There are all kinds of reasons people might work at a big company besides cowardice. They might need the health insurance, or to pay off their student loans. They might want to focus on other things besides work.

Sigh. I wish people would stick to arguing about what I actually said in the essay, instead of what I "implied." If I wanted to imply something, I'd say it.

If you want people to read what you say literally instead of drawing inferences, don't use metaphors.

Seeing those guys on their scavenger hunt was like seeing lions in a zoo after spending several years watching them in the wild.

Do you mean that these scavenger hunters were pacing around and growling? Of course not -- you expect us, as readers who understand the nuances of English, to understand that this is a metaphor; to think about the differences between caged and uncaged lions; and to project those differences onto humans.

Guess what? Metaphors are imprecise. Different people have different notions concerning how caged and uncaged lions differ. Different people will project these properties onto humans in different ways.

I agree entirely with what you're saying in the essay, but I think it might have been far more effective if one of your proof-readers had said "you know, this is liable to be misinterpreted, maybe you can reword it?"

Imagine if I'd written something about tides, and begun with a metaphor about swinging a condom full of liquid on the end of a string. No doubt some Christian fundamentalists would be so offended at that point that they'd stop reading and write angry blog posts about how "distasteful" it was to compare God's Earth to a condom. Would that be my fault?

You have to draw the line somewhere. If you write about things that are difficult and/or controversial, some people will misunderstand you. I try hard to write as clearly as I can, but the things you'd have to do to make an essay proof against readers who were really stupid or personally oversensitive about some topic would ruin it for the other readers.

If noone hates what you are writing, it is probably boring.

P.S.: The role of metaphor isn't to build an argument. It's to make it more vivid and easier to understand. (Bad writers use metaphors to try to build arguments, but PG didn't in this essay.) So even if the lion metaphor was a bad one (according to whatever criteria), that doesn't justify misinterpretation of the actual argument.

Absolutely. If you want people to take you literally, don't use metaphors.

If, however, you want people to think about what you're saying and draw inferences... well, go ahead and use metaphors, but be prepared to deal with people misunderstanding what you intended to say (and have someone read over what you've written to look for anything which could be particularly badly misinterpreted).

But what if it is just cowardice?

Just because it's ok to make fun of people for their religion and not their race doesn't mean that people will be less upset if you make fun of their religion. If anything, they will be more upset since the fact that they chose it freely makes it more personal. Sure, in some cases it wasn't their choice, but in most cases it was. And surely if you have freedom of choice, and make the wrong decision, then that must reflect poorly on you. I mean I almost can't think of a better working-definition of intelligence, or lack thereof.

Anyway I enjoyed the essay, but just sayin'

The assumption that there is no way someone could liek working for mega-corp is the problem.

(That being said, I hate mega corp)

The summary could be slightly modified and be truer to the essay:

"Oh... you aren't working for yourself? You currently suck."

[Disclaimer: I currently work for myself, and still suck.]

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=142465

Last summer I worked as an intern for a fairly well respected and very large company. I must say that I feel the experience was rewarding and that I learned quite a bit.

But I did feel a little bit like the caged animal in zoo that Paul described.

One small example: You couldn't just push your work from dev(elopment) to prod(uction) - regardless of the thoroughness of testing, we had to go through the company's bureaucratic change management system which, while I understand its purpose theoretically, in fact only wasted time. Perhaps its just that I'm still a bit young and would like the ability to roam more freely.

Getting to the other item pg mentioned, the team building excursions, I experienced that last summer in the form of a scavenger hunt. Granted this company is well respected, and that many of the students came from top colleges, I got the feeling that somehow people felt "accomplished" through their sheer acceptance to the internship program. One fellow intern commented to me as we were passing random people on the street. "We work for X. We're better than you." It sounds pretty ridiculous but he was simply voicing the same sentiment that many of the interns passively expressed through body language. There was this atmosphere of complacency (particularly outside the office) that bothered me. I think this took away from the drive to succeed. The same drive that got many of these smart students to this point.

The implicit suggestion that because they haven't started a startup they suck is certainly what people are reacting to, in large or small part.

Sure, it's just a narcissism piece + YC ad, but come on.

Can you point out where I say this?

The analogy to caged animals was the most egregious, as the reactions show, but that was probably deliberately chosen for impact.

"But something seemed wrong about these. There was something missing."

"Founders arriving at Y Combinator often have the downtrodden air of refugees. Three months later they're transformed: they have so much more confidence that they seem as if they've grown several inches taller."

This is starting to feel like arguing with a reddit troll...

I guess I should say this is starting to feel like arguing with Paul Grahm?

So is everyone that got that impression from the essay a Reddit troll? If that wasn't what you wanted to communicate, was it the fault of all those people that read it for getting that impression?

I think he called you out on it because you persisted in reading things into his essay that aren't there, and demanding he defend statements he didn't make.

Here's how to do it next time:

pg: Blah blah blah minor aside blah blah blah

you: Aha! You mean MAJOR VARIANT of minor aside!

pg: No, I didn't say that.

you: Oh, sorry. My bad.

pg: No problemo, cdr-erino!

See? Easy! :-)

it's the attitude towards reading something that matters.

nobody will have the same attitude towards reading this, especially if they are among the caged lions!

it's obvious and expected that most people will deny their condition if they dont know anything else. if you are born in a cage how do you know how is it on the outside? hell, probably you wont even like it and if attempted to escape return back frigihtenned.

the only way to avoid this is to be precise in what you write, so not to leave any excuse for misintrepreation.

I am totally certain there are more bright programmers sitting in the cage, than a lot of the "startup founders" out there.

Yes. This whole silly argument started when the story went up on Reddit.

Actually PG is very very right on that essay. No self respected matture person will participate in a stupid scavange hunt for work. Either work, or go home and work on your side-project. Stupid things like the "rope course" or anything done for "bonding" are retarded coorporate bullshit. Having gove from a 20 000+ company, to a smaller 200 people company, I can say you there is a huge difference how things work.

Unfortunately, as my current company has grown, (it had 120 people when I joined it), I keep seeing some of the same stuff that I saw happening on my old one. Kinda scary dejavu, that your company is not small anymore, but wants to be "mature". There are certain kind of people that like this type of enviroment, where with good ass-kissing,and political games, they can move ahead on the ladder, while they would never would be able to pull it off in a small company. In small companies (i.e. startups), are the real place where you can be "all you can be". You can shine, and your work will be visible and very important to the success of the company.

Here is my other question to people in here. Sillicon Valley is the place to be if you want to work in a STARTUP. Sure, it is a expensive place, housing is insane, gas is expensive, but it is one of the few places that allows you to strike it rich. It is like the Hollywood for software engineers. So, my questions to those people that are working in the big boring mega-coprs, "If you are not originally from the area, and not working in a startup, wtf are you doing here? Why didn't just stay home, and work at the boring mega-corps of your area, (which unless it is manhatan, it probably is a much cheaper place to live).

This is getting silly though. Who can really disagree that people are likely to be happier with a big say in what's happening at work? That can happen to a few people at BigCorps, but not many. Startups are a pretty good way of getting that kind of involvement.

The company my girlfriend works for recently sent her and the department she manages off to play laser tag. The company paid for this because they considered it to be a valuable team building exercise. The staff turned up because it was fun and the company was paying for it. The employees don't care about "bonding" or "team building" -- they just want to have fun.

Now, I'm sure some people would say "screw this 'having fun' idea, I want to get things done" -- for that matter, I could imagine myself saying that. But people who work at startups have an uncommonly strong work ethic and desire for accomplishment... most people simply aren't like us.