisition (they're shutting Summly down). What exactly does a 17-year-old have that merits a $30m hiring bonus? I'm not ragging on him, at all. I think it's great for him. He had the opportunity and took it. That's awesome. But... what are Yahoo's executives thinking? When DE Shaw hires Putnam Fellows, they start them at $150-200k. Not $30 million. They have to work their way up to that. I'm not asking this out of resentment, because I don't care. Yahoo could have acquired him for $500m and I wouldn't care. I'm asking that out of honest curiosity. If you're that desperate for talent that you're hiring 17-year-olds (very good 17-year-olds, no doubt) with a $30m hiring bonus instead of a much more reasonable, I don't know, $500k, then what did you do so wrong as to get there? See, I'm sure there are economic reasons for large companies to buy goofy startups for $7 million per engineer. But that's a sign that either (a) they're all seriously underpaying their people, and it's systemic across the Valley, or (b) their internal cultures are so stifling of creativity that they're desperate for innovation, and the only thing they can come up with is to massively overpay "credible" people from the outside instead of developing internal talent. I suspect that it's both (a) and (b). In fact, I've been inside enough short-sighted, badly-run companies to know that it is. It's of personal interest to me. Companies are literally in headline-making death throes because they can't get people like me, and when one of us shows up-- we aren't that rare, maybe 1 in ~100 software engineers-- they treat us like shit. It's bizarre. Here's a proposal to all the large corporations out there. For a mere $2500 per hour I, Michael O. Church, will tell you how to unfuck your inefficient, talent-stifling culture. CEO of a megalith that can't hire good people without a 5-million-per-engineer acq-hire? (Actually, you probably have good people-- some much better than I am-- but the dopey middle managers keep you from seeing their talents. Fire them. That'll be $175.) I will help you change that. All you have to do is listen to me. After 200 hours (that's a mere $500k) you will no longer to acq-hire at $5-10m per engineer to get good teams. You'll be able to do it for $3m per engineer because people will actually want to work for you. Or, better yet, you'll be able to get good people the old-fashioned way. Mark Zuckerberg is young and rich, but he actually built a free-standing company. So it's not as ridiculous that he's worth billions, given that the work (possibly not the code, but the ongoing business process) is still in use.
- photorized 14y ago
  This "strange" deal actually did a few things for Yahoo: - people are talking about it (and not in a bad way, like it was with the telecommuting memo) - this may attract some fresh talent (just out of novelty; before, Yahoo was pretty much written off) - it's crazy enough, it's actually pretty energizing for the right kind of people on the inside On the other hand, I can only imagine what kind of internal HR issues these acqui-hires may create for Yahoo.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    People are talking about it in a bad way. I don't think it's useful to hate or resent a 17-year-old for getting acq-hired (although it's pretty disgusting that he keeps the company of Mark Pincus and Rupert Murdoch; I'll give him till 21 to clean his judgment of character of such) but this reflects really badly on Yahoo. On the other hand, I can only imagine what kind of internal HR issues these acqui-hires may create for Yahoo. Well, for fuck's sake yeah. What Yahoo needs to do, and fast, is get better at discovering talent within. Apparently they have a problem with lazy people. Ok, so make it possible for a not-lazy employee to make a real dent-- important projects, self-direction, lots of autonomy. Give your best people an incentive to bring themselves out and shine. Honestly, if you give your most talented people basic support and autonomy instead of letting them get eaten alive by people they intimidate, you're doing better than 90+ percent of companies.
    - tlogan 14y ago
      Any attempt to innovate in corporation is potential career killer. That is how companies work. So many smart engineers are just quiet and they just do what they are told (make they boss happy).
      - Swannie 14y ago
        Absolutely, pure innovators dilemma. Seems Yahoo! tried to solve this with their "brickhouse" program, a new product incubator, but ultimately it seems that was too disruptive and got axed.

Did you read the article? In paragraph 4 he specifically tells us he takes the founders age off the table.

by muzz 14y ago

Did you read the article? In paragraph 4 he specifically tells us he takes the founders age off the table.

I know that the OP did take it off the table. I'm not doing so. It's important, and here's why. I'm sure he's extremely talented. Most 17-year-olds aren't programming at all. However, this is an HR acquisition (they're shutting Summly down). What exactly does a 17-year-old have that merits a $30m hiring bonus? I'm not ragging on him, at all. I think it's great for him. He had the opportunity and took it. That's awesome. But... what are Yahoo's executives thinking? When DE Shaw hires Putnam Fellows, they start them at $150-200k. Not $30 million. They have to work their way up to that. I'm not asking this out of resentment, because I don't care. Yahoo could have acquired him for $500m and I wouldn't care. I'm asking that out of honest curiosity. If you're that desperate for talent that you're hiring 17-year-olds (very good 17-year-olds, no doubt) with a $30m hiring bonus instead of a much more reasonable, I don't know, $500k, then what did you do so wrong as to get there? See, I'm sure there are economic reasons for large companies to buy goofy startups for $7 million per engineer. But that's a sign that either (a) they're all seriously underpaying their people, and it's systemic across the Valley, or (b) their internal cultures are so stifling of creativity that they're desperate for innovation, and the only thing they can come up with is to massively overpay "credible" people from the outside instead of developing internal talent. I suspect that it's both (a) and (b). In fact, I've been inside enough short-sighted, badly-run companies to know that it is. It's of personal interest to me. Companies are literally in headline-making death throes because they can't get people like me, and when one of us shows up-- we aren't that rare, maybe 1 in ~100 software engineers-- they treat us like shit. It's bizarre. Here's a proposal to all the large corporations out there. For a mere $2500 per hour I, Michael O. Church, will tell you how to unfuck your inefficient, talent-stifling culture. CEO of a megalith that can't hire good people without a 5-million-per-engineer acq-hire? (Actually, you probably have good people-- some much better than I am-- but the dopey middle managers keep you from seeing their talents. Fire them. That'll be $175.) I will help you change that. All you have to do is listen to me. After 200 hours (that's a mere $500k) you will no longer to acq-hire at $5-10m per engineer to get good teams. You'll be able to do it for $3m per engineer because people will actually want to work for you. Or, better yet, you'll be able to get good people the old-fashioned way. Mark Zuckerberg is young and rich, but he actually built a free-standing company. So it's not as ridiculous that he's worth billions, given that the work (possibly not the code, but the ongoing business process) is still in use.

photorized 14y ago
This "strange" deal actually did a few things for Yahoo: - people are talking about it (and not in a bad way, like it was with the telecommuting memo) - this may attract some fresh talent (just out of novelty; before, Yahoo was pretty much written off) - it's crazy enough, it's actually pretty energizing for the right kind of people on the inside On the other hand, I can only imagine what kind of internal HR issues these acqui-hires may create for Yahoo.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  People are talking about it in a bad way. I don't think it's useful to hate or resent a 17-year-old for getting acq-hired (although it's pretty disgusting that he keeps the company of Mark Pincus and Rupert Murdoch; I'll give him till 21 to clean his judgment of character of such) but this reflects really badly on Yahoo. On the other hand, I can only imagine what kind of internal HR issues these acqui-hires may create for Yahoo. Well, for fuck's sake yeah. What Yahoo needs to do, and fast, is get better at discovering talent within. Apparently they have a problem with lazy people. Ok, so make it possible for a not-lazy employee to make a real dent-- important projects, self-direction, lots of autonomy. Give your best people an incentive to bring themselves out and shine. Honestly, if you give your most talented people basic support and autonomy instead of letting them get eaten alive by people they intimidate, you're doing better than 90+ percent of companies.
  - tlogan 14y ago
    Any attempt to innovate in corporation is potential career killer. That is how companies work. So many smart engineers are just quiet and they just do what they are told (make they boss happy).
    - Swannie 14y ago
      Absolutely, pure innovators dilemma. Seems Yahoo! tried to solve this with their "brickhouse" program, a new product incubator, but ultimately it seems that was too disruptive and got axed.