It wasn't mentioned specifically, but I assume this post was written as a general response to "Working for Microsoft cost me $200 million" [1], which has been at the top of HN for most of the day.

[1] https://blog.garrytan.com/working-for-microsoft-cost-me-200-...

I don't think Dan Luu has some sort of eminent domain over this topic -- I've seen literally hundreds of similar posts, most long preceding and covering the same topic. It's a pretty common decision for people in this field to face, and lots of people have lots of takes.

Not to mention that his post format isn't remotely like DanLuu's. It reminds me more of old Philip Greenspun.

Not that "basic text" is some sort of copyright or something.

Thanks for the comment - this was more in response to the recent article as mentioned by seattle_spring but thanks for sharing Dan’s writing, will take a read. In terms of the similar design, I actually optimized for the least amount of HTML / CSS necessary to put readable text on a page, I guess resulting in a similar look.

I've always thought this problem to be overstated. It doesn't make financial sense to work for a startup, but the upside is that you get to work on something you care about (and even the startup salaries aren't that bad in the grand scheme).

> the upside is that you get to work on something you care about

As a counter example, I found this is far more true at big companies, where you can switch teams until you find one that fits your interest, then at a startup where you are expected to work on basic infra that the company doesn't handle. For the data/ML related jobs that I was looking for and the industry is moving towards, big companies have tons of valuable data that startups could only dream of acquiring.

I like the Elad Gil take on this issue: at big companies, you can have more /impact/, for the reasons you state.

At small companies, you have more control. That's in the high-growth handbook. :)