Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by majos on Friday July 27, 2018 @09:35AM
(#17625830)
I hope this doesn't sound callous, but is there anything (beyond pancreatic cancer's aggressive mortality rate) to suggest that the disease is somehow "ripe" for increased research funding?
"How much money should we spend on cancer research?" has been in the HN aether lately, so I'm curious.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by sibmike on Friday July 27, 2018 @03:46PM
(#17628728)
“Confront your own mortality, sooner rather than later.” Startupper or not, if you have family, get that life insurance; it is cheap when you are young.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by kshitij_libra on Friday July 27, 2018 @07:08AM
(#17625052)
Are there good examples of entrepreneurs who are able to maintain a healthy balance ? How does one balance life and startup (especially on initial stages)
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by patkai on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:53AM
(#17625575)
Yes, there are. The Basecamp founders wrote books about it, Rework and Remote. The reason you don't hear more about them is that heroic work is more glamorous to discuss. It is worth following https://twitter.com/dhh
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by jjeaff on Friday July 27, 2018 @04:50PM
(#17629265)
Actually, the only rare thing is the amount of media coverage non VC backed companies get. Because most profitable companies are bootstrapped smaller ones.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by ht85 on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:03AM
(#17625323)
If you're talking about entrepreneur under the "startup" model, it seems like balancing work and non-work is a contradictory idea, at least if you want to be successful.
There are and always will be many people who are throwing themselves at a problem, taking big risks and completely ignoring the negative consequences a failure could have on their life.
If you don't do the same, your chance of succeeding will be a lot slimmer.
As someone who's built a successful company working 70-100 hours weeks for several years, I know that those hours were one of the biggest factors in being able to bootstrap and survive with the little means we had.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't recall personally talking to someone who's built a stable tech business and didn't have to go through some insane grind.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by chatmasta on Friday July 27, 2018 @10:03AM
(#17626001)
“There’s always someone working harder than you.”
People hate that it’s the truth... but I think it’s really about working smart, not hard. Recovery periods are important. If you can produce the same work product in 70% of the hours of someone else, you get more recovery time which is an asset.
It also seems the refrain of “70 hour weeks” often does not mean 70 hours of coding/producing, but 70 hours of availability to respond quickly to teammates, customers, investors etc. so that you keep everyone unblocked and moving forward.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by ht85 on Saturday July 28, 2018 @06:04PM
(#17635297)
I think the context is very important.
When you're an employee, while the quality of your work will affect your outcome, there is a "good enough" performance past which your efforts will have diminishing returns.
If you bootstrap a startup with a very small team, anything can make or break it. Any second, any thought, and ounce of energy you're not spending on it could be the demise of the whole project.
The amount of work the human body can produce in a survival situation is astounding. If you truly want to succeed, this is the state of mind you're going to be in.
> it’s really about working smart, not hard.
What about both?
> 70 hours of availability
For around 18 months, my day looked like that:
- 10h wake up, big breakfast, stretch, shower
- 11h - 12h talk with rest of team, figure out the most important thing to do (sometimes ignore that step and resume grind from previous day)
- 18h - 21h run errands, eat, help a bit around the house, spend time with girlfriend (now wife :)
- 21h - 4h 100% coding
This would be every single day, except for 1-2 days every other week that I would dedicate to socializing and relaxing.
I now work around 4 hours a day, fully focused, and I'd say it takes me 3 days to do what I would do in one 14 hours stretch back then. Productivity is slightly higher as I do less inattention mistakes, solve hard problems and figure out the right abstraction faster. That doesn't account for that much when you spend most of your time writing code and testing though.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by kshitij_libra on Friday July 27, 2018 @08:12AM
(#17625353)
I understand that’s the general idea, and that’s what every one out there says , but secretly I hope for some killer advice on how not to kill yourself doing a startup . Coz life’s short . Maybe there is some strong advice that would be really helpful
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by chadwittman on Friday July 27, 2018 @11:05AM
(#17626467)
By no means do I have it figured it out, but my approach is somewhat balanced.
1) Expectations
Start with setting expectations for yourself, then with everyone who matters in your life.
2) Define
What is "work" to you? When do you work? How much should you work? For me, I'm mentally working nearly all day everyday... except for when I'm explicitly not. If I'm spending time with my wife & son, I'm 100% focused in on spending quality time with them.
I've chosen to spend high quality limited time > low quality abundant time with my family.
3) Prioritize
I've dedicated myself to 3 things in my life as it stands today: my family, my business, my health. That's it. I've painfully cut out friends from that equation (not friendships, but hanging out with them). I've cut plenty of other things as well, but it does take sacrifice at the end of the day in some dimension.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by justboxing on Friday July 27, 2018 @01:38PM
(#17627664)
> strange emphasize on the job history of the wife, including her exact title, and the purchase of the luxury car.
Having grown up there, I think I can speak to this. Both are very culture specific.
Job Titles are prominently mentioned in wedding invitations (esp. in South Indian invitations). My dad's invitation also states his exact title as well as his degree in engineering, incl. the major and minor. I thought that was strange too and do remember asking my dad about it when I was a kid. I think he said something to the effect of "It lets everyone attending the wedding know that I have a good job and will be able to take care of your mother and that she is going into marriage with an educated man making a good salary."
The luxury car mention seems to be a more recent cultural / social phenomena. Before the auto makers and loans came to India (think pre-1980s), having a car was a social status / symbol. It signaled to your neighbors that you were doing well in life. This probably doesn't hold true anymore, with the arrival of car loans and several foreign automakers who have dealerships across India.
Given that the writer of the story is also east indian, I figured he placed an emphasis on these 2 things...
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by mercer on Friday July 27, 2018 @12:24PM
(#17627111)
What was the core topic to you? Her name is mentioned 34 times in the article and I found it rather nice to have such an important person in this man's life play a central role in the article.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by jordache on Friday July 27, 2018 @12:57PM
(#17627338)
about the whole diagnosis and dying process..
>The mother of two boys has been a software engineer for well over a decade with stints at Satyam Computer Services and Accenture. She now works as lead project manager with iNautix, a technology captive centre in Chennai of BNY Mellon Bank in the US.
who cares where the wife worked, where she currently works, what her current title is, and what her current company's u.s. association is?
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by overcast on Friday July 27, 2018 @09:56AM
(#17625956)
This won't be popular opinion, and this is coming from someone obsessed with science, and space. The billions being spent by Silicon Valley elites, should be focused on things like eradicating cancer, disease, and cleaning up our only home before dumping money into yet another rocket company.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by jcadam on Friday July 27, 2018 @10:38AM
(#17626260)
I don't know why space exploration is such a target for comments like this, given the amount of money poured into vapid social media companies over the last decade or so.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by dasil003 on Friday July 27, 2018 @12:28PM
(#17627162)
Perhaps a poor choice of words, but I think the GP means the super rich have a moral duty they are shirking. One of the arguments against progressive taxation is that government spending is ineffectual, but if the super rich don't take up philanthropic spending in a serious way then that argument is undermined.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by ameister14 on Friday July 27, 2018 @02:10PM
(#17627871)
But since we have progressive taxation, does the moral duty still exist?
Personally, I don't think it's just the super rich that have a moral imperative to give to philanthropic causes; it's everyone, though the amounts increase as your income does, much like progressive taxation.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by dasil003 on Friday July 27, 2018 @03:58PM
(#17628818)
It's a sliding scale. Certainly we have much less progressive taxation than we had through most of the 20th century.
The difference seems to be in the industrial era we actually had political will to do something about it. Now, Republicans have mastered the sleight of hand to harness anti-intellectual sentiment to pit the bourgeoisie against "the common man" even though it's the 0.1% capitalists that're really running away with all the gains. This is not going to end well, and the super rich should be trying to get ahead of the problem before the pitchforks show up.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by refurb on Friday July 27, 2018 @05:00PM
(#17629363)
Certainly we have much less progressive taxation than we had through most of the 20th century.
Overall effective tax rates hasn't changed much over the last 100 years.[1] In fact, they are higher now than they were before the 1930's. Bracket rates were higher, but there were also a lot more ways to avoid taxes.
I can't find the source right now, but if you look at the tax burden on the top 10%, the US system has actually become more progressive over time.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by ameister14 on Friday July 27, 2018 @10:19AM
(#17626133)
Yeah, I don't agree with that - last year 165 billion dollars was spent on pharmaceutical development, and tens of billions on oncology research. There are tens of thousands of people working on this.
Everyone can help clean the Earth and eradicate cancer and disease. That doesn't mean the world needs to stop all other activities.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by JTbane on Friday July 27, 2018 @10:23AM
(#17626159)
Cancer research often gets the spotlight due to the emotional nature of death and disease, but that doesn't make space research less useful to humanity as a whole.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by overcast on Friday July 27, 2018 @10:32AM
(#17626233)
I never said it was less useful, but we need to focus on protecting this planet first. There won't be one left by the time we even have the capacity to get to others.
Re:Death of a startup founder (2016)
by fapjacks on Friday July 27, 2018 @01:33PM
(#17627629)
Life will go much smoother and make a lot more sense if you stop thinking of groups of people as individuals with individual memories, skillsets, capabilities, and experiences. "We" are capable of anything you've read about in the news or in a history book, from putting precision machines on other planets to unlocking our genome to changing the temperature of our planet to systematically eradicating entire ethnicities. Every individual is capable of handling those things, which means that so are "we".
It has been 11 years since the Randy Pausch‘s Last Lecture. Probably an entirely new generation that have not seen it.
https://www.cmu.edu/randyslecture/story/index.html
I’m sure we’re almost ready to get started to attack this disease in a big way. (Yes, it’s hard)
"How much money should we spend on cancer research?" has been in the HN aether lately, so I'm curious.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pancreatic-cancer-research-fund...
The US economy is $15 trillion. Beyond federal tax dollars there are likely other ways to incentivize research.
There are and always will be many people who are throwing themselves at a problem, taking big risks and completely ignoring the negative consequences a failure could have on their life.
If you don't do the same, your chance of succeeding will be a lot slimmer.
As someone who's built a successful company working 70-100 hours weeks for several years, I know that those hours were one of the biggest factors in being able to bootstrap and survive with the little means we had.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't recall personally talking to someone who's built a stable tech business and didn't have to go through some insane grind.
People hate that it’s the truth... but I think it’s really about working smart, not hard. Recovery periods are important. If you can produce the same work product in 70% of the hours of someone else, you get more recovery time which is an asset.
It also seems the refrain of “70 hour weeks” often does not mean 70 hours of coding/producing, but 70 hours of availability to respond quickly to teammates, customers, investors etc. so that you keep everyone unblocked and moving forward.
When you're an employee, while the quality of your work will affect your outcome, there is a "good enough" performance past which your efforts will have diminishing returns.
If you bootstrap a startup with a very small team, anything can make or break it. Any second, any thought, and ounce of energy you're not spending on it could be the demise of the whole project.
The amount of work the human body can produce in a survival situation is astounding. If you truly want to succeed, this is the state of mind you're going to be in.
> it’s really about working smart, not hard.
What about both?
> 70 hours of availability
For around 18 months, my day looked like that:
- 10h wake up, big breakfast, stretch, shower
- 11h - 12h talk with rest of team, figure out the most important thing to do (sometimes ignore that step and resume grind from previous day)
- 12h - 18h 90% coding, 10% infrastructure / research / testing / feedback
- 18h - 21h run errands, eat, help a bit around the house, spend time with girlfriend (now wife :)
- 21h - 4h 100% coding
This would be every single day, except for 1-2 days every other week that I would dedicate to socializing and relaxing.
I now work around 4 hours a day, fully focused, and I'd say it takes me 3 days to do what I would do in one 14 hours stretch back then. Productivity is slightly higher as I do less inattention mistakes, solve hard problems and figure out the right abstraction faster. That doesn't account for that much when you spend most of your time writing code and testing though.
1) Expectations
Start with setting expectations for yourself, then with everyone who matters in your life.
2) Define
What is "work" to you? When do you work? How much should you work? For me, I'm mentally working nearly all day everyday... except for when I'm explicitly not. If I'm spending time with my wife & son, I'm 100% focused in on spending quality time with them.
I've chosen to spend high quality limited time > low quality abundant time with my family.
3) Prioritize
I've dedicated myself to 3 things in my life as it stands today: my family, my business, my health. That's it. I've painfully cut out friends from that equation (not friendships, but hanging out with them). I've cut plenty of other things as well, but it does take sacrifice at the end of the day in some dimension.
You can balance some aspects of healthy life (sleep, exercise, eat right), but that is more about maximizing than balancing.
Having grown up there, I think I can speak to this. Both are very culture specific.
Job Titles are prominently mentioned in wedding invitations (esp. in South Indian invitations). My dad's invitation also states his exact title as well as his degree in engineering, incl. the major and minor. I thought that was strange too and do remember asking my dad about it when I was a kid. I think he said something to the effect of "It lets everyone attending the wedding know that I have a good job and will be able to take care of your mother and that she is going into marriage with an educated man making a good salary."
The luxury car mention seems to be a more recent cultural / social phenomena. Before the auto makers and loans came to India (think pre-1980s), having a car was a social status / symbol. It signaled to your neighbors that you were doing well in life. This probably doesn't hold true anymore, with the arrival of car loans and several foreign automakers who have dealerships across India.
Given that the writer of the story is also east indian, I figured he placed an emphasis on these 2 things...
>The mother of two boys has been a software engineer for well over a decade with stints at Satyam Computer Services and Accenture. She now works as lead project manager with iNautix, a technology captive centre in Chennai of BNY Mellon Bank in the US.
who cares where the wife worked, where she currently works, what her current title is, and what her current company's u.s. association is?
Who cares that he bought a Merc B class?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17625830 and marked it off-topic.
Personally, I don't think it's just the super rich that have a moral imperative to give to philanthropic causes; it's everyone, though the amounts increase as your income does, much like progressive taxation.
The difference seems to be in the industrial era we actually had political will to do something about it. Now, Republicans have mastered the sleight of hand to harness anti-intellectual sentiment to pit the bourgeoisie against "the common man" even though it's the 0.1% capitalists that're really running away with all the gains. This is not going to end well, and the super rich should be trying to get ahead of the problem before the pitchforks show up.
Overall effective tax rates hasn't changed much over the last 100 years.[1] In fact, they are higher now than they were before the 1930's. Bracket rates were higher, but there were also a lot more ways to avoid taxes.
I can't find the source right now, but if you look at the tax burden on the top 10%, the US system has actually become more progressive over time.
Those darn Republicans!
[1]https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-rich-1950-not-high/
Everyone can help clean the Earth and eradicate cancer and disease. That doesn't mean the world needs to stop all other activities.