Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better than working for GS

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by mlinsey on Monday June 27, 2011 @01:32AM (#2700269)

The reaction in all the other replies to your comment astounds me. I am reminded of a comment from PG earlier today, which he made in a thread on a totally different topic: "Your comment is a classic instance of people on a forum rushing to judgment based on incomplete information. It's isomorphic to the sort of thing one sees on reddit, except that it's about startups rather than the federal government or international bankers."

In this case, Antonio made an argument a year ago about why starting a startup was better than continuing to work for a Wall Street bank. He made no claim that continuing to run a year-old startup was better than working for a large tech company. That of course depends on many other factors about the startup, about the large tech company, and about whatever offers were made. Nobody on this thread knows any of those details, but that apparently doesn't stop anyone from rushing to judgement.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by StavrosK on Monday June 27, 2011 @05:47AM (#2700737)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by trustfundbaby on Sunday June 26, 2011 @11:30PM (#2699991)

wait ... what?!

After the work-for-yourself jingoism?!?!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by wisty on Monday June 27, 2011 @02:58AM (#2700427)

Well, he hated working for a company where engineers were second-class citizens, and all the staff were treated as fighting cocks.

I'd imagine that at Facebook, engineers are treated as first class citizens. I dislike Facebook as a product, and I'm not sure I trust Zuckerberg, but I really respect the company. Roughly 200 engineers running a tech product that millions of grandmas use is no mean feat. I bet they don't treat their engineers as mere cogs in a machine.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by yid on Monday June 27, 2011 @03:41AM (#2700497)

FYI, it's been a while since FB was 200 engineers. The average size of the summer intern class itself is about 200.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by forensic on Sunday June 26, 2011 @11:36PM (#2700003)

What else is new.

Bloggers get rich by getting your attention, not by helping you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by sliverstorm on Sunday June 26, 2011 @11:58PM (#2700047)

To extend upon that, bloggers get rich by getting your attention, which does not actually require they practice, subscribe to or even believe what they are telling you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by Confusion on Monday June 27, 2011 @02:47AM (#2700409)

However, this is not a blogger. Also: Schopenhauer[1].

[1] Famously did not abide by his own philosophy, which does not make it a single bit less insightful or valuable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by toadi on Monday June 27, 2011 @04:22AM (#2700582)

Was ready to make the same comment. Especially most philosophers working on ethical issues didn't follow their own propositions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by alnayyir on Monday June 27, 2011 @12:20AM (#2700097)

Hypocrisy is the norm with much of what passes through here.

At least GS employees don't have any pretensions to holiness.

I'd much rather work with people who are honest with themselves about their motivations than who try to push the suffering under the surface with bullshit rationalizations like that in the post.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by dodo53 on Monday June 27, 2011 @12:52PM (#2701971)

Heh - well, some of them have pretensions to holiness http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226114/Goldman-Sach...

(I do know people there who are very nice also)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by Apocryphon on Monday June 27, 2011 @12:13PM (#2701830)

It isn't hypocritical. Facebook is a giant startup, after all. Perhaps much of the loose, casual culture still remains there, and you don't have to worry about the corporate shell games and hierarchy that financial firms like GS would have in scads.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by alnayyir on Monday June 27, 2011 @03:16AM (#2700455)

Downvoters who may not know better: it's generally expected that if you downvote someone, you will accompany that with an explanation of why you downvoted.

We're here to communicate, not bicker over popularity contests.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by forgotmypasswd on Monday June 27, 2011 @12:51PM (#2701967)

What is the karma threshold to get down voting ability?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by pagefruit on Tuesday June 28, 2011 @12:43AM (#2704116)

Wasn't AdGrok just acquired by Twitter? (Did he move to FB before the acquisition?)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by bb75 on Monday June 27, 2011 @12:21AM (#2700099)

Yes. Isn't that curious, to say the least? First he complains about becoming a serf at GS - where I am assuming no one hides the fact that everyone is indeed a serf, and the pretense that it is not all about money, is kept at a minimum, if any at all.

If GS was the frying pan, then, in my view, he jumped into the fire at Facebook where he is now working for an adolescent-minded, untransformed individual, who traded his personal integrity for the fruits of lust - "success, sex, money, fame" - under the guise of "helping connect people"...

Goes to show you that the old Buckaroo Banzai saying holds true for Antonio as well... Whereever you go, Antonio, there you are. Still a wannabe human being... with much growing left over to do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by orijing on Monday June 27, 2011 @03:19AM (#2700459)

adolescent-minded, untransformed individual, who traded his personal integrity for the fruits of lust - "success, sex, money, fame" - under the guise of "helping connect people"...

The Movie does not count as a valid reference.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by MaxGabriel on Monday June 27, 2011 @03:57AM (#2700538)

Also his prof from Harvard said that was nothing like him, plus credible sources like LAT pretty much concluding the movie was bs

Also, to bb75, isn't that a little black and white? Facebook doesn't give all its money to charity so its as bad as GS?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why founding a 3-person startup with 0 revenue is better ... by irahul on Monday June 27, 2011 @08:20AM (#2701029)

> under the guise of "helping connect people"...

And the guise is working pretty well. It's really connecting people.

[ Parent | on HN ]