This would be true, if not for co-founders. There are people who enjoy writing code, and there are people who enjoy selling and marketing. The marriage of the two can be ideal. Example: Id Software. ( Please add more ).
I think with all those exclamation marks, it would have been fit if he had ended with "Let's quit together. I just forwarded my resignation to my boss."
However, since he didn't, I assume writing a blog post about this was just a way to let out the pent up frustration, thereby taking away from the credibility of the post.
So it didn't work out. Would you rather you succeed 100% of the time at everything you attempt ? Where would the feeling of accomplishment come from then? Contemplating suicide is very very naive. It kills all your other options as well. You're 20, for crying out loud. Just figure out what you really like to do - maybe it's computers, maybe it's not.
You're probably being too hard on yourself - you were burnt out and bored from your last job - you quit and went straight to this new thing. No gap in between to recuperate from the burnout. Give yourself a break for 20 days - forget about this ordeal during this break. When you're back from this break - then decide what you want to do in life. When you're done with that, devote 5-6 years to learning or improving your skill in whatever it is that you decide.
Take the long view. Try to master your craft. If you have, it shouldn't be really hard to land a job to keep you afloat.
Irrespective of the article and its crux, the analogy is plain weird. Maybe he had a particular aspect of a prank call in mind, but it's tough to relate to.
You have to find new things that excite you. Maybe switching IDEs ? Working on Visual Studio all the time ? Try Notepad++. Working on windows all the time ? Try linux/mac.
Working on Classical OOP languages (c++, java) all the time ? Try prototypal oop languages like JS/Lua.
Working on too much higher level/web application stuff ? Delve into the linux kernel.
If none of these work, take a break. By break, I mean ABSOLUTELY no computers at all. NO BOOKS either. Go off to play some ping pong, go to a movie, or better - go someplace where you don't do ANYTHING for around 1 week except roaming and watching nature or any kind of beauty.
Maybe it's 1 week, maybe it's 2 - but if you really enjoy hacking - you will find yourself raring to get back to your PC and begin hacking away after this break.
Of course people irrespective of their gender should be able to do what they want to, but hailing a genetic gift of smartness over a genetic gift of beauty, or vice-versa doesn't make sense. It's how evolution has worked up until now - it's pretty much a beauty pageant.
Trying to change a process that has evolved us into what we are is going to take time. Of course not all aspects of evolution are perfect, but this - favouring beauty over ugliness/fatness is pretty darn effective.
Without competition, we would all be slobs - no scratch that - unicellular organisms.
So, in conslusion - we are who we are - whether you want to fight and change that is your wish, but don't go preaching to others about what we should or should not do. I'm going to go tell all the little girls around me how cute they are. Maybe not at the same time though, lest I get mistaken for a paedophile. :P
I don't know what your point is. Nowhere is the author making the point that you should hail any genetic gifts. And nowhere is she arguing that good looks are not beneficial.
Moreover, if you want to make Darwinian arguments, one could equally well say that without competition we'd all be as stupid as amoebas. I don't see where you get support for appearance being more favored than intelligence.
Furthermore, why do you focus on either of these attributes being genetic at all? If we assume that they are, then it shouldn't matter whether we encourage people to care about either their intelligence or appearance. But clearly there is a huge amount of nurture in both aspects, so the genetic aspect is just a red herring.
The real question is whether encouraging girls to focus on appearance over anything else is helpful or healthy.
Since they've decided to let you go instead of him, it's unlikely they will take anything you have to say seriously, until you back it up with similar reviews by other people he has managed or interacted with.
Although the other comments mention letting it go, I would suggest not to. The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing about it.
If you work hard enough bringing out proofs of his toxicity - even to the employees and the future people who will work under him, I can say for granted something is bound to happen to him. I know this because I have done so with reasonable success in the past. Here's my story, if you're interested.
I joined a startup I was excited as hell about, and had the happiest times of my life for the first 1 year. It was a win-win - they loved me and I loved them. However, once it went profitable, the founders ( 8-10 years our seniors ) began hiring their college buddies as VP this, VP that.
It was around this time that the people I had worked with to build the entire system from scratch had started quitting. I should have taken the hint, but I stayed on.
When they hired a 'CTO' from their college who had dubious credentials at best, I should have known better than to stay. VPs with 0 management chops are still okay, but a CTO with no vision is a suicidal move. To make matters worse, I was put under direct management by him. He had no new ideas, and was quick to shoot down through intimidation any new work I tried working on as 'too optimistic'. Deep down, I knew that was not the problem - deep down he resented the fact that I was the go-to guy for the problems the newer employees faced, and try as he did, he couldn't solve problems to save his life. He resented having to come to me whenever something crashed, and there were instances of crashes he didn't even tell me about, and I only came to know of them through other employees who thought I should know.
I brought this into light at several meetings with the founders, the people who i had worked with since the beginning to build this system almost from scratch, and then rebuild it. However, the founders seemed more interested in reliving their college life than chiding the 'CTO' about his
misadventures.
This left a bad taste in my mouth, and I quit - but not before humiliating the 'CTO' at every public gathering with the team that we had, during my notice period - to the point that he stopped organizing these meetings. I was supported by the employees who knew who was to blame.
Soon after I left, two of these 'VP's were let go, and the 'CTO' had to make amends to accomodate several whims of the employees. They perhaps can't let the CTO go because he has had sexual harrassment charges against him, and wouldn't be hired anywhere else. This was probably the reason he went jobless for 2 years before the startup was founded.
I wish the startup succeeds, but I also wish he is not there to reap the benefits of the success he so doesn't deserve.
The point is - I could have just rolled over and taken it, and simply quit - but like I mentioned before - " The only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing about it."
So let it go, but not before you've done him enough harm so that he knows better than to mess with anyone else like he messed with you.
Some intelligent comparison algorithm should be developed to
tag them as possible duplicates of stories that have been published in the last N minutes/hours/days.
It shouldn't be very tough to come up with a beta version of the algorithm. They're asked in most technical interviews and everyone answers them :D
