brzozan

Thanks.

<friendly troll> That voting thing does not sound fair. Or the other way - seems aimed at putting some bias. "Only those that agree with majority can vote against" stuff.

Like in communist countries (hey, I live in a former one): only ones that agree with the Party can vote against it. </friendly troll>

I think we got common ground :) I consider features like "being open to criticism" and "appropriate level of attention to detail" basic things, so it does not contradict my POV (general conclusions limited to basic stuff), and since it is you who wrote it I assume, that it complies with yours too.

Not sure about how scientific method applies here (I DO agree with scientific method though), but I can live with that.

Now we just have to use it to somehow extinguish original flame of "you were not meant to ..." :) Just kidding. I'm happy with discussion getting to the point of common ground +- epsilon.

I'll drink to that!

EDIT: how one downvotes posts here (no, not this thread)? I see only up arrows :|

Oops, sorry. I did stretch it a bit :)

The flame with Paul started with him drawing conclusion (or leaving such impression) that natural state for human is to be own boss and that ones that work for somebody are missing something in life (hence their life is somehow inferior). That's why I jumped to "work" topic. You did not mention work, but I connected Paul's essay with your post.

My point was that IMO there are very few universal truths about life and they are limited to very basic things. Differences between particular human beings and environments they live in are too big to draw general conclusions.

The only truths about lifestyles true for everyone I can come up with is "don't hit yourself with a hammer" and "don't eat poison". Definitely not "work for yourself" or "work for corp". A lot of people is unhappy working for corp, but a lot likes it better than being on their own (me included).

It's exactly the same way as with food - "work where you like".

This lifestyle is nicer FOR YOU. Not necessarily FOR THEM.

If I like spinach and you don't, how will you show me, that not eating spinach is nicer? Or the other way around?

Paul, any chance to accept a possibility, that they write "we do not agree with this particular Paul's essay" because they do not agree with what you wrote in this particular article, not because they don't like you as a person? Maybe some of them acutally don't like you, but I am quite sure this is not true for everybody.

If you publish something (in any media) you will get different opinions. Some people will agree, some will not. Some will express support, some will express critique. You can respond to that, they can respond to your response etc. This is called discussion. As a result of discussion some people will change their mind, and some will simply agree that they don't agree. Especially when the subject is life style, where there is no "one size fits all". I like spinach, others don't. You feel free in startup, I don't (taking care of non-technical stuf, bleeeeh).

The other thing is that written word (like your essays) is taken more seriously than if it was said by mouth, so the lions metaphor would be absolutely not a problem if said over a beer, but when written it left impression, that you call "corporate" folks' lives a piece of crap, while some of them CHOSE corporate as giving THEM more freedom (by some definition of freedom) than startup.

As simple as that - no size fits all, people care about different things, leaving impression, that their life is worse because of that will do no good.

Cheers!