I think there's a great opportunity for bootcamps to help people like me. I'm currently a pre-sales professional, and have been for a few years now. I'm closing in on 28, and while I've been served very well by developing product expertise, my background isn't in CompSci, and I've never actually formally learned to code. If I want to be a good Solutions Architect down the line, and I certainly do, this could be how I bridge the skill gap.
Sure, I could learn most of what I need to know on my own time, but this might be a great way to get it done quickly in a batch and then move on to applying it in a very practical way with my customers.
Among developers, there are unkind terms used to describe people who call themselves "Solutions Architect" who have no development experience. "Architect" itself is often used as a derogatory term.
In my experience, "Product Manager" is a much better term for someone who's responsible for and guiding the development of a software product, but who doesn't have the technical skills to do the development themselves. Architects who are respected earn that title by working to gain lots of experience doing development.
Is it normal to carve out two whole hours for exercise every morning? Seems excessive. And the email. The email! A whole four hour block at the end of the day? I'm no CEO, so someone else has to tell me if this is standard operating procedure, or if this boss is just inefficient.
Two hours could include driving to the gym and back, which could mean a 40-minute workout depending on traffic. Or it could be a trip to the beach to surf. If you haven't driven around LA, it's really hard to imagine how long it takes to get places. I remember being in stop-and-go traffic for 40 minutes at 11pm on a Thursday, for no obvious reason.
People who drive in LA don't talk about distance to their destination, they talk about time.
Carving out two hours from your already ridiculously deficient sleep schedule to work out is exactly the sort of "only in LA" nuttiness that made me vow never to return there after I graduated high school.
How is that only LA? Sounds like "only in America" to me. Here I was thinking LA had a more laid-back culture, but it's definitely the same or worse in NYC.
Again, this is what I heard one of his employees tell a group of UCLA alumni. Nuts to say if it's true or includes stretching and yoga or something. Still, I questioned him on the hours of sleep and he confirmed that it was only 4. Honestly, Regan claimed he only slept this much as well, so it's not outside of possible human behavior. Still, there is no way I could do that, I'd die in 6 months or actually go insane from sleep deprivation.
Working out for 2 hours everyday is detrimental to your results and completely ineffective. A good CEO should be optimizing every part of his/her life. Your body won't have the time to rest and recover, especially if you're building muscle. I used to work out 6 days a week--I'm now seeing better results after switching to a 3-day split.
Neat. What lead you to decide on Ruby? I feel like Python used to be the most common beginner language, and maybe it still is, but it really seems like Ruby has gained over the past few years. Which is fine, because it's a great language, but I am curious what gives.
I read it twice, but I still didn't catch a motive beyond "it wasn't fun." I'm thinking he couldn't stomach the process of building a company: the day in, day out of keeping a fledgling venture alive.
On the bright side, he may have saved his former company's life by parting ways with it when he did. Early stage ventures past the incubator/accelerator stage don't seem to weather cofounder disputes without taking significant damage.
So, it was an individual who dropped out of a YC team? Or was it an entire YC team which dropped out? The former is common (although often pushed...); the latter only heard of once personally, except for the one famous "YC retraction (storenvy)". (someone in YC S11 had an idea for a payment system, got in, realized it wasn't viable, so dropped out before the beginning of the program; honestly probably should have stayed in and explored things in Bitcoin, etc., but that's with the luxury of hindsight).
I don't think founding a startup is ever "easy", but it's incredibly fun for a lot of people.
The motive that came through to me was a sense of a loss of voice, i.e. he didn't feel like he had an equal say now that they had accepted money from investors. I.e. unrealistic expectations.
I don't really understand that. Investors gave you money because they believed in the vision you conveyed (or whatever); aside from some very minimal minority-shareholder protections, and protecting your reputation, investors in early stage companies have very little power over you.
The strongest pressure is probably from cofounders, or from employees/customers (once you have those; you can also fire either), or from yourself.
> Investors gave you money because they believed in the vision you conveyed (or whatever);
But it isn't just that. They are locked into an exit strategy and they have to protect that interest. This is even true of the investors with the most honesty and integrity.
In other words, one would hope that an investor would not micromanage, but the investor is ultimately in it to make money and has a few small acceptable options to do that, so they are going to protect that interest. Money == power.
Seed stage investors have essentially no power. They have convertible notes (i.e. are debtholders) -- this gives them about as much power over you as your credit card company, as long as you stay current on the payments (which are usually deferred in the contract); YC is common-holder (and has 2-10%).
You can literally ignore the investors for at least the duration of the note (and probably longer) with no real repercussions. If you sell the company, they'll be able to get in line for money (and generally get paid first), but until Series A, investors have essentially no control to do anything.
In practice, being a dick to your investors (intentionally or unintentionally) is a bad idea (sorry! was busy!), as they usually will help you a lot more if they know how they can help you, but otherwise, it's pretty much at the bottom of concerns.
A full-body CT scan results in 12 mSv; a mammogram 0.13 mSv—a hundred times less. The risks from these procedures, according to AAPM, are too low to have been determined reliably, and may be "nonexistent."
Looks like this debate has been going on for a while now.
Here[1] is a very recent study from Austrialia which concludes CT scans during childhood and adolescent increase the risk of cancer and should be avoided where possible.
I don't know. I can't tell if the phenomenon of ageism in tech is under or overrated, but I do think that techies have the advantage of never truly being out of work, so long as they're hacking away at something.
In fact, older LTU workers could learn from the tech strategy of consulting and freelancing when "gaps" in their careers emerge. So long as you have something to show for it, such as a new skill or someone in your network that can raise their hand and say, "Oh yeah, she mentored me through this big project my company is working on" then you can help yourself out a bit.
I want to know how much of this is HR's fault. What the hell are they looking for, and why? Everyone admits this is a problem, but HR goes on as if they're oblivious to it. And then you read about how they're dismissing candidates that don't have an adequate social media presence, and you begin to wonder why on earth these goons run hiring.
The situation is that hiring is determined by managers, that is to say people who define success as moving into management as quickly as possible. They see someone who hasn't "made it" in a long career of remaining hands-on and by their value system that person is a failure.
HR facilitates but it's the hiring managers - i.e., the people who will actually manage the new employees - who define the requirements. So, the managers have the crazy expectations, not HR.
I can't tell if the phenomenon of ageism in tech is under or overrated
It's bad in VC-istan but I don't think it's bad in technology as a whole. There are plenty of 50+ programmers at places like Google who are well-regarded.
The fear that many of us who are in our 20s and 30s is that the culture of age discrimination-- one that we, although young, really don't support, but that is inflicted upon us by the VCs-- will get worse in the next decade or two. Right now, it's not apocalyptic and most good programmers will be fine. The concern is that if VC-istan becomes the new normal in employment, ageism will be more of a problem when we get to 40+. Right now there are still a lot of good jobs for 40+ programmers at the Staff+ SWE level at places like Google and Amazon, but that won't be true if VCs acquire more power.
Everyone admits this is a problem, but HR goes on as if they're oblivious to it. And then you read about how they're dismissing candidates that don't have an adequate social media presence, and you begin to wonder why on earth these goons run hiring.
HR looks for reasons to reject people. They have to, because they get so many junk resumes. They cut for too old or too young or too long at the last job or too short at the last job. You need, whenever possible, to engage with people who are looking for reasons to accept people.
In other words if your career is in any way unusual, the HR folks don't want to let you in. They have no way to judge a resume by objective standards because they haven't got a clue about the work being done in their company. So they rely on hiring people who conform to some fantasy of what a modern company employee should be like.
In my experience, the hiring managers have been the problem, not HR. I've been very frustrated by my managers' attitudes and expectations when trying to hire folks for my team.
They've rejected resumes against my recommendations. And after interviews, they've declined to offer jobs to people that I thought would be great fits. And then they continue to complain to their managers that we just aren't getting quality candidates. Not true!!!
And again, this is not HR. . .these are the hiring managers.
HR looks for reasons to reject people. They have to, because they get so many junk resumes.
I'm a good developer at a good job and not that old. A few years ago I was in transition between a several-year volunteering engagement and work in the private sector, and the job search took a while. I got very few interviews at the time. I would have been an asset to any decent employer that hired me. I do not think the resumes I submitted were junk.
There appear to be structural changes underway that are making the job market volatile for a range of people, especially the long-term unemployed. I am not sure where it is all heading.
Not all rejected resumes are junk, but there's a flood of resumes from unqualified people who send out 100 per day.
It's like dating. The more damaged people engage in more activity, so you encounter a biased sample. If the good people send out 5 resumes per job search, targeted toward specific employers fitting their skills, while the unqualified send out 200 (in the hope of getting lucky) then you'll have a 40:1 overrepresentation of the bad.
You were probably a victim of the junk, because when there are so many junk resumes flying around, good people get lost in the shuffle.
There appear to be structural changes underway that are making the job market volatile for a range of people, especially the long-term unemployed. I am not sure where it is all heading.
Yes, that is very true. I don't know, either. In the next 30 years, society will need to establish a basic income just to be marginally stable, because there's no other way to pay for the periodic retraining people need as one job ends and another begins.
>because there's no other way to pay for the periodic retraining people need as one job ends and another begins.
Companies used to train people. I'm actually a basic income proponent for similar reasons, among others. But when you put it like that, why should the taxpayers foot that bill and not the companies that reap the value?
But when you put it like that, why should the taxpayers foot that bill and not the companies that reap the value?
The companies won't foot the bill. They'll just hire very young people with the relevant training or send the work overseas.
Technology is more about job replacement than destruction. The problem is that few companies are willing to train people up. The world is unfortunately too big for there to ever be a real labor shortage (at least, in the next 30 years).
There are similar barriers to the procedure in America, though they are negotiable. The main issue is that people are fickle, and reversing a vasectomy is very difficult, so they need candidates for the procedure to be absolutely certain it's what they want before they go through with it.
You're always welcome. You've got a long road ahead of you, but that's not a bad thing. That means plenty of opportunities. Work hard, take advantage of the awesome opportunities in this thread, and push for others. If you don't ask, you don't get, so don't be shy.
I'd wish you good luck, but you don't need it. It sounds like you've already got a wonderful family. That makes you a pretty lucky guy when you think about it.
Just keep your head up, and know that you've got a lot of people rooting for you.
Sure, I could learn most of what I need to know on my own time, but this might be a great way to get it done quickly in a batch and then move on to applying it in a very practical way with my customers.