Silicon Valley ageism versus the productivity of famous inventors(thomason.io)
thomason.io
Silicon Valley ageism versus the productivity of famous inventors
http://thomason.io/silicon-valley-ageism-versus-the-productivity-of-famous-inventors/
13 comments
Of course SV is ageist, but is the ageism reflective of reality, caricatures, misunderstandings, or just plain old bigotry. In my experience, being 50 and being a First-Wave Coder, I'd say little is based on reality and much on ignorance and misunderstanding of what experienced uber-coding looks like. The young coder who's spend the entire night and a case of Red Bull coding has in all likelihood produced a bunch of crap-code. In our industry, "Maintenance Kills" because lots of code may get the produce to the deadline, but be poorly written, poorly scalable, and in time die due to increasing maintainability. Yet, the young founders see the Geezer-Geek going home at 5:00 and think, "Slow Old Fart can't pull an all nighter ..." without realizing the Geezer Geek has completed rock solid scalable maintainable code and will come back refreshed in the morning to kick out another 6-8 hours of beauty.
Maybe young founders are preferred because they are cheap and they fail fast. They don't have the proverbial family to feed, and they don't have enough life experience to worry about going head first in a direction that may contain a blind corner.
If you want even more cynicism, it is also possible that less scrupulous VCs find younger founders easier to manipulate, over promise, over work, and under deliver.
All this. You're absolutely right, and you're not being cynical or mean or harsh. You're citing what are essentially sociological facts about Silicon Valley.
If you want to go hard cynical, read this: https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/vc-istan-6-t... The short version is that this funding of a certain type of young person (frat-boy psychopaths) is actually an expression of a midlife crisis. Instead of doing the midlife crisis honestly and buying a Ferrari or pursuing a new religion, they pick up young sociopaths as proteges, taking care of their careers in order to live vicariously through younger men who, given the cash, could do some real damage to the world (and toss back a story about his escapades in exchange for continued funding). The term for this is chickenhawking, because both common meanings apply.
All this. You're absolutely right, and you're not being cynical or mean or harsh. You're citing what are essentially sociological facts about Silicon Valley.
If you want to go hard cynical, read this: https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/vc-istan-6-t... The short version is that this funding of a certain type of young person (frat-boy psychopaths) is actually an expression of a midlife crisis. Instead of doing the midlife crisis honestly and buying a Ferrari or pursuing a new religion, they pick up young sociopaths as proteges, taking care of their careers in order to live vicariously through younger men who, given the cash, could do some real damage to the world (and toss back a story about his escapades in exchange for continued funding). The term for this is chickenhawking, because both common meanings apply.
Thank you for acknowledging here that women (in particular young women) are also undesirable to VCs for those same reasons.
Vivek Wadhwa is taking a lot of heat for exposing the way that one plays: women get a lot of positive attention and small investments, but the ones who get made into players are men. (Their goal, with regard to women, is something more direct than vicarious living.)
Or it could be that younger people are mentally able to devote 24/7 to a problem, they have less biases and attachments to pet concepts, it's easier to learn new things (because they don't have to unlearn old ones) and they've come straight from school so they're still accustomed to navigating steep learning curves. Young people have many advantages older people do not.
I'm going on 34. Maybe I'm not in the older bracket yet, I think I am. But I'm learning more complex things now than I was ten years ago and retaining more of it too. At what age is that supposed to go away for me when I devote almost all of my free time to learning new things?
I was being partly-sarcastic. The point I'm trying to make here is that it's easy to find justification for bias. You can argue all you like that you're an exception but it really doesn't matter. My blanket reasons will always win over a crowd easier than your 'deviant' experience.
Ageism, racism, sexism, homophobia all belong in the same bucket. You can't argue for one and against the next -- either bias _in general_ is a problem that needs to be addressed or it's not. You can't cherry-pick. Attempting to do so just makes you look self-interested (and kind of a dick.)
Saying for example that adding a woman to a team might affect team cohesion negatively is the exact same as saying that adding an older man to a younger team might affect said cohesion, or a non-white to an all-white team. The problem that needs to be addressed here is a lack of diversity, not ageism, or sexism, or racism.
Ageism, racism, sexism, homophobia all belong in the same bucket. You can't argue for one and against the next -- either bias _in general_ is a problem that needs to be addressed or it's not. You can't cherry-pick. Attempting to do so just makes you look self-interested (and kind of a dick.)
Saying for example that adding a woman to a team might affect team cohesion negatively is the exact same as saying that adding an older man to a younger team might affect said cohesion, or a non-white to an all-white team. The problem that needs to be addressed here is a lack of diversity, not ageism, or sexism, or racism.
It's hard to tell that you're being sarcastic. Because I've read plenty of sincere comments from HN people expressing the same backwards views. You're being downvoted because your satire is too realistic.
I haven't seen anyone in this discussion cherrypick ageism over sexism or racism. I think the reason you're not hearing talk about the other two is because ageism is mentioned in the article. But you're right. All three hiring biases have origin in the same fallacy (that good hires should look a certain way).
There seems to be some political will here to combat ageism. I guess HN users are worrying about their future. But mention sexism / racism and everyone gets defensive. I suspect nobody wants to solve these problems, because they're hard (or because it doesn't directly benefit them).
I haven't seen anyone in this discussion cherrypick ageism over sexism or racism. I think the reason you're not hearing talk about the other two is because ageism is mentioned in the article. But you're right. All three hiring biases have origin in the same fallacy (that good hires should look a certain way).
There seems to be some political will here to combat ageism. I guess HN users are worrying about their future. But mention sexism / racism and everyone gets defensive. I suspect nobody wants to solve these problems, because they're hard (or because it doesn't directly benefit them).
Frankly I'm more concerned about an industry built on shit -- shit that I see not being worth a whole lot in the future, and then there's a whole lot of well trained but not so well developed programmers on the market that are all laid off who aren't in demand to build cheap shitty apps anymore because the VC isn't there. Second collapse. I'm trying really damn hard to switch to A.I. or video game developer - or perhaps go to school for education in biology and apply programming to that area.
Sounds pretty reasonable rather than cynical to me.
> Maybe young founders are preferred because they are cheap and they fail fast.
... and they're easier to take advantage of.
... and they're easier to take advantage of.
I actually have yet to read about that angle. Nice one! Maybe a little cynical, but also makes sense.
> Maybe young founders are preferred because they are cheap and they fail fast.
Also, they have a lot of energy and enthusiasm, so they work longer hours than older founders.
> They don't have the proverbial family to feed...
..or distract them (e.g. "I want to be home in time to put the kids to bed." vs "I pulled an all-nighter and finally cracked that problem."
> ..and they don't have enough life experience to worry about going head first in a direction that may contain a blind corner.
That lack of experience also means that they are less likely to reject an idea as too crazy/off-the-wall (which is what many people think the best ideas are, at first glance).
Older founders are more likely to perceive the risks and downsides, and be more tentative and less aggressive as a result.
Also, they have a lot of energy and enthusiasm, so they work longer hours than older founders.
> They don't have the proverbial family to feed...
..or distract them (e.g. "I want to be home in time to put the kids to bed." vs "I pulled an all-nighter and finally cracked that problem."
> ..and they don't have enough life experience to worry about going head first in a direction that may contain a blind corner.
That lack of experience also means that they are less likely to reject an idea as too crazy/off-the-wall (which is what many people think the best ideas are, at first glance).
Older founders are more likely to perceive the risks and downsides, and be more tentative and less aggressive as a result.
This is a list of prejudices that don't hold up in my experience.
First off, while younger people have more energy, they are also much less efficient. Experience means you can produce more for a given amount of energy.
I'm single, due to a recent divorce, and have no kids. So, what family do you think is distracting me? Do you think Steve Jobs was a poor CEO because he had a family to distract him? Hell, he had a major illness and still executed.
I really don't get where people think that experience means you'll reject ideas as "too crazy".
I thin there are people with imagination and vision. Most people don't have it, and most people reject ideas out of hand whatever their age.
People with imagination and vision embrace ideas, no matter their age.
Percieving risks and downsides is a good idea-- because it means you can avoid them while still executing your idea.
The assumption they are more tentative is a nonsequitor-- and illogical. How is having a better perception of what at is safe and what path is less safe going to make you MORE tentative than someone who can't see as well?
Aggresiveness is boosted by confidence, and experience produces confidence.
First off, while younger people have more energy, they are also much less efficient. Experience means you can produce more for a given amount of energy.
I'm single, due to a recent divorce, and have no kids. So, what family do you think is distracting me? Do you think Steve Jobs was a poor CEO because he had a family to distract him? Hell, he had a major illness and still executed.
I really don't get where people think that experience means you'll reject ideas as "too crazy".
I thin there are people with imagination and vision. Most people don't have it, and most people reject ideas out of hand whatever their age.
People with imagination and vision embrace ideas, no matter their age.
Percieving risks and downsides is a good idea-- because it means you can avoid them while still executing your idea.
The assumption they are more tentative is a nonsequitor-- and illogical. How is having a better perception of what at is safe and what path is less safe going to make you MORE tentative than someone who can't see as well?
Aggresiveness is boosted by confidence, and experience produces confidence.
> This is a list of prejudices that don't hold up in my experience.
It doesn't matter whether they're true or not. What matters is whether the VCs who lack the common sense James refers to in his blog post, believe that they're true.
Or perhaps you have an alternative explanation for ageism?
It doesn't matter whether they're true or not. What matters is whether the VCs who lack the common sense James refers to in his blog post, believe that they're true.
Or perhaps you have an alternative explanation for ageism?
As I like to say: I had my startup stint when I was 20/21. Now that I'm older (27), it's time to start a real business. The kind that takes 5 years to build, delivers solid value to customers, makes two or three people independently wealthy, and feeds twenty families.
But no VC is ever going to fund that.
But no VC is ever going to fund that.
Now that I'm older (27), it's time to start a real business. The kind that takes 5 years to build, delivers solid value to customers, makes two or three people independently wealthy, and feeds twenty families.
But no VC is ever going to fund that.
I've come to believe that self-improving processes (such as economics and technology) exhibit a "natural growth rate", that this could even be applied to a person, and that for programmers it's about 20-40 percent per year. Compared to anything else, that's very high. We can reliably grow a skill base or a company at around that rate, give or take. Of course, starting a new business is risky, but there's not strong evidence that it ought to be riskier than starting a new job. Sure, half of small businesses fail within 5 years. But half of all jobs turn to crap in 5 years.
At any rate, the mid-risk / mid-growth space that tends toward 20-40% growth and a non-zero but not obscene rate of failure is... as you've noted, severely overlooked. Bank loans require personal liability and are therefore only viable if there's nearly a zero chance of failure. VC builds disposable companies that have a 1/10 chance of returning 20x and a 1/100 chance of returning 250x. In the mid-risk / mid-growth space? Nothing. I think part of the problem is that such businesses-- even though they add more value in toto than anything else (they're where most open-source software comes from)-- are very difficult to sell.
The issue is that VCs are optimizing for their careers rather than their portfolios. You can just as credibly build a portfolio out of mid-risk/mid-growth businesses as these get-rich-quick-or-die gambits. The problem is that you don't become a celebrity investor by building a great portfolio, but by having "been in on" the Facebook or Google that comes every few years.
I've come to believe that self-improving processes (such as economics and technology) exhibit a "natural growth rate", that this could even be applied to a person, and that for programmers it's about 20-40 percent per year. Compared to anything else, that's very high. We can reliably grow a skill base or a company at around that rate, give or take. Of course, starting a new business is risky, but there's not strong evidence that it ought to be riskier than starting a new job. Sure, half of small businesses fail within 5 years. But half of all jobs turn to crap in 5 years.
At any rate, the mid-risk / mid-growth space that tends toward 20-40% growth and a non-zero but not obscene rate of failure is... as you've noted, severely overlooked. Bank loans require personal liability and are therefore only viable if there's nearly a zero chance of failure. VC builds disposable companies that have a 1/10 chance of returning 20x and a 1/100 chance of returning 250x. In the mid-risk / mid-growth space? Nothing. I think part of the problem is that such businesses-- even though they add more value in toto than anything else (they're where most open-source software comes from)-- are very difficult to sell.
The issue is that VCs are optimizing for their careers rather than their portfolios. You can just as credibly build a portfolio out of mid-risk/mid-growth businesses as these get-rich-quick-or-die gambits. The problem is that you don't become a celebrity investor by building a great portfolio, but by having "been in on" the Facebook or Google that comes every few years.
.... and the chances of success are a hundred fold better.
I'd pull the all-nighters before the big demo in my startup days, but at 30 I find I'm too busy to pull all-nighters. As for families, my gut feeling is that what I've added in time obligations to the wife and kid, I've recouped in time I don't spend socializing or trying to get laid.
I suspect many of us older coders don't pull all-nighters because 1. We've not left critical codding to the last minute. 2. If critical coding is not completed, you realize doing it at the last minute usually means crap-code. 3. Code produced at 3:00AM after 8 cups of coffee is usually crap code. 4. Good Project Management skills either learned formally or over 20-30 years means the team has created a good WBS so you are not coding at 3:00AM. 5. All nighters usually mean something is being done wrong. Geezer-Geeks know that.
Coding is a marathon, not a series of crazed sprints. Nuff said for now.
Coding is a marathon, not a series of crazed sprints. Nuff said for now.
[deleted]
Older and younger engineers have complementary strengths. A good organization has a mix of both.
It's amusing that this gets down-voted when a similar comment yesterday suggesting that men were better suited for SV life than women was up-voted...
It could simply be that people want to hire others who resemble themselves.
How could this go for age and not go for gender (or race for that matter?) Bias is bias. If you acknowledge there's bias in one area it's hard to shout down the notion there's bias in other areas also.
VCs and Angels are often not young as the founders are, so they are funding people that don't resemble them.
The post is discussing who VCs choose to fund.
On the other hand, younger founders don't have enough experience so they may waste a ton of time trying things that older founders know won't work so they are able to produce results faster. Also, an older founder may have a healthier work/life balance and better time management skills so every minute they are working they are able to produce better results, whereas the younger founders will be wasting time on things that don't matter or recovering from drinking until 4am the night before.
Experience can end up equating to an inability to try new things, so inexperience can be desirable in innovative pursuits. Older people often have a "healthier" work / life balance because they don't have the energy or stamina of their younger counterparts. Not every young founder parties all night (stereotype much?)
> Experience can end up equating to an inability to try new things, so inexperience can be desirable in innovative pursuits.
You're making this comment on a post exploring the age of famous inventors when they were awarded patents. Instead of responding with stereotypes it'd probably be a stronger case to point out inventors of similar caliber who achieved their most innovative pursuits in their early 20s rather than later in life.
You're making this comment on a post exploring the age of famous inventors when they were awarded patents. Instead of responding with stereotypes it'd probably be a stronger case to point out inventors of similar caliber who achieved their most innovative pursuits in their early 20s rather than later in life.
I'm being sarcastic. Many of those same older men who argue they're just as good as younger men "they just have different strengths" are the same ones who will argue that women don't do well in technical areas because they don't match a particular rigid set of qualities, ignoring that they also have different but equally useful aptitudes.
I'm trying to make the point that finding justifications for having a bias against older men are just as easy as finding biases against women. Neither are particularly useful.
I'm trying to make the point that finding justifications for having a bias against older men are just as easy as finding biases against women. Neither are particularly useful.
Women don't do well in tech because people tend treat girls as if they are for sex from a pretty young age, if through nothing else but marketing. Science and math is pushed hard on boys still. Ponies, rainbows and babies are "for gays and girls" seems to be the general real world attitude still.
I have a daughter and everyone, my ex, various family members, the school - they don't push her as hard "because she's a girl" - they don't see her getting into tech "because she's a girl". She herself is trying to learn to program and already she's facing a struggle. At the same time she's being sold a sexualized image of women through the media.
Granted I haven't thought about the racism aspect. My quick thoughts on it are that it starts at a lower level - home environment, racism in grade and high school and probably throughout college. If you're tall and black in america you're most likely getting sports pushed on you rather than tech. If you're from a poor area your parents may have grown up with poor education and aren't really showing you the care you need (regardless of skin color) and now you have to figure out a way to learn in perhaps a very loud environment, or a drug filled environment. This is an issue that might be solved by easier access to technology and education for low income environments.
As for ageism - its a terrifying prospect because it means everything I've spent the last decade absorbing which has improved my craft gets shit on and goes to hell. then again, that's how it works anyway - you make a website perhaps and its refactored and gone 6 months to a year later. The tech industry is kind of a joke right now. So many people have spent so much money to go on to build, fund or scheme up the next shitty flash in the pan iphone app. But hey, there's free lunch every day in the kitchen... and dogs roam around our open office where "random" nerf fights break out every wednesday between 3 and 4:15.
edit: fixed some stuff.
I have a daughter and everyone, my ex, various family members, the school - they don't push her as hard "because she's a girl" - they don't see her getting into tech "because she's a girl". She herself is trying to learn to program and already she's facing a struggle. At the same time she's being sold a sexualized image of women through the media.
Granted I haven't thought about the racism aspect. My quick thoughts on it are that it starts at a lower level - home environment, racism in grade and high school and probably throughout college. If you're tall and black in america you're most likely getting sports pushed on you rather than tech. If you're from a poor area your parents may have grown up with poor education and aren't really showing you the care you need (regardless of skin color) and now you have to figure out a way to learn in perhaps a very loud environment, or a drug filled environment. This is an issue that might be solved by easier access to technology and education for low income environments.
As for ageism - its a terrifying prospect because it means everything I've spent the last decade absorbing which has improved my craft gets shit on and goes to hell. then again, that's how it works anyway - you make a website perhaps and its refactored and gone 6 months to a year later. The tech industry is kind of a joke right now. So many people have spent so much money to go on to build, fund or scheme up the next shitty flash in the pan iphone app. But hey, there's free lunch every day in the kitchen... and dogs roam around our open office where "random" nerf fights break out every wednesday between 3 and 4:15.
edit: fixed some stuff.
Relevant: http://www.livescience.com/16911-scientific-breakthroughs-ge... ("By 2000, great work before age 30 almost never happened in any of the three fields. In physics, great achievements by age 40 occurred in only 19 percent of cases by the year 2000, and in chemistry, it almost never occurred.")
In the arts there is almost a complete inversion of this observation, e.g. Wallace Stevens did his best work late in life, and many others perfected their aesthetic expression in advanced years.
The work that software developers do is different than the work of top theoretical physicists. So it's hard to say what the advantage of youth is with regards to a holistic creativity.
The work that software developers do is different than the work of top theoretical physicists. So it's hard to say what the advantage of youth is with regards to a holistic creativity.
It's odd that math, physics, and chemistry breakthroughs are often brought forth in silicon valley ageism discussions. How often are the main problems in dot-coms solved with pure research as opposed to trying to creatively work with given building blocks to construct a potentially evolving gizmo?
Creative writing might be more like software development (and entrepreneurship) than theoretical physics or pure math. Writers have a general objective that may evolve, an internal toolkit they've acquired over 10k+ hours of writing, and the task of building something where all the pieces work together to achieve the objective. And does anyone think writers in college are better than seasoned veterans that have been writing professionally for decades?
Also, variation in skill level among people >> Variation of an individual's ability across her lifetime.
Creative writing might be more like software development (and entrepreneurship) than theoretical physics or pure math. Writers have a general objective that may evolve, an internal toolkit they've acquired over 10k+ hours of writing, and the task of building something where all the pieces work together to achieve the objective. And does anyone think writers in college are better than seasoned veterans that have been writing professionally for decades?
Also, variation in skill level among people >> Variation of an individual's ability across her lifetime.
[deleted]
One thing comes right away to mind when reading those numbers: the average age for professor getting tenured is ~39. Is it really a creativity issue, or a more structural issue on process in university (ie you can't do great achievement before having your career settled).
You'd think it has to do with the amount of deep background knowledge required to come up with useful model systems. Chemistry and biology are messy subjects. Who again said that he wanted to do mathematics until the age of twenty, then physics until the age of 30, chemistry until 40, biology until 50, and the classics of the rest of his life?
I can see this a few ways. I'm almost 50. I've had a couple of exits. I've retired and unretired.
Being young can have 2 critical advantages:
1. Unlimited time, minimal financial needs. No kids. No spouse. No commitments. You can GRIND away at a problem. You can live on almost nothing.
2. Clean sheet perspective on technology, capabilities, costs, etc. My first T1 of bandwidth (1mbit roughly) to my colocated server cost me $3000 a month. It's hard for me to get my head around what's real now with the drag of so much accumulated experiential cruft. They are more likely to say, hey how about we do it this way, when I wouldn't bother because of outdated perspective on costs and capabilities.
Now, I have a ton of experience on how the world really works, which is great. Especially people knowledge. But it's really hard to relate to how my kids see the world, having always been connected at high speeds, etc.
Now, I have a ton of experience on how the world really works, which is great. Especially people knowledge. But it's really hard to relate to how my kids see the world, having always been connected at high speeds, etc.
I'm not sure I get how "number of patents" qualifies as a measure of (or even a proxy for) productivity. In most companies I've worked, those quarterly patent award ceremonies were where they trotted out all those folks who either had nothing else to do besides filing patents, or managers who put their names on the vague ideas their directs were working on. The rest of us were busy actually making the products.
I guess this also means those of us who refuse to participate in the patent system on ethical grounds are the least productive people in the world?
I guess this also means those of us who refuse to participate in the patent system on ethical grounds are the least productive people in the world?
What does filing patents have to do with productivity? Might as well title it "the smartest people in the entire world" and stack it next to lists of people who have filed the most patents. It does however follow that the older you are, the more time you have to file patents.
Ageism, Sexism, Racism ...
When people want to solve a problem, the problem gets solved. There's no proof for the money/power men that solving (ageism,sexism,and racism) increases profits. So, it takes a back seat.
The brightest minds in the world are centered on how to manipulate the weakest among us. Sounds like a young uncultured/unlearned man's testosterone fueled dream.
High cost of living/High tax narrowing focus even further. The crucible .
Why do the most significant discoveries center around the age of 30? Because, by then, you've participated in the rat race long enough to understand there is slim to no value in it or the majority of products pushed out of it. You've seen failures. You lived through enough specific experiences to be able to generalize. In your higher order representations of the world you've built, you grasp a deeper meaning to life, society, and knowledge and are truly able to give birth to an idea that serves to truly, deeply, and positively impact the world.
So, what happened to equality/diversity/society? Profits (A short sighted focus that is most easily ingrained in young males who have been taught that the pinnacle of life is carving out a little empire for yourself) .. 'Some' older men figure out the folly in this pursuit as they do/don't achieve this goal in a timely fashion. 30 sounds about that age when that happens. Of course, there are some of us who never grow up.
Story of the world.
When people want to solve a problem, the problem gets solved. There's no proof for the money/power men that solving (ageism,sexism,and racism) increases profits. So, it takes a back seat.
The brightest minds in the world are centered on how to manipulate the weakest among us. Sounds like a young uncultured/unlearned man's testosterone fueled dream.
High cost of living/High tax narrowing focus even further. The crucible .
Why do the most significant discoveries center around the age of 30? Because, by then, you've participated in the rat race long enough to understand there is slim to no value in it or the majority of products pushed out of it. You've seen failures. You lived through enough specific experiences to be able to generalize. In your higher order representations of the world you've built, you grasp a deeper meaning to life, society, and knowledge and are truly able to give birth to an idea that serves to truly, deeply, and positively impact the world.
So, what happened to equality/diversity/society? Profits (A short sighted focus that is most easily ingrained in young males who have been taught that the pinnacle of life is carving out a little empire for yourself) .. 'Some' older men figure out the folly in this pursuit as they do/don't achieve this goal in a timely fashion. 30 sounds about that age when that happens. Of course, there are some of us who never grow up.
Story of the world.
For Edison and Ford at least I guess a lot of those later patents were done by underlings and the boss man put hsi name on it. I couldn't tell if the analysis accounted for that
> For Edison and Ford at least I guess a lot of those later patents were done by underlings and the boss man put hsi name on it.
In principle, the rules for inventorship for patents differ substantially from the rules for authorship in academic papers: Inventorship is determined by law, authorship is determined by, well, custom.
eg: http://www.unemed.com/blog/how-to-determine-who-is-an-invent...
In principle, the rules for inventorship for patents differ substantially from the rules for authorship in academic papers: Inventorship is determined by law, authorship is determined by, well, custom.
eg: http://www.unemed.com/blog/how-to-determine-who-is-an-invent...
You're probably right, but the articles I've read suggests that Ford and Edison continued tinkering and working right up to the end. Edison was in his 30's when he invented the light bulb and the phonograph. He was in his 40's when he invented the motion picture camera and made a bunch of improvements to battery technology. I've read stories that Ford was still tinkering with engine technology when he was in his 60's and 70's.
Edison didn't invent the lightbulb by any means. [1] In fact, the lightbulb didn't really have much of a singular inventor - it was a gradual and independent research process. Edison has the credit of addressing the shortcomings in previous lightbulb designs so as to make mass commercial production feasible.
[1] http://www.bulbs.com/learning/history.aspx
[1] http://www.bulbs.com/learning/history.aspx
Edison didn't invent the motion picture camera either:
"The first motion-picture camera was invented by the Frenchman Louis Le Prince in the 1880s, while working in Leeds, England."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film_technology
"The first motion-picture camera was invented by the Frenchman Louis Le Prince in the 1880s, while working in Leeds, England."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film_technology
I recently had the chance to view the exhibit on the light bulb in the Smithsonian, and learned something I hadn't known before: the big advance Edison made in light bulbs was a less bright light bulb. Previous electric lights were too blinding to use in most applications. Edison's light bulbs were easy on the eyes. When he helped wire up the Library of Congress, he insisted that all of the bulbs be left bare, so you could marvel in their non-blinding beauty.
Well that's probably even more analogous to modern-day tech startups, few of which actually invent anything new themselves.
The point is that Edison led hard, consequential engineering work well past his 20s and 30s.
The point is that Edison led hard, consequential engineering work well past his 20s and 30s.
By he also stole some patents from Tesla. Not every modern-day start-up is doing that.
So let me get this straight: if you can't get VC funding and you're a woman it's not because of your gender, but because of your (perceived lack of) competency; however, if you can't get VC funding and you're an older man it's because of unfair ageism? You folks really don't see a double-standard here?
Please feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong here.
Please feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong here.
Using the term "you folks" implies that HN has a consensus view on these topics. It doesn't. Looking at the recent "What Silicon Valley thinks of Women" story[1] it's easy to see the deep chains of discussion because of the opposing viewpoints.
Accusations of double standards need to be made against individual commentators.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8963658
Accusations of double standards need to be made against individual commentators.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8963658
I don't think SV is ageist so much as "anti people who were working before the Internet" -- people like Vint Cerf are respected (was on the Internet from early), but the random MBAs who joined/founded startups in the late 1990s with no tech experience were pretty useless.
Has there been any stats on the funding rates of applicants by age?
It could be that there are more young people applying for funding in general, causing this skew.
I think that this is probably right. There's some ageism in Silicon Valley, but probably not as much as the VCs are accused of (even if I like to bash the chickenhawks who fund talentless young zeroes like Lucas Duplan and Evan Spiegel). A lot of it, I'd imagine, is self-selection. At age 50, people who have their shit together don't want to deal with the humiliation of participating preferred, obscenely long deliberation periods before a funding decision, and investors who'll readily funnel your ideas (and your best people) to a competitor if they change their mind on you. They have other options, whereas the 23-year-olds often don't.
In fact, that's one of the less-often-said (because, applied to individuals, it's still bigoted and obnoxious) matters in Silicon Valley. There is an adverse selection when it comes to age. Talented older people tend to have enough experience not to take the typical Silicon Valley deal (especially for startup employees) so what's left is a set of people who may be old or talented but aren't both (and, of course, most are neither, i.e. young and talentless).
Most of the really good, 50+ programmers that I know either want to do real technology (not Snapchat bullshit) or have moved into finance. In fact, in those domains, you find that the older programmers are often the best ones by far. Some of the very good older programmers will look for funding, but they're more likely to go into consulting and bootstrap than deal with the 6-month job interview and aggressive (and typically illegal, in terms of what things are discussed) back-channel reference checking that seems to come with the VC territory.
In fact, that's one of the less-often-said (because, applied to individuals, it's still bigoted and obnoxious) matters in Silicon Valley. There is an adverse selection when it comes to age. Talented older people tend to have enough experience not to take the typical Silicon Valley deal (especially for startup employees) so what's left is a set of people who may be old or talented but aren't both (and, of course, most are neither, i.e. young and talentless).
Most of the really good, 50+ programmers that I know either want to do real technology (not Snapchat bullshit) or have moved into finance. In fact, in those domains, you find that the older programmers are often the best ones by far. Some of the very good older programmers will look for funding, but they're more likely to go into consulting and bootstrap than deal with the 6-month job interview and aggressive (and typically illegal, in terms of what things are discussed) back-channel reference checking that seems to come with the VC territory.
Interesting to see this and given I filed my first patent pending last month, thought I'd share my thoughts. I'm $100k+ in debt; I grew up poor. My parents live on a fixed income, I send them money every month and last year, in 2014, I made the least annual income I have made since 2003.
As a divorced father of two, who was fired from his last full time job, and can't disclose due to NDA prior work, I've been self employed the majority of my adult life since 2006. Since September, I'm a former alcoholic, which is news to many - I had drank regularly since I was 18 and only recently realized I could correlate a bit of my drinking to early communication issues that resulted in the "low end," classes in my first years of education.
I digress, though, as the first one in my family in three generations to receive a bachelor's degree, life in college and out is hard. In my family, during my "prime," my business expenses were over 100K per year in 2009 and 2010. However, things came crashing down and changed. It's a long, long story. Drinking helps zero.
Now, my software is free, I filed a patent pending because I need credibility. The world is flat, as Thomas Friedman said, and growing more so. Ten years ago I spent $50K on my own tools. If I had known then that I'd need them in 2013, and 2014 again, I would have done what I'm doing now.
Made them free. Open source. Given it away, hoping that with better tools, everybody benefits. That's the dream.
We got rejected by Ycombinator. I've worked with guys in the news way way more than I'll ever be, and I tell a lot of stories, incidentally, most are true.
Thanks for reading, I love this site and learn from it daily.
As a divorced father of two, who was fired from his last full time job, and can't disclose due to NDA prior work, I've been self employed the majority of my adult life since 2006. Since September, I'm a former alcoholic, which is news to many - I had drank regularly since I was 18 and only recently realized I could correlate a bit of my drinking to early communication issues that resulted in the "low end," classes in my first years of education.
I digress, though, as the first one in my family in three generations to receive a bachelor's degree, life in college and out is hard. In my family, during my "prime," my business expenses were over 100K per year in 2009 and 2010. However, things came crashing down and changed. It's a long, long story. Drinking helps zero.
Now, my software is free, I filed a patent pending because I need credibility. The world is flat, as Thomas Friedman said, and growing more so. Ten years ago I spent $50K on my own tools. If I had known then that I'd need them in 2013, and 2014 again, I would have done what I'm doing now.
Made them free. Open source. Given it away, hoping that with better tools, everybody benefits. That's the dream.
We got rejected by Ycombinator. I've worked with guys in the news way way more than I'll ever be, and I tell a lot of stories, incidentally, most are true.
Thanks for reading, I love this site and learn from it daily.
Fascinating. Mind chatting more about it? I'm genuinely interested how you dealt with all that. My email is in my profile
Actually, your email isn't (that I could see) in your profile. Odds are good, "Low karma." Geniuses built hacker news so that spammers like I used to be couldn't alter the system, have too much influence and more.
So no, I can't see your email, I can't mentally parse it from your username, etc. My contact info is in my profile - eg, if you know I'm Jeremy Goodrich, I'm not too hard to find. All too easy, in fact. I'm the only one of the sixty to one hundred folks with the same name who's been in digital marketing & search / information retrieval since finished college at University of Oregon. Feel free to write, I like chatting with people. Thanks for reading, listening and here's to a fun conversation.
So no, I can't see your email, I can't mentally parse it from your username, etc. My contact info is in my profile - eg, if you know I'm Jeremy Goodrich, I'm not too hard to find. All too easy, in fact. I'm the only one of the sixty to one hundred folks with the same name who's been in digital marketing & search / information retrieval since finished college at University of Oregon. Feel free to write, I like chatting with people. Thanks for reading, listening and here's to a fun conversation.
There isn't any ageism in Silicon Valley. Younger people are just more willing and capable of filling the required roles. Besides, there are plenty of older people in SV. I see them all the time! This article is just yet another slander to find controversy when there is none.
If you're older and you're not doing well in SV you should take a look at yourself. Maybe you just don't have good ideas anymore. Maybe you just don't cut it, and should find a place somewhere else. There are plenty of other careers you could switch to that happily accept older people.
But there is no ageism in Silicon Valley. Anyone who says there is is just trying to start trouble.
(Paraphrasing arguments made against the suggestion of sexism in SV on HN yesterday. Hurts when you're on the receiving end, no?)
If you're older and you're not doing well in SV you should take a look at yourself. Maybe you just don't have good ideas anymore. Maybe you just don't cut it, and should find a place somewhere else. There are plenty of other careers you could switch to that happily accept older people.
But there is no ageism in Silicon Valley. Anyone who says there is is just trying to start trouble.
(Paraphrasing arguments made against the suggestion of sexism in SV on HN yesterday. Hurts when you're on the receiving end, no?)
Down-modding this into oblivion just proves my point =)
From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
People probably just didn't notice that you're being sarcastic.
Yes I was. Lamenting bias when it's applied negatively to you is all well and good but when you're happy to ignore it when it's applied to someone else is self-centred. If there are biases in SV that need to be dealt with so that _everyone_ succeeds or fails purely based on _merit_ they all need to be dealt with, not just "whatever affects me".
Maybe young founders are preferred because they are cheap and they fail fast. They don't have the proverbial family to feed, and they don't have enough life experience to worry about going head first in a direction that may contain a blind corner.
If you want even more cynicism, it is also possible that less scrupulous VCs find younger founders easier to manipulate, over promise, over work, and under deliver.