7 ms·

What the bubble got right (2004)

53 points by sakunthala 13y ago

untilHellbanned 13y ago
" I thought it would be useful if I explained what a nerd was. What I came up with was: someone who doesn't expend any effort on marketing himself." Sadly the personalities who dominate academia are increasingly anti-nerds.
lhnz 13y ago
Horribly out-of-date in parts. The 'substance' has evaporated. "I thought it would be useful if I explained what a nerd was. What I came up with was: someone who doesn't expend any effort on marketing himself." I always considered Paul Graham a 'nerd' despite his excellent essays marketing his intellect to nerds. (A positive is that he seems very humble; he does not recurse very well, and so had to create a Y-Combinator for this purpose. For somebody that doesn't appear to believe in marketing this man sure knows how to signal to me.) I also don't see dressing informally as a very positive signal anymore. Many nerds have lost their right to wear formal clothes and they've just not woken up to that reality yet. Companies want their executives to wear suits and ties but their engineers have a new uniform: "no uniform". You can tell you're wearing a uniform, because there is a reputational cost to rejecting it. My slightly rebellious slant is to just pick the opposite of what everybody else is doing and do that.
- _delirium 13y ago
  I've definitely noticed that with the clothes. As a programmer, you have the right and obligation to wear an informal but fairly regimented and slightly embarrassing uniform (e.g., cargo shorts + thinkgeek tshirt), which cements your social position. You basically cannot dress "nicely" without people judging you, from both above and below.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    You can dress business casual as a programmer, and I don't think anyone judges you (I know plenty of "nerds" who dress business casual). So I'm assuming that when you say "nicely", you mean suit&tie. As I was reading your comment, one question came to my mind: why? If you work in front of a computer for 8-10 hours a day, and the only people you interact (briefly) are others on your team, what's the point of dressing up? I can see the reason for it in jobs where there's a lot of contact with others (who you need to impress), but that's not the case for programmers.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      Depends on the setting, but in some settings I've felt overdressed and even gotten odd comments when dressing business casual. I interpret that to mean slacks and button shirt, plus sport coat when weather warrants (but not a suit, and probably no tie). Less of an issue in Europe than in the US afaict, although the opposite could be an issue in Europe (wearing shorts to the office is fairly unusual in many countries, even for programmers).
  - onedev 13y ago
    Why can you just wear some of the freshest designer shit and put everyone you work with to shame causing them to step up their game?
    - hrktb 13y ago
      Is it a matter of shame ? _delirium's feeling of obligation feels weird while interesting. bringing shame to the game is weirder.
  - marquis 13y ago
    I'm a rather fashionable young woman thanks. It doesn't bother me in the slightest when I meet someone whose clothes don't fit the stereotype, perhaps you are in a more cloistered environment?
    - hobs 13y ago
      I wish it was not the case, but when it comes to this behavior, the social norms are not within our personal control. I mostly like the informal dress, but have been told more than once (by executives) that it makes me appear like someone who cant be trusted with authority. When I dress up, many of my ilk feel uncomfortable around me. Wear what you like, but I have learned time and again that whatever clothing choice you make, everyone is always judging it and making decisions based on that judgement.
      - marquis 13y ago
        >but have been told more than once (by executives) that it makes me appear like someone who cant be trusted with authority I'd consider that a cloistered environment, when you are judged by others on physical appearance. It really sucks, but I also worked hard to make sure I have my own authority. Would you still trust Richard Stallman, wearing a soggy full-size panda-pyjama suit and carrying a small stuffed pink elephant while singing "bye bye blackbird" quietly to himself? Probably!
        hobs 13y ago
        I was going to say "trust him with what?", because while Stallman can be respected on some bounds, I wouldn't trust him to do anything but develop software. I take your point that where I work might be considered a cloistered environment, but the comment about people judging your appearance is a world wide phenomena, not something that lives in one workplace. For example: 1. Recently HN had an article about a younger guy who added a fake beard to his freelancer profile, and noticed he received more gigs as a result. 2. Attractive people get more opportunities in life http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job-interviews-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job... The average callback rate was 30% across all of the CVs sent out. For attractive women, it was 54%, and for attractive men, 47%. Unattractive women had by far the worst results, with a 7% callback rate. Unattractive men had a 26% rate. I could go on, but this is not a me thing, its a we (people) thing.
  - krakensden 13y ago
    In my experience, cargo shorts are pretty rare, as are overtly geeky shirts. Not to mention the post-hipster dandy look, which is increasingly popular.
- knieveltech 13y ago
  I decided to get a mohawk (and dye it purple) last year. I also decided to wear nothing but business suits with tie and french cuff shirts when out in public during this period. The company I work for slapped pictures of me all over their Facebook feed a week after I made the change. I went to a developer conference and got mugged by a dutch film crew. I caught people using me as a landmark when the main conference hall got crowded. I popped up on instagram more often than the keynote speaker for the event. On several ocassions I had total strangers approach my table while dining out with my wife to tender complements. I'm not sure what my point is here other than I don't feel any pressure to conform to a given uniform and my intermittent refusal to do so hasn't seemed to impact my career so far.
  - deerpig 13y ago
    Conformity and non-conformity are just two sides of the same coin, they are both marketing statements. Einstein was the opposite, he had 5 sets of the same suit so that he didn't have to waste time thinking about his wardrobe. He would rather spend his time thinking about important problems. A dyed mohawk and a suit, to me, is a lot of work and thought that I personally would rather spend on the work. There is nothing wrong with marketing oneself, it's part of being a a social animal. But when you market yourself you are making a statement to others that you want them to notice and to be noticed. It is spending time on marketing and not on ideas and the work. I would agree with Graham's definition of nerd. The fact that many people who like to think of themselves as nerds today, who actually aren't, doesn't change the kind of person he was describing.
    - krakensden 13y ago
      > A dyed mohawk and a suit, to me, is a lot of work and thought that I personally would rather spend on the work. I did the purple mohawk thing for a while. The trick is to make the actual dying & haircutting a social event.
      - knieveltech 13y ago
        I think I missed that bus. The maintenance was what finally drove me to get rid of it.
- kelnos 13y ago
  Companies want their executives to wear suits and ties but their engineers have a new uniform: "no uniform". Strongly disagree. I look at it the other way: if I weren't at work, what would I be wearing? Well... the same thing I just happen to be wearing at work. I own a couple suits (one of them actually well-tailored and fitted), a few blazers, a bunch of buttoned shirts. They're great when I'm going for that look, but they're never going to be as comfortable to me (both physically and psychologically) as a tshirt, jeans, and hoodie. When I get home from work, I don't change into something more comfortable like my dad always did when I was growing up. I'm already comfortable. I think that's the definition of dressing informally to me: not changing my look based on the current situation. Many nerds have lost their right to wear formal clothes and they've just not woken up to that reality yet. I do agree with that, unfortunately. At the worst end of it, some people are rejected for positions because of "culture fit", and often the signal for that lack of fit is that they showed up to the interview dressed too formally. On the other hand, a employee at my company (before my time, sadly) just showed up one day wearing a suit. When asked about it, he simply said, "I just decided I want to dress like this from now on". And that was that.
- _aeron 13y ago
  I find that considering any part of one's appearance to be acquiescing or reacting to company policy is ultimately still acknowledging it, and PG touches on the reason why that alone should be distressing: "dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas". Focus on building a wardrobe that can modulate and interplay. A nice (and here I mean non-stuffy, my personal preference is a rich blue slim-cut) suit can lose the trousers in favour of jeans for the weekend, or lose the jacket in favour of a sweater for the workplace of a programmer. You won't look especially trendy, or 'like a programmer', but nor will you look tasteless or in any way aberrated; you will look competent. Expecting anything else is probably quite vain.
  - vorg 13y ago
    > PG touches on the reason why that alone should be distressing: "dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas" Maybe in America. Americans who visit Asia better remember that just because they're wearing a suit doesn't mean they're stupid.
- specialist 13y ago
  Every day is Halloween. You have to look, talk, and act like the people you want to interact with. Dress the part. Homophily. Last week I put on my politician costume, headed to the legislature, talked policy, asked for votes, and played the role. The following day I put on my bike commuter costume, laptop camped with my fellow programmers, and wrote code. Whenever we have planning meetings, I dress up, so that I'm taken more seriously. You absolutely judge others by their appearances. Why would it be any different for you?
  - lhnz 13y ago
    I completely agree with you. In fact I smiled when you said "homophily." You're clearly not somebody that will fight against reality. Are you on twitter by any chance?
    - specialist 13y ago
      What would I say? :) Totally off topic: I don't get (grok) twitter. The conversation escapes me. I'm more of a long form writer. When I start blogging again, I'll do my own thing vs sharecropping.
      - lhnz 13y ago
        Long-form twitter is actually a thing! You just keep replying to yourself and removing your name to create a gigantic stream of consciousness - unsightly perhaps, but I personally enjoy quality tweeters that do this. Most of the tweeters I enjoy just write aphorisms though. The bedrock of twitter is in finding and following non-noisy tweeters that are similar thinkers to yourself. I'm @sebinsua on there. I can vouch for accounts like @afoolswisdom, @macroresilience, @asquidislove, @pmarca, @EpicureanDeal, and @groditi. These are people that I recognise to be unusual and phenomenally smart, and that I admire from a distance.
michaelochurch 13y ago
PG got so much wrong here. (From #4, Youth) A 26 year old may not be very good at managing people or dealing with the SEC. Those require experience. But those are also commodities, which can be handed off to some lieutenant. The most important quality in a CEO is his vision for the company's future. What will they build next? And in that department, there are 26 year olds who can compete with anyone. Some 26-year-olds are immensely talented, sure. Anyone who would argue against that point is an idiot. Some people learn how to lead very early on. But the ability to lead a team or motivate people and the ability to keep one's company legal are not commodities. Not even close. If your CEO is an idiot or a naif then he can't evaluate his lieutenants, he will pick idiots to manage the day-to-day, they will do shoddy work (or screw him over behind his back) and he won't know, and disaster will ensue. This has nothing to do with age, really, because there are many 26-year-olds who can do those stereotypically "older" jobs. On age more directly, the age discrimination culture is disgusting and perverse in its half-assed homoeroticism (I have no problem with actual gay people; my issue is with the chickenhawks who rule VC-istan, who identify as heterosexual and are often married men, yet have creepy "I'll support your career in order to look at you" relationships with 24-year-old, hipsterish manboys with minimal talent. Hmmm. Nothing weird about that. Of the VCs who backed Duplan and Spiegel, what do their wives think?) The '90s bubble may have corrected for a previous (and surely pernicious) anti-young bias, but this 2014-era, VC-istan age discrimination culture is just as disgusting and stupid. Let's stop being crass fuckheads and just make age a total nonfactor either way, ok? On "vision", I would likewise say that the age correlation is probably 0.0 over the relevant range (20 to 65). However, many businesses don't require a vision-- they require taking a known problem and executing well, and for those, I'd argue that age is an advantage (but a very slight one) in those. (From #6, Nerds) A nerd, in other words, is someone who concentrates on substance. Really? Because the current tech bubble is driven by fart (no typo) boys like Lucas Duplan and Evan Spiegel, who aren't nerds. This round is actually disgustingly conformist. It has the mechanisms of startups, but no soul. Sure, you don't have to dress up if you work for one of these post-2008 VC darlings, but you face closed allocation and corporate politics and cultish conformity and boring problems, so what's the fucking point? True nerds (by that definition) have no home in the VC-funded world these days. It is now owned by the fratty shitscum. (From #7, Options) Options are a good idea because (a) they're fair, and (b) they work. I disagree. In a typical VC-funded tech company, an engineer makes $100k while the VP/NTWTFK (Non-Technical Who-The-Fuck-Knows) working 11-to-3 and bikeshedding makes $150k. That's 1.5x more. In equity, the engineer is getting 0.05% while the VP gets 1%. That's 20 times more. The inequities in equity are absurd and would never be tolerated in salary numbers. Gender and race inequities are also much more extreme in the options/equity front. 9. California You mean that dysfunctional broke state with extreme economic inequality? Real estate is still more expensive than just about anywhere else in the country. That's a bad thing, and if you don't realize that, you're a dumbass with little insight into how the economy works (101 lesson: elasticity). Expensive real estate is what you get when regulatory corruption (NIMBYism) meets the extreme inelasticity of housing costs: a 2% gap between how much housing there should be and what there is can cause prices to go up 50% or even double. The price/income ratio of housing is constant absent regulatory dysfunction. Bay Area incomes are higher than the national average, but not by enough to match the housing prices. What makes the Bay Area superior is the attitude of the people. I notice that when I come home to Boston. The first thing I see when I walk out of the airline terminal is the fat, grumpy guy in charge of the taxi line. Wait, so you can't launch a startup if there are too many fat people? Weird. I know plenty of fat people I'd found with if they were so inclined, but what do I know? That 26 year olds with good ideas will increasingly have an edge over 50 year olds with powerful connections. Now, the 26-year-old and 50-year-old with great ideas both get screwed over because the VC and support and resources all go to the 26-year-old with powerful (inherited) connections. (Or the 26-year-old with the creepy chickenhawk relationship with the powerful 50-year-old.) Ageism begets classism, because any 22-year-old who can get VC (in 2014, with the social distance between VCs and peons at record high) had parental lift. What's happening now is not an improvement.
brc 13y ago
I much prefer early pg to current-day pg writing. Hopefully handing over the reigns will bring back some clarity of thought. This is a good article which highlights several things I agree with: >The prospect of technological leverage will of course raise the specter of unemployment. I'm surprised people still worry about this. After centuries of supposedly job-killing innovations, the number of jobs is within ten percent of the number of people who want them. This can't be a coincidence. There must be some kind of balancing mechanism. precisely. The whole 'technology gone done taken our jerbs' thing seems to be popping up again lately - anyone taking this line needs to justify why this time it's different. >One upshot of which is that the companies of the future may be surprisingly small. I sometimes daydream about how big you could grow a company (in revenues) without ever having more than ten people. What would happen if you outsourced everything except product development? If you tried this experiment, I think you'd be surprised at how far you could get. WhatsApp
- pyoung 13y ago
  >'technology gone done taken our jerbs' followed by: >I sometimes daydream about how big you could grow a company (in revenues) without ever having more than ten people. Do you not see the contradiction there?
  - Moto7451 13y ago
    Why is there a contradiction? Sounds more like a formula for a lot of small to medium sized businesses being started. If there were no Big-COs that provide thousands of jobs, people wouldn't roll over and decide not to work. On the contrary, it's likely more people would form their own business out of necessity. Now, would this be better for the US economy in general? Maybe. Maybe not. When I was in college I spent a stint as a Political Science major (focusing in IR). When learning about Asia I remember a lot of discussion about Taiwan's economy being successful in part because of their strong small to medium sized businesses. Taiwan's government seems to be a fan of this idea as well: http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429 http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429
  - kelnos 13y ago
grey-area 13y ago
Yahoo was a special case. It was not just our price to earnings ratio that was bogus. Half our earnings were too...What made our earnings bogus was that Yahoo was, in effect, the center of a Ponzi scheme. Investors looked at Yahoo's earnings and said to themselves, here is proof that Internet companies can make money. So they invested in new startups that promised to be the next Yahoo. This section seems eerily prescient in foreseeing the current bubble - replace Yahoo with FB or Google, and it could have been written in 2013. Values are supported by confidence in larger companies which subsist on the advertising bought by smaller companies, which are funded in the hope of acquisition by larger companies. When that confidence evaporates, things will collapse, even the companies which provide true value, if they sell advertising and depend on the entire ecosystem continuing to grow. This bubble gets some things right too - there are of course many many profitable and valuable communications and social networking companies (as there were in the first boom, probably even more now), and Twitter, FB and Google are not going to disappear any time soon, but if your income is based on advertising or VC funding, this sort of bubble can be really damaging, and when a crash comes, many worthy projects will be thrown out with the unworthy. Perhaps bubbles repeat themselves too - the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  The largest sources of advertising are the FIRE industries: finance, insurance, and real estate. After that: retail, travel, jobs & ed, home & garden, consumer electronics, vehicles, business, and gifts. The problem I see here is that both FIRE and the consumer Web are largely catabolic industries -- they're liberating some stuck capital, but I don't see them as actually creating a whole lot in the way of new productive capacity. Which means you've got two bubbles feeding on one another. The good news is that it's not the incestuous Internet bubble of the late 1990s. The bad news is that it's a much larger piece of the economy. Perhaps the only parts which have been growing appreciably. http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2012/01/23/google-revenues http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2012/01/23/google-revenues

53 points by sakunthala 13y ago

" I thought it would be useful if I explained what a nerd was. What I came up with was: someone who doesn't expend any effort on marketing himself." Sadly the personalities who dominate academia are increasingly anti-nerds.

lhnz 13y ago

Horribly out-of-date in parts. The 'substance' has evaporated. "I thought it would be useful if I explained what a nerd was. What I came up with was: someone who doesn't expend any effort on marketing himself." I always considered Paul Graham a 'nerd' despite his excellent essays marketing his intellect to nerds. (A positive is that he seems very humble; he does not recurse very well, and so had to create a Y-Combinator for this purpose. For somebody that doesn't appear to believe in marketing this man sure knows how to signal to me.) I also don't see dressing informally as a very positive signal anymore. Many nerds have lost their right to wear formal clothes and they've just not woken up to that reality yet. Companies want their executives to wear suits and ties but their engineers have a new uniform: "no uniform". You can tell you're wearing a uniform, because there is a reputational cost to rejecting it. My slightly rebellious slant is to just pick the opposite of what everybody else is doing and do that.

_delirium 13y ago
I've definitely noticed that with the clothes. As a programmer, you have the right and obligation to wear an informal but fairly regimented and slightly embarrassing uniform (e.g., cargo shorts + thinkgeek tshirt), which cements your social position. You basically cannot dress "nicely" without people judging you, from both above and below.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  You can dress business casual as a programmer, and I don't think anyone judges you (I know plenty of "nerds" who dress business casual). So I'm assuming that when you say "nicely", you mean suit&tie. As I was reading your comment, one question came to my mind: why? If you work in front of a computer for 8-10 hours a day, and the only people you interact (briefly) are others on your team, what's the point of dressing up? I can see the reason for it in jobs where there's a lot of contact with others (who you need to impress), but that's not the case for programmers.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Depends on the setting, but in some settings I've felt overdressed and even gotten odd comments when dressing business casual. I interpret that to mean slacks and button shirt, plus sport coat when weather warrants (but not a suit, and probably no tie). Less of an issue in Europe than in the US afaict, although the opposite could be an issue in Europe (wearing shorts to the office is fairly unusual in many countries, even for programmers).
- onedev 13y ago
  Why can you just wear some of the freshest designer shit and put everyone you work with to shame causing them to step up their game?
  - hrktb 13y ago
    Is it a matter of shame ? _delirium's feeling of obligation feels weird while interesting. bringing shame to the game is weirder.
- marquis 13y ago
  I'm a rather fashionable young woman thanks. It doesn't bother me in the slightest when I meet someone whose clothes don't fit the stereotype, perhaps you are in a more cloistered environment?
  - hobs 13y ago
    I wish it was not the case, but when it comes to this behavior, the social norms are not within our personal control. I mostly like the informal dress, but have been told more than once (by executives) that it makes me appear like someone who cant be trusted with authority. When I dress up, many of my ilk feel uncomfortable around me. Wear what you like, but I have learned time and again that whatever clothing choice you make, everyone is always judging it and making decisions based on that judgement.
    - marquis 13y ago
      >but have been told more than once (by executives) that it makes me appear like someone who cant be trusted with authority I'd consider that a cloistered environment, when you are judged by others on physical appearance. It really sucks, but I also worked hard to make sure I have my own authority. Would you still trust Richard Stallman, wearing a soggy full-size panda-pyjama suit and carrying a small stuffed pink elephant while singing "bye bye blackbird" quietly to himself? Probably!
      - hobs 13y ago
        I was going to say "trust him with what?", because while Stallman can be respected on some bounds, I wouldn't trust him to do anything but develop software. I take your point that where I work might be considered a cloistered environment, but the comment about people judging your appearance is a world wide phenomena, not something that lives in one workplace. For example: 1. Recently HN had an article about a younger guy who added a fake beard to his freelancer profile, and noticed he received more gigs as a result. 2. Attractive people get more opportunities in life http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job-interviews-2013-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/beautiful-people-get-more-job... The average callback rate was 30% across all of the CVs sent out. For attractive women, it was 54%, and for attractive men, 47%. Unattractive women had by far the worst results, with a 7% callback rate. Unattractive men had a 26% rate. I could go on, but this is not a me thing, its a we (people) thing.
- krakensden 13y ago
  In my experience, cargo shorts are pretty rare, as are overtly geeky shirts. Not to mention the post-hipster dandy look, which is increasingly popular.
knieveltech 13y ago
I decided to get a mohawk (and dye it purple) last year. I also decided to wear nothing but business suits with tie and french cuff shirts when out in public during this period. The company I work for slapped pictures of me all over their Facebook feed a week after I made the change. I went to a developer conference and got mugged by a dutch film crew. I caught people using me as a landmark when the main conference hall got crowded. I popped up on instagram more often than the keynote speaker for the event. On several ocassions I had total strangers approach my table while dining out with my wife to tender complements. I'm not sure what my point is here other than I don't feel any pressure to conform to a given uniform and my intermittent refusal to do so hasn't seemed to impact my career so far.
- deerpig 13y ago
  Conformity and non-conformity are just two sides of the same coin, they are both marketing statements. Einstein was the opposite, he had 5 sets of the same suit so that he didn't have to waste time thinking about his wardrobe. He would rather spend his time thinking about important problems. A dyed mohawk and a suit, to me, is a lot of work and thought that I personally would rather spend on the work. There is nothing wrong with marketing oneself, it's part of being a a social animal. But when you market yourself you are making a statement to others that you want them to notice and to be noticed. It is spending time on marketing and not on ideas and the work. I would agree with Graham's definition of nerd. The fact that many people who like to think of themselves as nerds today, who actually aren't, doesn't change the kind of person he was describing.
  - krakensden 13y ago
    > A dyed mohawk and a suit, to me, is a lot of work and thought that I personally would rather spend on the work. I did the purple mohawk thing for a while. The trick is to make the actual dying & haircutting a social event.
    - knieveltech 13y ago
      I think I missed that bus. The maintenance was what finally drove me to get rid of it.
kelnos 13y ago
Companies want their executives to wear suits and ties but their engineers have a new uniform: "no uniform". Strongly disagree. I look at it the other way: if I weren't at work, what would I be wearing? Well... the same thing I just happen to be wearing at work. I own a couple suits (one of them actually well-tailored and fitted), a few blazers, a bunch of buttoned shirts. They're great when I'm going for that look, but they're never going to be as comfortable to me (both physically and psychologically) as a tshirt, jeans, and hoodie. When I get home from work, I don't change into something more comfortable like my dad always did when I was growing up. I'm already comfortable. I think that's the definition of dressing informally to me: not changing my look based on the current situation. Many nerds have lost their right to wear formal clothes and they've just not woken up to that reality yet. I do agree with that, unfortunately. At the worst end of it, some people are rejected for positions because of "culture fit", and often the signal for that lack of fit is that they showed up to the interview dressed too formally. On the other hand, a employee at my company (before my time, sadly) just showed up one day wearing a suit. When asked about it, he simply said, "I just decided I want to dress like this from now on". And that was that.
_aeron 13y ago
I find that considering any part of one's appearance to be acquiescing or reacting to company policy is ultimately still acknowledging it, and PG touches on the reason why that alone should be distressing: "dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas". Focus on building a wardrobe that can modulate and interplay. A nice (and here I mean non-stuffy, my personal preference is a rich blue slim-cut) suit can lose the trousers in favour of jeans for the weekend, or lose the jacket in favour of a sweater for the workplace of a programmer. You won't look especially trendy, or 'like a programmer', but nor will you look tasteless or in any way aberrated; you will look competent. Expecting anything else is probably quite vain.
- vorg 13y ago
  > PG touches on the reason why that alone should be distressing: "dressing up is inevitably a substitute for good ideas" Maybe in America. Americans who visit Asia better remember that just because they're wearing a suit doesn't mean they're stupid.
specialist 13y ago
Every day is Halloween. You have to look, talk, and act like the people you want to interact with. Dress the part. Homophily. Last week I put on my politician costume, headed to the legislature, talked policy, asked for votes, and played the role. The following day I put on my bike commuter costume, laptop camped with my fellow programmers, and wrote code. Whenever we have planning meetings, I dress up, so that I'm taken more seriously. You absolutely judge others by their appearances. Why would it be any different for you?
- lhnz 13y ago
  I completely agree with you. In fact I smiled when you said "homophily." You're clearly not somebody that will fight against reality. Are you on twitter by any chance?
  - specialist 13y ago
    What would I say? :) Totally off topic: I don't get (grok) twitter. The conversation escapes me. I'm more of a long form writer. When I start blogging again, I'll do my own thing vs sharecropping.
    - lhnz 13y ago
      Long-form twitter is actually a thing! You just keep replying to yourself and removing your name to create a gigantic stream of consciousness - unsightly perhaps, but I personally enjoy quality tweeters that do this. Most of the tweeters I enjoy just write aphorisms though. The bedrock of twitter is in finding and following non-noisy tweeters that are similar thinkers to yourself. I'm @sebinsua on there. I can vouch for accounts like @afoolswisdom, @macroresilience, @asquidislove, @pmarca, @EpicureanDeal, and @groditi. These are people that I recognise to be unusual and phenomenally smart, and that I admire from a distance.

michaelochurch 13y ago

PG got so much wrong here. (From #4, Youth) A 26 year old may not be very good at managing people or dealing with the SEC. Those require experience. But those are also commodities, which can be handed off to some lieutenant. The most important quality in a CEO is his vision for the company's future. What will they build next? And in that department, there are 26 year olds who can compete with anyone. Some 26-year-olds are immensely talented, sure. Anyone who would argue against that point is an idiot. Some people learn how to lead very early on. But the ability to lead a team or motivate people and the ability to keep one's company legal are not commodities. Not even close. If your CEO is an idiot or a naif then he can't evaluate his lieutenants, he will pick idiots to manage the day-to-day, they will do shoddy work (or screw him over behind his back) and he won't know, and disaster will ensue. This has nothing to do with age, really, because there are many 26-year-olds who can do those stereotypically "older" jobs. On age more directly, the age discrimination culture is disgusting and perverse in its half-assed homoeroticism (I have no problem with actual gay people; my issue is with the chickenhawks who rule VC-istan, who identify as heterosexual and are often married men, yet have creepy "I'll support your career in order to look at you" relationships with 24-year-old, hipsterish manboys with minimal talent. Hmmm. Nothing weird about that. Of the VCs who backed Duplan and Spiegel, what do their wives think?) The '90s bubble may have corrected for a previous (and surely pernicious) anti-young bias, but this 2014-era, VC-istan age discrimination culture is just as disgusting and stupid. Let's stop being crass fuckheads and just make age a total nonfactor either way, ok? On "vision", I would likewise say that the age correlation is probably 0.0 over the relevant range (20 to 65). However, many businesses don't require a vision-- they require taking a known problem and executing well, and for those, I'd argue that age is an advantage (but a very slight one) in those. (From #6, Nerds) A nerd, in other words, is someone who concentrates on substance. Really? Because the current tech bubble is driven by fart (no typo) boys like Lucas Duplan and Evan Spiegel, who aren't nerds. This round is actually disgustingly conformist. It has the mechanisms of startups, but no soul. Sure, you don't have to dress up if you work for one of these post-2008 VC darlings, but you face closed allocation and corporate politics and cultish conformity and boring problems, so what's the fucking point? True nerds (by that definition) have no home in the VC-funded world these days. It is now owned by the fratty shitscum. (From #7, Options) Options are a good idea because (a) they're fair, and (b) they work. I disagree. In a typical VC-funded tech company, an engineer makes $100k while the VP/NTWTFK (Non-Technical Who-The-Fuck-Knows) working 11-to-3 and bikeshedding makes $150k. That's 1.5x more. In equity, the engineer is getting 0.05% while the VP gets 1%. That's 20 times more. The inequities in equity are absurd and would never be tolerated in salary numbers. Gender and race inequities are also much more extreme in the options/equity front. 9. California You mean that dysfunctional broke state with extreme economic inequality? Real estate is still more expensive than just about anywhere else in the country. That's a bad thing, and if you don't realize that, you're a dumbass with little insight into how the economy works (101 lesson: elasticity). Expensive real estate is what you get when regulatory corruption (NIMBYism) meets the extreme inelasticity of housing costs: a 2% gap between how much housing there should be and what there is can cause prices to go up 50% or even double. The price/income ratio of housing is constant absent regulatory dysfunction. Bay Area incomes are higher than the national average, but not by enough to match the housing prices. What makes the Bay Area superior is the attitude of the people. I notice that when I come home to Boston. The first thing I see when I walk out of the airline terminal is the fat, grumpy guy in charge of the taxi line. Wait, so you can't launch a startup if there are too many fat people? Weird. I know plenty of fat people I'd found with if they were so inclined, but what do I know? That 26 year olds with good ideas will increasingly have an edge over 50 year olds with powerful connections. Now, the 26-year-old and 50-year-old with great ideas both get screwed over because the VC and support and resources all go to the 26-year-old with powerful (inherited) connections. (Or the 26-year-old with the creepy chickenhawk relationship with the powerful 50-year-old.) Ageism begets classism, because any 22-year-old who can get VC (in 2014, with the social distance between VCs and peons at record high) had parental lift. What's happening now is not an improvement.

brc 13y ago

I much prefer early pg to current-day pg writing. Hopefully handing over the reigns will bring back some clarity of thought. This is a good article which highlights several things I agree with: >The prospect of technological leverage will of course raise the specter of unemployment. I'm surprised people still worry about this. After centuries of supposedly job-killing innovations, the number of jobs is within ten percent of the number of people who want them. This can't be a coincidence. There must be some kind of balancing mechanism. precisely. The whole 'technology gone done taken our jerbs' thing seems to be popping up again lately - anyone taking this line needs to justify why this time it's different. >One upshot of which is that the companies of the future may be surprisingly small. I sometimes daydream about how big you could grow a company (in revenues) without ever having more than ten people. What would happen if you outsourced everything except product development? If you tried this experiment, I think you'd be surprised at how far you could get. WhatsApp

pyoung 13y ago
>'technology gone done taken our jerbs' followed by: >I sometimes daydream about how big you could grow a company (in revenues) without ever having more than ten people. Do you not see the contradiction there?
- Moto7451 13y ago
  Why is there a contradiction? Sounds more like a formula for a lot of small to medium sized businesses being started. If there were no Big-COs that provide thousands of jobs, people wouldn't roll over and decide not to work. On the contrary, it's likely more people would form their own business out of necessity. Now, would this be better for the US economy in general? Maybe. Maybe not. When I was in college I spent a stint as a Political Science major (focusing in IR). When learning about Asia I remember a lot of discussion about Taiwan's economy being successful in part because of their strong small to medium sized businesses. Taiwan's government seems to be a fan of this idea as well: http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429 http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=127151&CtNode=429
- kelnos 13y ago

grey-area 13y ago

Yahoo was a special case. It was not just our price to earnings ratio that was bogus. Half our earnings were too...What made our earnings bogus was that Yahoo was, in effect, the center of a Ponzi scheme. Investors looked at Yahoo's earnings and said to themselves, here is proof that Internet companies can make money. So they invested in new startups that promised to be the next Yahoo. This section seems eerily prescient in foreseeing the current bubble - replace Yahoo with FB or Google, and it could have been written in 2013. Values are supported by confidence in larger companies which subsist on the advertising bought by smaller companies, which are funded in the hope of acquisition by larger companies. When that confidence evaporates, things will collapse, even the companies which provide true value, if they sell advertising and depend on the entire ecosystem continuing to grow. This bubble gets some things right too - there are of course many many profitable and valuable communications and social networking companies (as there were in the first boom, probably even more now), and Twitter, FB and Google are not going to disappear any time soon, but if your income is based on advertising or VC funding, this sort of bubble can be really damaging, and when a crash comes, many worthy projects will be thrown out with the unworthy. Perhaps bubbles repeat themselves too - the first time as tragedy, the second as farce.

dredmorbius 13y ago
The largest sources of advertising are the FIRE industries: finance, insurance, and real estate. After that: retail, travel, jobs & ed, home & garden, consumer electronics, vehicles, business, and gifts. The problem I see here is that both FIRE and the consumer Web are largely catabolic industries -- they're liberating some stuck capital, but I don't see them as actually creating a whole lot in the way of new productive capacity. Which means you've got two bubbles feeding on one another. The good news is that it's not the incestuous Internet bubble of the late 1990s. The bad news is that it's a much larger piece of the economy. Perhaps the only parts which have been growing appreciably. http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2012/01/23/google-revenues http://www.wordstream.com/blog/ws/2012/01/23/google-revenues