> he was lying to himself
  > delude themselves about how awesome startups are
  > people continue to write articles about this nonsense every month

You seem to be unrelentingly "blaming the victims." Obviously, it is to people's benefit to have the most realistic expectations possible about companies they join.

But does that in any way absolve employers of making realistic representations of what employees can expect? Does that absolve people in management positions from behaving with decency and fairness?

When two cars collide, sometimes both parties are at fault, "blame" is often a positive-sum game. It would be fair to hand out as much opprobrium and vituperation for the employers in these situations as the employees.

Nothing that I've read from Dan Lyons shows HubSpot actually misrepresenting their work environment. In fact, it seems abundantly clear that they put a lot of effort into explaining their work environment and philosophy (would Lyons have preferred that they not have a training program?).

All in all, it seems like they had grossly mismatched expectations. Lyons clearly thought HubSpot would magically twist itself to match his desires for a traditional workspace, while HubSpot apparently thought Lyons might be slightly adaptable. In a just world, they'd both chalk it up to an experiment gone wrong.

Of course, Lyons is a journalist with an ax to grind so he'll make hay off that failed experiment.

This is Dan Lyons we're talking about. Not some naive fresh-out-of-school CS grad. Dan Lyons spent more than a decade and a half as a journalist and editor covering tech, business, and startups.

I'm genuinely curious how this is relevant.

The grandparent said: "I'm really surprised how shocked people are when they join startups and aren't happy. What did you expect?"

The parent said: "You seem to be unrelentingly "blaming the victims."

I'm pointing out that some degree of "blaming Dan Lyons" is in order. He's a sophisticated tech insider.

It's as if a professional investor lost all his/her money on a private company that claimed to be a great company in its press releases, after which the investor complains about getting screwed. Yes, the investment is partly to blame for being so shitty. But the professional investor is a "sophisticated investor" and is also partly to blame for his/her own loss.

I would be more sympathetic to someone getting screwed by HubSpot if they were a fresh college grad who got misled and didn't know better.

This means he will write anything that will bring his name on top of the shitpile. Journalism is the second most ancient profession.

Do you honestly think employers care? They provide jobs and expect results. That's it. If you're not happy with your job, go work somewhere else but don't post online how "surprised" you were about it. Go complain on Glassdoor if you want some people to read it but don't expect your life to change. When you delude yourself about reality what do you expect?

> I'm really surprised how shocked people are when they join startups and aren't happy. What did you expect?

The life-stage of a company rarely has much to do with the working conditions, cult/culture weirdness or how well the business is run.

There are plenty of great startups that are very solid companies that anyone would be happy to work for.

Blanket hate of "startups" doesn't make much sense. Also none of the companies you mentioned are "startups" anymore either, incorrectly applying that label to every company doesn't help.

Hubspot is not a startup. Uber is not a technology company. I have no idea what DoorDash is, but Groupon was silly.