News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
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?!?!

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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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)

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.
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.

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?