Advice for ambitious 19 year olds(blog.samaltman.com)
blog.samaltman.com
Advice for ambitious 19 year olds
http://blog.samaltman.com/advice-for-ambitious-19-year-olds
31 コメント
I agree. $30,000 more per year is nothing to balk at. It is a serious amount of money. In addition, working for Microsoft is fantastic for a resume. The person in question probably improved his future career prospects by an order of magnitude by taking the job.
And let's not even forget the fantastic benefits that Microsoft offers its employees that most startups cannot afford to.
And let's not even forget the fantastic benefits that Microsoft offers its employees that most startups cannot afford to.
"Future career prospects"... well, that depends. What does he want that future career to be? More work as a peon in other giant corporations, climbing the ladder to middle management? That sort of thing can lead to looking back twenty years, thinking, "Why on Earth did I waste all that time?" Believe me, I know.
I often quote Mr. Morden from Babylon 5, asking "What do you want?" Most people don't have the nerve to even look what they want in the eye.
I often quote Mr. Morden from Babylon 5, asking "What do you want?" Most people don't have the nerve to even look what they want in the eye.
You aren't cast into one thing for life unless you choose to be. I'm sure startups would be happy to hire someone with Microsoft experience.
Out of people I know working for startup type companies, one cut his teeth building enterprise Java stuff at a bank and the other spent time in the military.
Out of people I know working for startup type companies, one cut his teeth building enterprise Java stuff at a bank and the other spent time in the military.
>>I'm sure startups would be happy to hire someone with Microsoft experience.
More importantly, a lot of them would be happy to hire someone with Microsoft connections.
More importantly, a lot of them would be happy to hire someone with Microsoft connections.
> That sort of thing can lead to looking back twenty years, thinking, "Why on Earth did I waste all that time?
"waste" is subjective. Twenty years of your life working 100 hours a week in startups? Twenty years of your life traveling the world with a low paying job?
A particular path being appealing to you doesn't necessarily make other paths bad.
> Most people don't have the nerve to even look what they want in the eye.
Sure. Imagine the man who doesn't accept that all he wants is a stable job which will let him spend more time with his family. Instead, he works at a tiny company day in and day out, dreaming of the big payoff (with paid dinners).
"waste" is subjective. Twenty years of your life working 100 hours a week in startups? Twenty years of your life traveling the world with a low paying job?
A particular path being appealing to you doesn't necessarily make other paths bad.
> Most people don't have the nerve to even look what they want in the eye.
Sure. Imagine the man who doesn't accept that all he wants is a stable job which will let him spend more time with his family. Instead, he works at a tiny company day in and day out, dreaming of the big payoff (with paid dinners).
When you're fresh out of college and/or looking for your first real job, working for any company with great engineering is very good for you and your career. You don't have to stay there for 20 years and become middle management. You can go from junior to staff/senior level programmer and learn real-world software development while getting compensated nicely. The same problems and lessons are learned as by going the startup way.
This quote from the post was pulled and is now being criticized without the most important context of the article.
Sam isn't giving general career advice here -- read this advice as if you're giving it to a risk-seeking, ambitious, 19-year old (the title of the article...).
In that context -- his advice makes perfect sense.
Sam isn't giving general career advice here -- read this advice as if you're giving it to a risk-seeking, ambitious, 19-year old (the title of the article...).
In that context -- his advice makes perfect sense.
>risk-seeking, ambitious, 19-year old
The article isn't explicitly directed at "risk-seekers," but merely at ambitious people. It's incorrect to conflate the two. Ambition can just easily manifest itself as a desire to seek a large salary, climb the corporate hierarchy, and seek a nice lifestyle. As a member of the cohort at which this piece was directed, I don't know why everyone assumes that we want to expose ourselves to risk, or why everyone asserts that we ought to.
Why does everyone exhort the necessity of risking everything in an attempt to change the world? What is so bad about simply pursuing a nice life?
The article isn't explicitly directed at "risk-seekers," but merely at ambitious people. It's incorrect to conflate the two. Ambition can just easily manifest itself as a desire to seek a large salary, climb the corporate hierarchy, and seek a nice lifestyle. As a member of the cohort at which this piece was directed, I don't know why everyone assumes that we want to expose ourselves to risk, or why everyone asserts that we ought to.
Why does everyone exhort the necessity of risking everything in an attempt to change the world? What is so bad about simply pursuing a nice life?
Three kids, a safe job and an Audi is not ambitious. And it certainly isn't netting you a YC partnership at 25.
Ah, but what if it was
three kids, a safe job, two Ferraris, and the ear of Larry Ellison?
or how about
Climb the ladder, eventually transition to politics, and become a Senator on a technical platform?
ruswick's point is that ambition is not the sole province of the startup crowd.
three kids, a safe job, two Ferraris, and the ear of Larry Ellison?
or how about
Climb the ladder, eventually transition to politics, and become a Senator on a technical platform?
ruswick's point is that ambition is not the sole province of the startup crowd.
Founding yet another tumblr-for-cats and selling ads isn't ambitious either; you can do mundane work at startups just as easily as you can in a big corporation. You can do ambitious work at both of them, too. For kids who don't come from a wealthy family, there's something to be said for building up a minimal safety net early on by doing ambitious things in a relatively stable large firm. It's not the only way, though (obviously).
Also, why does everyone buy into the neoliberal bullshit that it's business which changes the world?
Taking an engineering job at Microsoft at 19 y/o makes perfect sense, too.
What you said... plus:
"I just watched someone turn down one of these breakout companies ... that was a terrible decision"
What is this company? How does he know that it's a breakout company? Is he able to tell the future? Because there's an EXCELLENT chance it's not a breakout company. There's an excellent chance it WILL go bankrupt.
Microsoft + 30k more.. or a startup that has a fantastic chance of failing.
Anyone who chooses Microsoft over a startup, I completely understand.
"I just watched someone turn down one of these breakout companies ... that was a terrible decision"
What is this company? How does he know that it's a breakout company? Is he able to tell the future? Because there's an EXCELLENT chance it's not a breakout company. There's an excellent chance it WILL go bankrupt.
Microsoft + 30k more.. or a startup that has a fantastic chance of failing.
Anyone who chooses Microsoft over a startup, I completely understand.
"What is this company?" is a very good question. I speculate whether the writer left this information out on purpose, to mitigate the risk of looking silly if the company goes bust next week.
Please stop wildly ascribing negative intentions. Even if you think Sam is talking out of his ass, matching him does not improve your situation.
To be fair, your average new-grad / entry level job at MS is probably not going to be one of those positions building complex stuff, it's going to be "cog in the system" type of work. It's dubious whether you'll even get to interact with engineers that you might learn something from. There was a story recently about this, and is also corroborated by pretty much all of my friends who ended up there.
Basically, if you're at the point where you think you can do some architectural work and real decision making, you're likelier to be allowed to do that at a startup than at a large company.
Basically, if you're at the point where you think you can do some architectural work and real decision making, you're likelier to be allowed to do that at a startup than at a large company.
new grads probably shouldn't be making 'architectural work' decisions, at least not on their own, and doing it 'on their own' is more likely in a 'breakout startup' situation.
Only people with money say "Don't worry about money".
I still said that when I had a negative checking account balance while starting my company. I think you should worry about money, but that you should take a long-term view of it.
Only people with a nice fallback cushion can afford to say "take a long-term view of money" when their checking account is in the negatives.
Let's face it: if you are having trouble feeding yourself, your view on money will be extremely short-term. As it should be.
Let's face it: if you are having trouble feeding yourself, your view on money will be extremely short-term. As it should be.
To be fair, most decent development jobs will pay you enough to feed and shelter yourself especially if you are a healthy 19 year old with no dependents.
So the difference the extra money makes is likely to just mean lifestyle changes like taking the bus instead of driving a new car and less ambitious holidays. If you can put up with that for a few years then it makes sense to take a lower paying job if you believe it will have better long term prospects.
So the difference the extra money makes is likely to just mean lifestyle changes like taking the bus instead of driving a new car and less ambitious holidays. If you can put up with that for a few years then it makes sense to take a lower paying job if you believe it will have better long term prospects.
When I hired my 18 year old designer, we talked salary come funding time (she's not getting a salary now, just token $$ I toss her way to keep her from getting a grocery store job). Even underpaying her relative to the entry level designer market, she'll be making more than her mother does.
This worries me.
I've met all too many designers and engineers who started out exactly like this, and years later come to realize that they've been underpaid by more than 50% below market rate for half a decade, and have little more to show for it than one entry on their resume and a case of Stockholm syndrome.
That's a home they could have bought if they knew their real value and weren't being exploited by a greedy employer. It's years of bitterness and job dissatisfaction they could have avoided by better knowing their value and having the right kind of ambition-inspiring peer pressure.
Let's assume you're not such a person, but at the same time I hope you would help educate your young designer about what exactly she's sacrificing by working with you at a salary of "making more than her mother." Please help her understand what she could be earning if she's willing to possibly relocate and hustle a bit, and allow her to make an informed decision.
I've met all too many designers and engineers who started out exactly like this, and years later come to realize that they've been underpaid by more than 50% below market rate for half a decade, and have little more to show for it than one entry on their resume and a case of Stockholm syndrome.
That's a home they could have bought if they knew their real value and weren't being exploited by a greedy employer. It's years of bitterness and job dissatisfaction they could have avoided by better knowing their value and having the right kind of ambition-inspiring peer pressure.
Let's assume you're not such a person, but at the same time I hope you would help educate your young designer about what exactly she's sacrificing by working with you at a salary of "making more than her mother." Please help her understand what she could be earning if she's willing to possibly relocate and hustle a bit, and allow her to make an informed decision.
While this sort of exploitation is egregious, I think that part of the responsibility lies with the employee. At the end of the day, the company is simply using the employee's labor to further its own ends and enrich its shareholders. In the same way that one would hire an accountant to minimize their tax burden or clip coupons to save money at the grocery store, a company will go out of their way to pay as little as possible for labor. The idea of trying to maximize value is certainly nothing new. What more do you expect?
Ultimately, one can only expect companies to do what is in their best interest, which is often antithetical to the employee's interests. One has to take responsibility and ensure that they get paid fairly. The employers certainly won't.
Ultimately, one can only expect companies to do what is in their best interest, which is often antithetical to the employee's interests. One has to take responsibility and ensure that they get paid fairly. The employers certainly won't.
I'm sure she would be capable of researching this for herself. An employer doesn't have an obligation to point out that the guy over the road is paying more. Besides there are other factors that come into play besides salary.
I've shown her exactly what "entry level graphic designer salary" is on the 'net. Moreover, she's been told that if she isn't delivering 100%, I'll let her go, because the company needs that full-tilt startup delivery. She knows what she's getting into. She's actually thrilled with it - she instinctively understands the value of giving 100% as a measure of self-worth.
Keep in mind she has no education beyond high school, no professional experience, and some pretty serious holes in her skill set. She's simply not equipped to land a $50k job on her own right now, even if that is "entry level". Her choice is between taking this, or bagging groceries, or taking tens of thousands in loans to go to college (which may or may not get her a job after). And when her skills are rounded out and the money is there, I'll pay her going rate, and gladly.
Moreover, she's not just my employee - she's my friend, and my daughter's friend. I'm not hiring her because she's cheap. I'm hiring her because I have faith in her talent, her drive, and her taste. I'd rather take her on and spend a few months polishing her skills than take my chances with a "better" employee whose taste I don't yet trust.
So yeah, far from exploiting her, I'm trying to groom and mentor her to build the kind of career I believe she should have.
Keep in mind she has no education beyond high school, no professional experience, and some pretty serious holes in her skill set. She's simply not equipped to land a $50k job on her own right now, even if that is "entry level". Her choice is between taking this, or bagging groceries, or taking tens of thousands in loans to go to college (which may or may not get her a job after). And when her skills are rounded out and the money is there, I'll pay her going rate, and gladly.
Moreover, she's not just my employee - she's my friend, and my daughter's friend. I'm not hiring her because she's cheap. I'm hiring her because I have faith in her talent, her drive, and her taste. I'd rather take her on and spend a few months polishing her skills than take my chances with a "better" employee whose taste I don't yet trust.
So yeah, far from exploiting her, I'm trying to groom and mentor her to build the kind of career I believe she should have.
If you cannot afford a "full-tilt startup" designer, you should question the morality of taking advantage of a teenage girl to try and get that.
> she instinctively understands the value of giving 100% as a measure of self-worth.
Instead of money, of course. She's not worth that.
> she has no education beyond high school
Completely irrelevant.
> when her skills are rounded out and the money is there, I'll pay her going rate, and glady.
No, you won't. There will always be one more skill she lacks and there will always be one more thing you need to buy "for the company" (but use yourself, of course, because it's your company).
> she instinctively understands the value of giving 100% as a measure of self-worth.
Instead of money, of course. She's not worth that.
> she has no education beyond high school
Completely irrelevant.
> when her skills are rounded out and the money is there, I'll pay her going rate, and glady.
No, you won't. There will always be one more skill she lacks and there will always be one more thing you need to buy "for the company" (but use yourself, of course, because it's your company).
The money isn't there. This is an unfunded, bootstrapped startup right now. I'm paying her out of my pocket from the day job I keep to get us far enough to get funding. She can participate for equity now, or wait until I have money for a salary.
By "take advantage", you mean offering her a direct path into her intended career.
As for how much I'm planning to pay her when we can get funded: I was planning on $30k salary. Per indeed.com, "entry level graphic designer minneapolis" is $31k. At the national level, that number can go as high as $50k, but frankly, she doesn't have the skills (yet) to get a $50k job. After a couple of years, she will.
By "take advantage", you mean offering her a direct path into her intended career.
As for how much I'm planning to pay her when we can get funded: I was planning on $30k salary. Per indeed.com, "entry level graphic designer minneapolis" is $31k. At the national level, that number can go as high as $50k, but frankly, she doesn't have the skills (yet) to get a $50k job. After a couple of years, she will.
You're offering her "a direct path" just as much as anyone on Craigslist willing to "let" someone develop their for idea "for the exposure."
So just based on what you've said in this comment, you're giving her the choice of either working for a small percentage of 0 ("equity") or she can wait until you have the money. Should you ever get the money, you're going to pay her just under market for an entry-level job. If you don't get money for 2 years, she's clearly no longer entry-level, you've gotten years of work from an impressionable young girl for free, and you're going to do her the favor of paying below-market wages.
Maybe your intentions are good and it's just the execution that is piss poor, but judging on the comments on this post you are seriously taking this girl for a ride and you should be ashamed of yourself.
So just based on what you've said in this comment, you're giving her the choice of either working for a small percentage of 0 ("equity") or she can wait until you have the money. Should you ever get the money, you're going to pay her just under market for an entry-level job. If you don't get money for 2 years, she's clearly no longer entry-level, you've gotten years of work from an impressionable young girl for free, and you're going to do her the favor of paying below-market wages.
Maybe your intentions are good and it's just the execution that is piss poor, but judging on the comments on this post you are seriously taking this girl for a ride and you should be ashamed of yourself.
>>So yeah, far from exploiting her, I'm trying to groom and mentor her to build the kind of career I believe she should have.
Yes, I'm sure this is what you're telling yourself.
Yes, I'm sure this is what you're telling yourself.
I've shown her exactly what "entry level graphic designer salary" is on the 'net. Moreover, she's been told that if she isn't delivering 100%, I'll let her go, because the company needs that full-tilt startup delivery.
So you're exploiting her and psychologically pressuring her.
So you're exploiting her and psychologically pressuring her.
So she works for free now, and if you get funded she'll get an underwhelming salary, and if you don't she gets nothing. You're a helluva guy.
Which sounds exactly like a startup employee to me.
You forgot to mention the part where she could earn enough in equity to pay for private art school without working.
You forgot to mention the part where she could earn enough in equity to pay for private art school without working.
I think it depends on your background. I'm guessing that you had a bigger net beneath you had a bigger net beneath you than most people (student at Stanford, probably from an upper-middle class family that would support you if things got bad). For somebody whose parents said GTFO at 18, going the boring route at first makes perfect sense.
Having money is more than your checking account balance. If you ran out of money, did that mean foreclosure? repossession? homelessness? starvation? If not, then you weren't broke. Obviously I can't speak to your situation, and if you're a true bootstrapper, then kudos. However, I think you can agree there's a ton of 19 years old running around driving the cars mommy and/or daddy bought, with the iPhone and MBP also purchased by their parents. They can totally go for gold and fail, and still have somewhere to live and try again.
It's true--I absolutely had a safety net from my parents. I really didn't want to ask them for it, but it undoubtedly affected my decision making.
I agree with that--for example, I think Microsoft Research has some of the smartest hackers I've met. However, other divisions of MSFT (and where this person was going) have some of the worst people I've met.
Microsoft has 100,000 employees (42k in WA).. of course SOME of them are bad.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/inside_ms.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/inside_ms.aspx
This is overly nitpicky. Of course some people are bad in any company. Clearly the blog author means to say that there tends to be more "bad" engineers at MSFT than you would expect from its outward reputation. The problem with that is that if every blog author hedges in exacting detail their every argument, discussions would devolve into technicalities.
[deleted]
>people I've met
That's a pretty small sampling to make such big claims about a company.
That's a pretty small sampling to make such big claims about a company.
>>(and where this person was going)
he apparently wasn't making the claim about the entire company
he apparently wasn't making the claim about the entire company
However, other divisions of MSFT (and where this person was going) have some of the worst people I've met.
Plenty of startups have worse people than the worst of Microsoft. Some of them have people who couldn't get a job at one of those stodgy, blue-chip companies if their lives depended on it.
The range is very wide at most of the startups. I worked at one where there were some seriously good engineers, but a really bad one ended up becoming the lead architect and things went to hell quickly.
Plenty of startups have worse people than the worst of Microsoft. Some of them have people who couldn't get a job at one of those stodgy, blue-chip companies if their lives depended on it.
The range is very wide at most of the startups. I worked at one where there were some seriously good engineers, but a really bad one ended up becoming the lead architect and things went to hell quickly.
Couldn't agree more. And when you're 19 $30K is a lot. You don't have much expenditure and can put most of your salary in savings. That could really impact your life in 10 years time.
It's also important to remember some of the really cool research projects companies like MS are working on and then think about the pretty basic low tech consumer facing products a lot of startups are working on.
It's also important to remember some of the really cool research projects companies like MS are working on and then think about the pretty basic low tech consumer facing products a lot of startups are working on.
The problem is most 19 year olds will spend that money instead of saving it.
MS research is pretty awesome.
MS research is pretty awesome.
This is a faux contrarian opinion. If someone is asking Sam Altman what to do, it is far more likely than not, they define ambition as starting their own thing. If thats the case, learning start-up stuff is likely not going to happen at a place like Microsoft. So he says go somewhere that can educate you in building from scratch.
It's pretty clear he isnt knocking the old guard, but answering the question in the the way the person asking it was likely anticipating.
It's pretty clear he isnt knocking the old guard, but answering the question in the the way the person asking it was likely anticipating.
Besides merely being an offhanded dismissal of Microsoft employees, it operates under the presumption 1) salary is a factor that can be disregarded by people and 2) high salary is negatively correlated with exposure to smart people.
In the case of the former, the author is clearly myopic. One needs money to live, and the majority of technology companies reside in cities in which the cost of living is substantially higher than the mean. I'm not sure that it's fiscally tenable to exit school with tens of thousands in debt while being subjected to a massively inflated cost of living, and go right into taking a below-average salary at a startup. If anything, one should take a job at an established company, pay off their debt, then take on risk.
In the case of the latter, the author is simply being needlessly dismissive and arrogant. Large companies host hundreds of great engineers and do incredibly meaningful work. Frankly, Microsoft is one of the strongest innovators in the market at the moment. Even if one isn't constructing the most alluring product, one can at least take pride in the fact that they are working on a product with a scope many orders of magnitude larger than most startups. Working on Windows might not be the captivating notion, but it is still meaningful to tens of millions of users.
In the case of the former, the author is clearly myopic. One needs money to live, and the majority of technology companies reside in cities in which the cost of living is substantially higher than the mean. I'm not sure that it's fiscally tenable to exit school with tens of thousands in debt while being subjected to a massively inflated cost of living, and go right into taking a below-average salary at a startup. If anything, one should take a job at an established company, pay off their debt, then take on risk.
In the case of the latter, the author is simply being needlessly dismissive and arrogant. Large companies host hundreds of great engineers and do incredibly meaningful work. Frankly, Microsoft is one of the strongest innovators in the market at the moment. Even if one isn't constructing the most alluring product, one can at least take pride in the fact that they are working on a product with a scope many orders of magnitude larger than most startups. Working on Windows might not be the captivating notion, but it is still meaningful to tens of millions of users.
I'm not sure that it's fiscally tenable to exit school with tens of thousands in debt while being subjected to a massively inflated cost of living, and go right into taking a below-average salary at a startup.
What kind of plebeian can't afford to exit school with $500/mo student loans and $2,000/mo rental payments? ;)
More importantly, according to Hacker News, the average salary for a software developer who is at least capable of coding himself out of a wet paper bag, is $150k, so below-average means an "acceptable" $120k, at least. Right?
What kind of plebeian can't afford to exit school with $500/mo student loans and $2,000/mo rental payments? ;)
More importantly, according to Hacker News, the average salary for a software developer who is at least capable of coding himself out of a wet paper bag, is $150k, so below-average means an "acceptable" $120k, at least. Right?
Right there with ya.
He will not build interesting things and may not work with smart people.
Oh, because working at a startup guarantees he will work with smart people? Sheesh.
He will not build interesting things and may not work with smart people.
Oh, because working at a startup guarantees he will work with smart people? Sheesh.
And if you're 19 or 20 and you put that extra $30k into an index fund, the magic of compound interest will give you much more money than if you start shoveling three times the amount in when you're in your mid-30s.
Depends what you believe will happen with the markets and inflation over the next 15 years. I believe a better approach in today's world is to put yourself in a position where you're less dependent on historical market performance.
You are free to believe that. Historically, the stock market has returned 7% on average. That is after inflation and takes into account the several terrible crashes that have occurred.
Do you know why the stock market has returned 7% on average? Or do you just think that, since it returned 7% on average in the past, it must do so in the future?
The U.S. has held a very privileged position in the world economy over the past century, which has fueled tremendous growth. You're basically betting that the U.S. continue to be a "growth" stock over the next 25 or 50 years, and continue to see huge gains in productivity and global competitiveness.
It's not a completely crazy idea, but it's not the sure bet you make it out to be, either.
The U.S. has held a very privileged position in the world economy over the past century, which has fueled tremendous growth. You're basically betting that the U.S. continue to be a "growth" stock over the next 25 or 50 years, and continue to see huge gains in productivity and global competitiveness.
It's not a completely crazy idea, but it's not the sure bet you make it out to be, either.
Regardless, it is surely better to bet on the stock market continuing to rise, even if more slowly than in the past, than it is to bet that the startup you're working for is going to be successful.
Barring a massive crisis, catastrophe, or war, it is indeed likely that the US will continue to be a growth stock for many decades to come.
It's a much safer bet than many other things.
It's a much safer bet than many other things.
Invest outside the US. India & China at-least will be growing 7%+ Y/Y for a quite a while. Add the rest of asia, S america, and africa, and there are tons of great investment opportunity. Heck currently euro zone bonds are making a killing.
Technically, putting your money in an index fund makes you dependent on future market performance.
Sam was just telling me how much he regretted looking at this thread.
"Oh, you should never read Hacker News comments about anything you write," I told him.
Whereupon it immediately struck me how strange and sad it was to be saying this, as the person who started HN.
Seriously, some of the comments on this thread are HN at its very worst: bitter, willful misinterpretations of what Sam is saying.
"Oh, you should never read Hacker News comments about anything you write," I told him.
Whereupon it immediately struck me how strange and sad it was to be saying this, as the person who started HN.
Seriously, some of the comments on this thread are HN at its very worst: bitter, willful misinterpretations of what Sam is saying.
I've been thinking about why open forums tend to go eternal September and I've come to think it has a lot to do with how veteran users act.
In the early days of a site like this if a new user comes along and makes negative/snarky comments which don't fit the community it is pointed out, politely. Usually someone posts a reply friendly reminding that this sort of behavior is not welcome. This helps both the offender in question and lurkers to understand how to behave.
Then, at some point, people just snap. They've got enough, they don't want to help new people any more. Even though it has always been like that. Obviously, as the site grows faster users stepping out of line happens more often. So they start making 'everything's getting worse' posts. They are perpetuating the idea that all hope is lost.
So let me propose to try and tell people why they're wrong instead of just making a global assertion, even if true. Next time anyone wants to make a post how 'this community is getting worse and worse' instead try to salvage the discussion instead.
In the early days of a site like this if a new user comes along and makes negative/snarky comments which don't fit the community it is pointed out, politely. Usually someone posts a reply friendly reminding that this sort of behavior is not welcome. This helps both the offender in question and lurkers to understand how to behave.
Then, at some point, people just snap. They've got enough, they don't want to help new people any more. Even though it has always been like that. Obviously, as the site grows faster users stepping out of line happens more often. So they start making 'everything's getting worse' posts. They are perpetuating the idea that all hope is lost.
So let me propose to try and tell people why they're wrong instead of just making a global assertion, even if true. Next time anyone wants to make a post how 'this community is getting worse and worse' instead try to salvage the discussion instead.
You may be right that the solution is to depend on the established users. I have some ideas for how to do that that I may try when I have time.
I think there is a life cycle. A user starts fresh and new, and then tentatively puts forth a comment or submission. If the comment or submission isn't immediately lauded, I think the user my temporarily become snarky and/or bitter. Then I think they come around again and more maturely interact.
Maybe you have to have wait 30 days after registration before you can comment? Or comments within 30 days of registration have special "new user" formatting?
Maybe you have to have wait 30 days after registration before you can comment? Or comments within 30 days of registration have special "new user" formatting?
I think a lot of the blowback Sam gets around here can actually be attributed to you presenting him as your "favourite founder" when its not apparent to the rest of us what makes him so great.
I like mint chocolate chip ice cream.
I don't give a fuck if it's not apparent to anyone else what makes it so great. I like how it tastes.
Why is it unreasonable for PG to have someone as his favorite founder? What if they're just good friends and he really resonates with this Sam guy? Why does it matter if you can't see what's so great about someone you've never met in your life? Maybe Sam is funny in person and has a great attitude. You wouldn't know. Just accept it for what it is. Maybe PG's reasons ARE irrational. Who cares? I have a ton of irrational favorite things.
You people are crazy sometimes.
I don't give a fuck if it's not apparent to anyone else what makes it so great. I like how it tastes.
Why is it unreasonable for PG to have someone as his favorite founder? What if they're just good friends and he really resonates with this Sam guy? Why does it matter if you can't see what's so great about someone you've never met in your life? Maybe Sam is funny in person and has a great attitude. You wouldn't know. Just accept it for what it is. Maybe PG's reasons ARE irrational. Who cares? I have a ton of irrational favorite things.
You people are crazy sometimes.
I'm probably going to get down-voted for this, but here goes. Have you met Sam in person? Have you experienced his energy? His vibe? I can't say I have, but I think a lot of people pre-judge others without actually even meeting them. I didn't know PG presented him as his 'one favourite founder', but if he really does, I guess there has to be a very good reason... That being said, he might just recognise a lot of himself in Sam.
The way you put it makes it sound like the rest of HN is just bashing him out of jealously in all honesty, which is, well, just for the wrong reason & plain sad at the end of the day.
The way you put it makes it sound like the rest of HN is just bashing him out of jealously in all honesty, which is, well, just for the wrong reason & plain sad at the end of the day.
I thought it was brilliant myself. Yeah, the comments have been very frustrating, but comments on HN obviously are. No different than Slashdot used to be back in the day, or anywhere else cool on the 'net.
Here's my favorite quote from the post: No matter what you choose, build stuff and be around smart people. “Stuff” can be a lot of different things—open source projects outside of class, a startup, a new sales process at a company you work at—but, obviously, sitting around talking with your friends about how you guys really should build a website together does not count.
Doing real work with smart people (preferably smarter than you, preferably much smarter than you) is what matters. It's what makes you a better person. Doesn't matter if it pays well, or if it's secure.
Ambition isn't a purely financial thing. It's "I want to be a better person, and I'm willing to work for it", and a clear concept of what "better" is. Better can be rich, or powerful, or creative, or famous, or happy. It could just be creating a family. But wandering aimlessly and letting fear drive you to the nearest safe-looking hole... that's not ambition.
Here's my favorite quote from the post: No matter what you choose, build stuff and be around smart people. “Stuff” can be a lot of different things—open source projects outside of class, a startup, a new sales process at a company you work at—but, obviously, sitting around talking with your friends about how you guys really should build a website together does not count.
Doing real work with smart people (preferably smarter than you, preferably much smarter than you) is what matters. It's what makes you a better person. Doesn't matter if it pays well, or if it's secure.
Ambition isn't a purely financial thing. It's "I want to be a better person, and I'm willing to work for it", and a clear concept of what "better" is. Better can be rich, or powerful, or creative, or famous, or happy. It could just be creating a family. But wandering aimlessly and letting fear drive you to the nearest safe-looking hole... that's not ambition.
I wonder if the upvote/downvote system should be based on karma, so e.g. a downvote/upvote from someone wouldn't be equal to -1/+1 but to something proportional to their karma.
This will be more similar to how peer-review works in universities. A peer-review from a professor with a long-standing reputation is worth more than the peer-review of a new professor.
This will be more similar to how peer-review works in universities. A peer-review from a professor with a long-standing reputation is worth more than the peer-review of a new professor.
I wholeheartedly agree, some people here really miss the point, including myself from time to time.
Sam, I actually think your advise is really good, I wish I'd followed this when I was 19. But I'm still ambitious, I'm not too late. Thanks for the good read!
Sam, I actually think your advise is really good, I wish I'd followed this when I was 19. But I'm still ambitious, I'm not too late. Thanks for the good read!
[deleted]
My suggestion to 19 year olds. Be careful with this blog post.
"working at an already-massively-successful company means you will learn much less, and probably work with less impressive people."
Seriously? Yes big companies have lots of bureaucratic crap and things take longer blah blah. However, you do not want to be giving this advice to an "ambitious" 19 year old. Big companies have a lot of smart and impressive people. Lots. They also can teach you a thing or 2 about the "real world".
"Incidentally, don’t let salary be a factor. I just watched someone turn down one of these breakout companies because Microsoft offered him $30k per year more in salary—that was a terrible decision."
Let me provide the other side of this. You are giving up $30K in salary today as a 19 year old. Now, lets imagine that you need to get a job soon again since that "awesome breakout" company actually failed, what do you think is going to happen ? Yes, you will not be able to negotiate as high a salary as you could have if you had that extra $30K. It is not just about $30K. It is about having the power to negotiate next time if you move which you probably will as a 19 year old.
"working at an already-massively-successful company means you will learn much less, and probably work with less impressive people."
Seriously? Yes big companies have lots of bureaucratic crap and things take longer blah blah. However, you do not want to be giving this advice to an "ambitious" 19 year old. Big companies have a lot of smart and impressive people. Lots. They also can teach you a thing or 2 about the "real world".
"Incidentally, don’t let salary be a factor. I just watched someone turn down one of these breakout companies because Microsoft offered him $30k per year more in salary—that was a terrible decision."
Let me provide the other side of this. You are giving up $30K in salary today as a 19 year old. Now, lets imagine that you need to get a job soon again since that "awesome breakout" company actually failed, what do you think is going to happen ? Yes, you will not be able to negotiate as high a salary as you could have if you had that extra $30K. It is not just about $30K. It is about having the power to negotiate next time if you move which you probably will as a 19 year old.
I'm 19, and just started as a software engineer at a startup in NYC. It's been absolutely incredible - I never thought I'd be here a year ago.
I'll admit that my situation isn't universal - luckily, I could get my foot in the door with many startups by being in the last batch of Hacker School - but if you, like me, hate academia and want to get to work, don't let your age stop you. Sure, there's companies that care about your schooling - the Googles, Twitters, Facebooks, and Palantirs of the world - but there are so many more that just want great hackers with awesome GitHub profiles and real-world chops.
(and, of course, make sure to never stop learning on your own time! You will, inevitably, have gaps in your knowledge you missed from school, but between Coursera, the availability of free textbooks and lectures, and other resources, it's not hard to remedy that on your own)
I'll admit that my situation isn't universal - luckily, I could get my foot in the door with many startups by being in the last batch of Hacker School - but if you, like me, hate academia and want to get to work, don't let your age stop you. Sure, there's companies that care about your schooling - the Googles, Twitters, Facebooks, and Palantirs of the world - but there are so many more that just want great hackers with awesome GitHub profiles and real-world chops.
(and, of course, make sure to never stop learning on your own time! You will, inevitably, have gaps in your knowledge you missed from school, but between Coursera, the availability of free textbooks and lectures, and other resources, it's not hard to remedy that on your own)
Please understand that my intent here is not to begrudge you in any way - I think it's wonderful that you're working as an SE at such a young age - but..
I'm 10 years older than you. I code in the evenings, I spend my morning commute listing to any computer science online course I can find... I have over 5 years experience as a Systems Admin... I've interviewed with a number of big companies and startups but I don't feel nearly prepared enough to land an SE role.
How is it possible a 19 year old can?
I can accept that perhaps that 19 year old is just more clever than I am, but I'm a pretty clever guy. What am I missing?
How is it possible a 19 year old can?
I can accept that perhaps that 19 year old is just more clever than I am, but I'm a pretty clever guy. What am I missing?
He's probably very clever, but his definition of "great hacker" is vastly different than your definition.
His definition is probably "someone who makes stuff work." Yours is probably "an expert in his field."
His definition is probably "someone who makes stuff work." Yours is probably "an expert in his field."
I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're making. I can make things work, but I don't know if that makes them a good product.. I guess that's your point?
Its a founder/CEO/Top brass job to figure out the product and whether its a good one. Its an engineers job to make the thing. If you think you can make the thing, then you can get a job as an engineer. If you think you can LEARN to make the thing, you can get a job as an engineer.
I think you're comparing yourself to the best of the best software developers on HN. I felt very bad about the code I produced until I started working at a big company. Now I feel more confident about my own code.
Write some self sufficient applications. It can be as simple as an app that shows you movie times in your local area in a nice way, scraped from movies.google.com by some quick web-service you written. Try writing the app in some in demand underserved platform.
Teach yourself a couple of algorithms courses and some basic multi-threading problems like producer-consumer and so on so you can get through the interview gauntlet. All of my interview questions can be derived from 5 courses: Algorithms & Data Structures, Discrete Math, Operating Systems, Compilers and AI/Machine Learning (optional).
Go interview, be willing to move.
If you feel like you've already done the equivalent, then your prepared.
Teach yourself a couple of algorithms courses and some basic multi-threading problems like producer-consumer and so on so you can get through the interview gauntlet. All of my interview questions can be derived from 5 courses: Algorithms & Data Structures, Discrete Math, Operating Systems, Compilers and AI/Machine Learning (optional).
Go interview, be willing to move.
If you feel like you've already done the equivalent, then your prepared.
I have done much of that - except for the putting myself out there part.
Willing to move is no problem.
Thanks for the advice. I'm working my way through a Data structures course now, I'll look for the others soon.
Willing to move is no problem.
Thanks for the advice. I'm working my way through a Data structures course now, I'll look for the others soon.
I have a few friends who have experienced absolutely meteoric rises at their respective companies. These individuals are good, but not to my knowledge exceptional. In less than two years, they go from new college grad to the very top of the company.
You are a clever guy- what does that say to you about the company they work at, and by extension them?
It doesn't take much to look like a master circuit designer when you are the only person at the company with any training in circuit design. For example, during college at an "internship" of sorts, the two years of education I had at the time pretty much made me the resident expert on circuit design.
You are a clever guy- what does that say to you about the company they work at, and by extension them?
It doesn't take much to look like a master circuit designer when you are the only person at the company with any training in circuit design. For example, during college at an "internship" of sorts, the two years of education I had at the time pretty much made me the resident expert on circuit design.
Tell us what you think is missing. You don't "feel nearly prepared". Have you prepared? These interviews (for better or worse) tend to be algorithm based. How are you on those?
Example scenario:
If you ask me to solve a problem, I can intelligently talk to you about what a program that solves that problem is expected to do, and happily whiteboard a big picture idea.
If I don't know the language required for implementation, that's ok because I'm pretty confident I can work out the basics and what I need to code.
To meet your points: A) I haven't really put myself out there in a while(over a year), I've been 'prepping' B) My algorithm's are poor. While I understand the concept of Big O notation, I can't readily look at something and say "oh that's a _______ sort"
To meet your points: A) I haven't really put myself out there in a while(over a year), I've been 'prepping' B) My algorithm's are poor. While I understand the concept of Big O notation, I can't readily look at something and say "oh that's a _______ sort"
For what it's worth, I didn't have to whiteboard once during my several interviews. If you're interviewing with new SF or NYC startups, you'll find many of them care far more about practical* skills than pop quizzes. This certainly isn't universal, but it shouldn't frighten you away from trying interviews.
* (not that algorithm knowledge isn't practical, but for a lot of smaller, "web-interface-around-a-database" startups, they're not nearly as important as being comfortable around a full web stack)
* (not that algorithm knowledge isn't practical, but for a lot of smaller, "web-interface-around-a-database" startups, they're not nearly as important as being comfortable around a full web stack)
I need to take time to build code I can actually show off.
The things I build now are essentially web interfaces sitting on databases. The problem is they aren't exactly.. or at all.. legal.
Great learning projects (putting my home video library into a web interface, with episode data from a TV series API) but not something I feel I can show.
The things I build now are essentially web interfaces sitting on databases. The problem is they aren't exactly.. or at all.. legal.
Great learning projects (putting my home video library into a web interface, with episode data from a TV series API) but not something I feel I can show.
Algorithms aren't really about recognising standard implementations - although in preparation you'll certainly learn that. It's about having a deep understanding of programs' flow, and being able to recreate and combine patterns when needed to solve a problem.
You should "prep" your algorithms knowledge - it plays a big role in a lot of interviews.
You should "prep" your algorithms knowledge - it plays a big role in a lot of interviews.
Thanks. Can you provide a sample question? Or direct me to a good place to look?
Don't forget that at your age, I'm guessing you have more financial responsibilities, maybe a mortgage, maybe even kids... You need a 'stable', well paid job. A 19 year old will happily work for less, in a junior position, with the knowledge that the job might not be a permanent thing.
html / css / jquery skills
Ah yes, eschew Microsoft, the company that has literally thousands of employees devoted purely to research (a number of whom have won Turing awards) to work for a startup which is more likely than not to be in the business of producing a Rails CRUD app. After all, you need to be surrounded by (people who call themselves) hackers.
My advice for ambitious 19 year olds: ask your parents for advice, because they likely know you better than anyone on the internet. (I say this as someone two years your senior)
My advice for ambitious 19 year olds: ask your parents for advice, because they likely know you better than anyone on the internet. (I say this as someone two years your senior)
“I’m an ambitious 19 year old, what should I do?”
This is an interesting question, in my experience: The sets of "most ambitious people I know" and "people who describe themselves as ambitious" seem to be entirely disjoint. The most ambitious people I know just go out and do things, rather than sitting around thinking (and talking) about how ambitious they are.
This may be a cultural thing -- self-describing as "ambitious" is the sort of thing which I find tends to happen thanks to high school career preparation programs (along with "organized", "reliable", and "good with people"), and it's entirely possible that those school programs are subtly different in the US than in Canada. However, I can't shake the feeling that there's a kernel of truth here.
This is an interesting question, in my experience: The sets of "most ambitious people I know" and "people who describe themselves as ambitious" seem to be entirely disjoint. The most ambitious people I know just go out and do things, rather than sitting around thinking (and talking) about how ambitious they are.
This may be a cultural thing -- self-describing as "ambitious" is the sort of thing which I find tends to happen thanks to high school career preparation programs (along with "organized", "reliable", and "good with people"), and it's entirely possible that those school programs are subtly different in the US than in Canada. However, I can't shake the feeling that there's a kernel of truth here.
It's often dismissed as cheesy, but it's the most important career advice there is: find your passion. Ninety nine people out of 100 never have a great answer to the question, "Where do you want to be in 10 years?" Instead, they treat their careers in ad hoc fashion, hopping opportunistically from job to job.
The best way to succeed is to have a very clear answer to that cheesy question. Such a clear answer that you're almost burned by its intensity. Such a clear answer that it guides your every move. This clarity of vision will allow you to weather temporary failures and setbacks, and it'll provide you a roadmap for the climb up the mountain.
This is what separates the brilliant-and-hard-working from the brilliant-and-hard-working-and-uber-successful. The world is full of brilliant, hard working people who never get a "lucky break." The secret is that the "lucky break" is often the result of many years of directed effort. So keep that in mind as you go along. If you want to achieve tremendous success in any field, there's a buildup period of at least 5 years, and often more than a decade. It really pays to pick your path early, and to stick to it.
Obviously, some folks have taken more circuitous paths to success, and that's totally cool. But ask most of the majorly successful people in any profession what got them there, and they will tell you they focused relentlessly on it. Ambition isn't enough; ambition needs direction.
Find the ladder you want to climb, and start climbing it -- because most ladders are pretty damned tall, and hopping between them gets tougher the older you get.
I say this having learned it the hard way. I traded what I want to do for what I "should" do for many years, and now I'm trying to catch back up to my vision. I still have time, but I wish I'd been honest with myself at 19.
The best way to succeed is to have a very clear answer to that cheesy question. Such a clear answer that you're almost burned by its intensity. Such a clear answer that it guides your every move. This clarity of vision will allow you to weather temporary failures and setbacks, and it'll provide you a roadmap for the climb up the mountain.
This is what separates the brilliant-and-hard-working from the brilliant-and-hard-working-and-uber-successful. The world is full of brilliant, hard working people who never get a "lucky break." The secret is that the "lucky break" is often the result of many years of directed effort. So keep that in mind as you go along. If you want to achieve tremendous success in any field, there's a buildup period of at least 5 years, and often more than a decade. It really pays to pick your path early, and to stick to it.
Obviously, some folks have taken more circuitous paths to success, and that's totally cool. But ask most of the majorly successful people in any profession what got them there, and they will tell you they focused relentlessly on it. Ambition isn't enough; ambition needs direction.
Find the ladder you want to climb, and start climbing it -- because most ladders are pretty damned tall, and hopping between them gets tougher the older you get.
I say this having learned it the hard way. I traded what I want to do for what I "should" do for many years, and now I'm trying to catch back up to my vision. I still have time, but I wish I'd been honest with myself at 19.
great comment. a lot of people don't take the time to step back and think what they really want.
This is awful advice. I'm sorry but when you're 19 you should go out into the _world_ (not the US) and discover it. Go book a cheap flight to South America and go backpacking for a few months. Live on $300 a month, meet interesting people. Techies, nerds and entrepreneurs aren't _that_ interesting.
But sure, if all that you care about is success and you happen to define success like most other Americans (i.e. by making the most money) then go ahead and work as hard as you can and make that million. But please don't complain about your burnout when you're 30-40.
There is way more than money and work in this live. Don't work too hard especially when you're young. If you waste a year or two, nothing will run away and your opportunities will still be there when you're 25.
But sure, if all that you care about is success and you happen to define success like most other Americans (i.e. by making the most money) then go ahead and work as hard as you can and make that million. But please don't complain about your burnout when you're 30-40.
There is way more than money and work in this live. Don't work too hard especially when you're young. If you waste a year or two, nothing will run away and your opportunities will still be there when you're 25.
Travel is not wasting a year or two; you should do it. It doesn't answer the question of what you should do when you get back.
> If you waste a year or two, nothing will run away and your opportunities will still be there when you're 25.
Something tells me this is an aspirational claim rather than a statement with empirical support. On the other hand, there is a lot of data to support the view that being out of work for years is very bad for finding a job when you finally do want one.
Something tells me this is an aspirational claim rather than a statement with empirical support. On the other hand, there is a lot of data to support the view that being out of work for years is very bad for finding a job when you finally do want one.
I disagree. There are lots of different types of venturing out into the world that aren't necessarily just bumming around on the beach. I went traveling when I was 20 and ended up spending months at a hostel in exchange for building them a new website. And not only was I working, but I was also spending time with people older than my peers in the US and hearing about their life experiences. If you travel with the right mindset, it can be just as much of a growth experience as working at an interesting company.
I don't think you've contradicted anything I said, but maybe I'm misreading you? I said being out of work for years is known to lead to worse employment outcomes in some cases. You said, "I disagree, you can travel and not be out of work." So, you don't disagree, in other words?
Anyway, I'm not saying that one shouldn't travel, even if you don't work while traveling. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are no risks involved. You should be aware of the pros and cons of both approaches and balance them with your personal preferences.
Anyway, I'm not saying that one shouldn't travel, even if you don't work while traveling. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking there are no risks involved. You should be aware of the pros and cons of both approaches and balance them with your personal preferences.
You're right, I was projecting the idea that "work which is not in a full time setting in an office in the US is not real work" onto your comment. My mistake.
I did the same thing, but was copywriting for a now moderately successful hostel booking site. Loved it and learned a whole lot.
Just one data point. I'm 35. I did startups in my early 20's, took 2 years off to travel and finish school. Opportunities were still there once I was done. You could say that no work history is the same whether it was due to traveling or because you're only 19.
I think there are windows of opportunity that a person who wishes to capitalize has to jump on. I'll guess there's millions of $ floating around in our industry that originated from 19 year olds who took opportunities in 1998 or 1999 that would have never materialized had they waited a year or 2.
I was once an ambitious 20 year old (1990). I found that I had an overpowering urge to do something, and the only part that held me back was that the old people didn't wan't me to. So I wore them out until I could. I certainly didn't ask for advice - all the unsolicited advice I was given told me I was on the wrong path.
So I got a franchise at 20, then ran it as best I could, made a some money and won some awards. If I was 20 today I would probably make some sort of SaaS product. I certainly wouldn't be asking “I’m an ambitious 19 year old, what should I do?”
Of course, some people don't have an overpowering urge to do anything. So maybe these are the people who ask that question. I once employed a mechanical engineer like that - at 30 he had no ambitions, no dreams. He didn't last long at my company because he also lacked skill and was slow.
I am 43 now, and the urge is subdued but still there. I think if you have a drive in you to make something, then you should go make it. Don't ask for permission and certainly don't wait for permission. Just go do it. When you fail, if you fail, pick yourself up and try again. You only really fail when you stop trying.
My advice for ambitious 19 year olds? Just go do what drives you. If nothing drives you, find someone who is driven and help them.
So I got a franchise at 20, then ran it as best I could, made a some money and won some awards. If I was 20 today I would probably make some sort of SaaS product. I certainly wouldn't be asking “I’m an ambitious 19 year old, what should I do?”
Of course, some people don't have an overpowering urge to do anything. So maybe these are the people who ask that question. I once employed a mechanical engineer like that - at 30 he had no ambitions, no dreams. He didn't last long at my company because he also lacked skill and was slow.
I am 43 now, and the urge is subdued but still there. I think if you have a drive in you to make something, then you should go make it. Don't ask for permission and certainly don't wait for permission. Just go do it. When you fail, if you fail, pick yourself up and try again. You only really fail when you stop trying.
My advice for ambitious 19 year olds? Just go do what drives you. If nothing drives you, find someone who is driven and help them.
ok, last comment on this.
this was meant to be more about how to have the biggest impact with your life than how to make a little more money. and it certainly doesn't apply to everyone--hence the title. many people will me much happier not following it.
on the money side, there is nothing wrong with taking a job that pays you $30k more. most people ramp up their spending and don't save that ~$20k (post-tax) extra, but if you do, more power to you. that $30k will never in your lifetime compound to $100MM, but if that's not what you're shooting for, that's obviously fine. it's certainly a much less risky path.
this was meant to be more about how to have the biggest impact with your life than how to make a little more money. and it certainly doesn't apply to everyone--hence the title. many people will me much happier not following it.
on the money side, there is nothing wrong with taking a job that pays you $30k more. most people ramp up their spending and don't save that ~$20k (post-tax) extra, but if you do, more power to you. that $30k will never in your lifetime compound to $100MM, but if that's not what you're shooting for, that's obviously fine. it's certainly a much less risky path.
The part that rang false for me was equating "learning more" with "earning less". In my experience that's been a false dichotomy. If it's obvious that you'll learn more in one job, then yes, take that one. But if you're choosing between two jobs and you can't decide which one will teach you more, pick the one that pays more, because:
1.) Paying you more indicates that they have more to pay; their top-line is higher, which means they're probably in a more lucrative and dynamic industry.
2.) Paying you more means they value you more, which indicates they may have more work for you to do and be willing to give you more responsibility.
In my first job out of college, I had a choice between 3 jobs. One was a public radio non-profit that needed a techie. One was a VC-funded financial software startup. One was a bootstrapped financial software startup. The last offered me about $15K/year more than the others. When I left it two years later, I'd seen two products through from idea to launch. The VC-funded startup actually had a better outcome for the company (they got bought), but I wouldn't have seen much if any of that cash, and since their product was already pretty set in stone by the time I was interviewing, I wouldn't have had nearly as much of a chance to learn and make decisions.
1.) Paying you more indicates that they have more to pay; their top-line is higher, which means they're probably in a more lucrative and dynamic industry.
2.) Paying you more means they value you more, which indicates they may have more work for you to do and be willing to give you more responsibility.
In my first job out of college, I had a choice between 3 jobs. One was a public radio non-profit that needed a techie. One was a VC-funded financial software startup. One was a bootstrapped financial software startup. The last offered me about $15K/year more than the others. When I left it two years later, I'd seen two products through from idea to launch. The VC-funded startup actually had a better outcome for the company (they got bought), but I wouldn't have seen much if any of that cash, and since their product was already pretty set in stone by the time I was interviewing, I wouldn't have had nearly as much of a chance to learn and make decisions.
Why don't you use capital letters? The rest of your grammar and punctuation is rather standard, so this sticks out.
> No matter what you choose, build stuff and be around smart people.
Me too! Spent my gap year working at an awesome startup in London and learned a crazy amount. Sadly one now needs to work out whether taking up that place at University is worthwhile. For me, whilst staying in "the real world" is an attractive option, going to Uni seems like the choice which will open the most doors long run. Very happy to be proved wrong on that on, however.
I have no idea what the right answer, if there is one, would be for you, but here's the question that helped for me: Rather than thinking about what opportunities either might give you, looking 10-20 years ahead which option do you think you might most regret chosing?
Incidentally, don’t let salary be a factor. I just watched someone turn down one of these breakout companies because Microsoft offered him $30k per year more in salary—that was a terrible decision. He will not build interesting things and may not work with smart people.
This article is making the implication that big corporations and job security are bad; go risk your life for an endeavor with a less-than-5% of success!
This article is making the implication that big corporations and job security are bad; go risk your life for an endeavor with a less-than-5% of success!
The thing is that big companies rarely provide as much job security as they seem to at the time you take your offer. Ask the folks who joined AT&T in the 1950s, or Digital in the 1970s, or Sun or SGI in the 1990s, how it worked out for them. When you're at a big company, you're often at the mercy of market forces and executive decisions that you can't see. In a small company, all of these are at least visible to you.
I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree that you learn less at a big company than a startup, though. I learned a lot more in my first year and a half at Google than I did in my 1-2 years at each of the two startups I'd worked at previously. It does level out after your first 2 years, but that's the time to practice soft skills like leadership, mentorship, influence, estimation, decision-making, and so on as you gain trust and get put into positions that don't exist in a startup.
I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree that you learn less at a big company than a startup, though. I learned a lot more in my first year and a half at Google than I did in my 1-2 years at each of the two startups I'd worked at previously. It does level out after your first 2 years, but that's the time to practice soft skills like leadership, mentorship, influence, estimation, decision-making, and so on as you gain trust and get put into positions that don't exist in a startup.
I can’t speak to AT&T, but my friends who joined Digital, Sun and SGI in their twilight years got to work on fascinating engineering challenges and built up great professional networks. When those companies wound down, some took buyouts with several job offers already lined up for them. In many cases, entire teams were hired intact by other large firms with generous retention packages.
There’s nothing wrong with startups, but there’s nothing wrong with going to the giants that are doing Real Engineering, either. Both can lead to great careers.
There’s nothing wrong with startups, but there’s nothing wrong with going to the giants that are doing Real Engineering, either. Both can lead to great careers.
That is why the title is Advice for Ambitious 19 Year Olds, not Advice for 19 Year Olds Looking for Security
I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive.
Having a solid foundation for a life-long career with real-world experience is definitely ambitious.
Having a solid foundation for a life-long career with real-world experience is definitely ambitious.
Maybe by some definition of ambitious - but clearly not Sam's
They're not exclusive but maximising for security and ambition/impact lead in very different directions. There is not always and everywhere a risk reward trade off but in any but a very young field it's the way to bet.
"The reason I suggested college graduates not start startups immediately was that I felt most would fail. And they will. But ambitious programmers are better off doing their own thing and failing than going to work at a big company. Certainly they'll learn more. They might even be better off financially. A lot of people in their early twenties get into debt, because their expenses grow even faster than the salary that seemed so high when they left school. At least if you start a startup and fail your net worth will be zero rather than negative. "
-Paul Graham
Sounds strange to me. I put alot of my own money and some of my parents into my startup, got seed financing and failed 2 years later. I am now 30 and still have to pay back my parents and havent saved a dime in my life while being a pretty decent software developer (not in the US).
I learned a ton, but financially it has been a disaster.
So a Big-Co job ist still not too bad when starting out imo, you probably wont learn as much but startups are high-risk if you take it seriously.
So a Big-Co job ist still not too bad when starting out imo, you probably wont learn as much but startups are high-risk if you take it seriously.
Your comment sounds reasonable to me. Maybe a good middle ground in the beginning would be to work for a startup? Or somehow reduce financial risk.
> But ambitious programmers are better off doing their own thing and failing than going to work at a big company.
I wish I could have told this to my wife when we were 22!
"I'm sorry, babe! You need to pay the bills and support me while I work to get my startup off-the-ground! You'll see! We'll be raking in the money in no-time. Our 130K of student loan debt will be paid off before you can say `boo'."
</sarcasm>
I wish I could have told this to my wife when we were 22!
"I'm sorry, babe! You need to pay the bills and support me while I work to get my startup off-the-ground! You'll see! We'll be raking in the money in no-time. Our 130K of student loan debt will be paid off before you can say `boo'."
</sarcasm>
If that is the constraint, then don't go to school.
If you absolutely have to go to school, student loans are the responsibility of the person who takes them out, and have nothing to do with the blog's point. Get financial aid, get a merit scholarship, go to community college - there are alternatives within your control.
If you absolutely have to go to school, student loans are the responsibility of the person who takes them out, and have nothing to do with the blog's point. Get financial aid, get a merit scholarship, go to community college - there are alternatives within your control.
It's not that big corporations and job security are inherently bad... it's that they're bad if you are young and ambitious. Which is perfectly true.
[deleted]
If you are not a US Citizen and think your career might take you here/want to come here to the US, then you should do college.
Not having even a crappy and unnecessary degree from a crappy university made my ability to work in the US very very difficult, and all future immigration reform for high-skilled workers still orientates around STEM qualifications.
Not having even a crappy and unnecessary degree from a crappy university made my ability to work in the US very very difficult, and all future immigration reform for high-skilled workers still orientates around STEM qualifications.
A lot of this feels like bad advice. Like playing penny stocks rather than index funds. I am 18, and saying that my most productive years are from 20-25 seems shortsighted and arrogant. The startup community, although cool and interesting, seems like a gold rush situation to me.
That's why I plan to get my CS degree, and get a stable job, such as one at MS (which the author seems to look down upon). I could see joining/starting a startup, if the opportunity popped up, but seeking a risky situation irks me.Maybe I am just risk adverse?
That's why I plan to get my CS degree, and get a stable job, such as one at MS (which the author seems to look down upon). I could see joining/starting a startup, if the opportunity popped up, but seeking a risky situation irks me.Maybe I am just risk adverse?
I don't think easily identifying companies that will "almost certainly be successful" is within the capabilities of any normal human being. Even the absolute best people at identifying successful companies get more wrong than they get right (the right ones just pay well enough to cover the wrongs).
Even if it was only that statement I took issue with, that would be enough to make me say that this is not actually good advice for a 19-year-old. Be realistic when giving advice...
Even if it was only that statement I took issue with, that would be enough to make me say that this is not actually good advice for a 19-year-old. Be realistic when giving advice...
"working at an already-massively-successful company means you will learn much less, and probably work with less impressive people."
Not true. I learned more in my first month at a "big company" than in the two years I spent in the startup world. I started out working for startups, and while it was fun at first, it was a big mistake. My development skills ended up stunted and patchy from churning out MVP after MVP. I never learned how to maintain or scale an application, since most of the time I was just pounding code as fast as I could, hoping to score more funding. Since most of my coworkers were also young and inexperienced, I learned little of value and picked up a lot of bad habits. Maybe I just wasn't enough of a "smart young person" to pick ideal companies, but really, who is?
That's just my personal experience, but my point is that startups don't necessarily equal prime education. If you really want to learn and grow, find a team of disciplined people who understand and enjoy their work. Maybe it's a startup, maybe it's MSFT -- the size of a company doesn't necessarily dictate its viability as a learning experience.
Not true. I learned more in my first month at a "big company" than in the two years I spent in the startup world. I started out working for startups, and while it was fun at first, it was a big mistake. My development skills ended up stunted and patchy from churning out MVP after MVP. I never learned how to maintain or scale an application, since most of the time I was just pounding code as fast as I could, hoping to score more funding. Since most of my coworkers were also young and inexperienced, I learned little of value and picked up a lot of bad habits. Maybe I just wasn't enough of a "smart young person" to pick ideal companies, but really, who is?
That's just my personal experience, but my point is that startups don't necessarily equal prime education. If you really want to learn and grow, find a team of disciplined people who understand and enjoy their work. Maybe it's a startup, maybe it's MSFT -- the size of a company doesn't necessarily dictate its viability as a learning experience.
I just hired a talented, ambitious 18 year old graphic designer as my first employee. I've known her for several years as a close friend of my daughter (me, I'm old enough to have 19 year old children), and I thought of her because I felt she has what it takes to be not just a good graphic designer, but a good startup employee. And with her freshly out of school and in no financial position to go to college, she sees the opportunity.
Even if the startup fails, she can probably eke a couple of years of professional experience and a reference out of the deal - enough to get her on the path to a nice career. And if the startup succeeds, she has the career and could make enough in options to pay for art school.
Because she's smart and ambitious, she sees the logic of the situation. I have no doubt I'll get great work from her.
Even if the startup fails, she can probably eke a couple of years of professional experience and a reference out of the deal - enough to get her on the path to a nice career. And if the startup succeeds, she has the career and could make enough in options to pay for art school.
Because she's smart and ambitious, she sees the logic of the situation. I have no doubt I'll get great work from her.
Heads-up in counterpoint to the second footnote:
I was most definitely considering academia at 19 (I was near dead-set on it).
Then I got to university and got a good look at academics, doctoral students and the environment for myself - I'm no longer so sure that it's something I want to do, at least for now. :)
I was most definitely considering academia at 19 (I was near dead-set on it).
Then I got to university and got a good look at academics, doctoral students and the environment for myself - I'm no longer so sure that it's something I want to do, at least for now. :)
>>However, getting nothing done for four of your most productive years is actually pretty risky.
This is how I feel about my post secondary education. I regret being herded into it and wasting all of those years parroting and memorizing so that I could learn "critical thinking"
This is how I feel about my post secondary education. I regret being herded into it and wasting all of those years parroting and memorizing so that I could learn "critical thinking"
Anyone have any particular advice for an ambitious 14 year old with three years left of high school?
Yep. Keep learning. Read as much as you can. Start lots of projects. Try and finish them.
I am 21 and just sold my first startup while finishing my last year in college. I started programming at 13ish, and have never stopped reading and learning.
Don't get caught up in what your parents or friends say (it's hard explaining SaaS to people who don't quite "get it"), but make sure you keep whatever you build simple enough for them to intuitively use your project. There's no reason why you can't launch something and start building something now. Go and do it, and a lot of people will lend a helping hand as you go.
I am 21 and just sold my first startup while finishing my last year in college. I started programming at 13ish, and have never stopped reading and learning.
Don't get caught up in what your parents or friends say (it's hard explaining SaaS to people who don't quite "get it"), but make sure you keep whatever you build simple enough for them to intuitively use your project. There's no reason why you can't launch something and start building something now. Go and do it, and a lot of people will lend a helping hand as you go.
Most states have a program similar to TAMS (tams.unt.edu). Do that. Maybe 1/3 of the value of this program is that you will graduate earlier. The other 2/3 of the value is that you will meet a bunch of people who also did the program, and you will know them for the rest of your life.
Master things.
Be a good person.
Keep options open.
Explore.
Be a good person.
Keep options open.
Explore.
> Starting a company that you’re in love with is the right kind of risk.
Questionable. I know someone who started a company around half a decade ago, is now out of business with nothing really to fall back on and can't collect contribution related unemployment benefits because they weren't paying N1 national insurance contributions.
Yay companies! May be a big thing, but some people really should not be starting companies.
> If you fail at an idea that you really loved and could have been great, you’re unlikely to regret it, and people will not hold it against you.
Depends on local culture a lot. Notably in Europe, IME, it's much more likely to be held against you.
============
I do agree with the general tone of the piece though: That if you want to do something great you'll have to take on some measure of risk. IMO the time to take these risks is when you have a strong fall back position. What you don't want to do is get to 30, have got things wrong repeatedly, and not have a steady income or a home or anything really to your name. You've got to know what you're going to do if things go south.
Questionable. I know someone who started a company around half a decade ago, is now out of business with nothing really to fall back on and can't collect contribution related unemployment benefits because they weren't paying N1 national insurance contributions.
Yay companies! May be a big thing, but some people really should not be starting companies.
> If you fail at an idea that you really loved and could have been great, you’re unlikely to regret it, and people will not hold it against you.
Depends on local culture a lot. Notably in Europe, IME, it's much more likely to be held against you.
============
I do agree with the general tone of the piece though: That if you want to do something great you'll have to take on some measure of risk. IMO the time to take these risks is when you have a strong fall back position. What you don't want to do is get to 30, have got things wrong repeatedly, and not have a steady income or a home or anything really to your name. You've got to know what you're going to do if things go south.
I have this exact dilemma of whether to stay in college and build projects on the side or leave college and get a job at a start up or create my own. I'd love to be able to choose the latter but the one thing that's holding me back is that I'm in Ireland and it's not exactly Silicon Valley when it comes to the start-up scene. It's extremely frustrating because I have the talent and skills but companies feel it's too high of a risk to relocate and house an 19 year old undergraduate but it's understandable.
Your clock isn't running out to the extent that you think it is. At the rate most of us go these days, you've got forty more working years, with at least 10 to fifteen childless years if you continue to be drawn to entrepreneurship.
I'd suggest making the choice that moves you toward your goal while still leaving as many doors open as possible.
I'd suggest making the choice that moves you toward your goal while still leaving as many doors open as possible.
I faced this dilemna last year. I chose college, and it was t he best decision of my life. Yes, it's expensive. Yes, I could learn how to code by sheer willpower and practice. But the people I've met and the things I have learned, not just academic lessons but lessons about life as well, have already made the experience worth it.
My advice to people in my situation is to really, really think about your decision. It's sexy to drop out these days, but it's not always the right thing to do
My advice to people in my situation is to really, really think about your decision. It's sexy to drop out these days, but it's not always the right thing to do
Interesting. I see two types of assumptions (in the comments):
1. MSR does cool research projects, any one joins has a chance of working on those. A large percentage of the people who work there are research PhDs. Similarly working at Google doesn't necessarily mean you get closer to flying balloons or whatever.
2. Money is bad, learning/glory is good. Simplistic. Spouted by people who can't pay you well. My response: I am curious, I will learn anywhere. Fuck You, Pay Me.
1. MSR does cool research projects, any one joins has a chance of working on those. A large percentage of the people who work there are research PhDs. Similarly working at Google doesn't necessarily mean you get closer to flying balloons or whatever.
2. Money is bad, learning/glory is good. Simplistic. Spouted by people who can't pay you well. My response: I am curious, I will learn anywhere. Fuck You, Pay Me.
The thing about risk-seeking ambitious 19 year olds is that they have absolutely no real idea what risk is, or what their real ambitions for their life will be.
My intent is a mixture of both, I'm taking the safer route. Go to college, work on projects (in school and out), then i'm going to (hopefully) get paid at a corporation, get some experience. Then when I have a life settled when i'm 25-26 start a company, with a bit of financial backing, no student loans, it makes more sense than going out with no support and no experience (in my view).
I am 19 and I think this is terrible advice.I would love to work at Microsoft not just because of the pay but because of the people I would work with. Some of the greatest minds in the world call Microsoft their place of work. Mind you I am doing my own thing and not looking to get hired but still if presented the chance I would take it.
Guys, anyone. What is "W record"?
I expected advice.
Now I am more indecisive than before.
Now I am more indecisive than before.
Becoming employee number 50 at a company that still has a good chance of failure is the wrong kind of risk.
I agree. Actually, those VC darlings aren't likely to fail in the classic, pink-slips-for-all, sense because the VCs have already worked out an emergency acq-hire and a backup emergency acq-hire. They are, however, likely to fail you, which is worse. Now you have to explain a bad separation from a company that still exists and has pump-and-dump VCs and tech press (still in the "pump" phase, obviously) propping up its reputation.
If you join a company, my general advice is to join a company on a breakout trajectory. There are a usually a handful of these at a time, and they are usually identifiable to a smart young person.
Citation needed. I'm no longer very young (I'm 30) but I'm quite smart and still 0 for 2 when it comes to picking startups. Incidentally, I don't doubt that I'm better at judging companies than most engineers and VCs; I'm probably above 95th percentile in judgment of talent (judgment of character I could work on) but it's just really hard to forecast startups. Most people who think they can do it, can't. Most people who think they can't do it are right.
Also, most of us don't pick from the full space of companies, either. We pick opportunities that make sense in the context of our career stories (career coherency). For example, I'm reaching an age where non-senior/lead roles (except at top AI labs or hedge funds) don't really make sense anymore. If I'm not a strong match (enough to qualify for a senior role) it doesn't make sense for me to apply even if the company looks like a "rocket ship", because a junior role is not acceptable at my stage unless the people are known, world-class entities.
I agree. Actually, those VC darlings aren't likely to fail in the classic, pink-slips-for-all, sense because the VCs have already worked out an emergency acq-hire and a backup emergency acq-hire. They are, however, likely to fail you, which is worse. Now you have to explain a bad separation from a company that still exists and has pump-and-dump VCs and tech press (still in the "pump" phase, obviously) propping up its reputation.
If you join a company, my general advice is to join a company on a breakout trajectory. There are a usually a handful of these at a time, and they are usually identifiable to a smart young person.
Citation needed. I'm no longer very young (I'm 30) but I'm quite smart and still 0 for 2 when it comes to picking startups. Incidentally, I don't doubt that I'm better at judging companies than most engineers and VCs; I'm probably above 95th percentile in judgment of talent (judgment of character I could work on) but it's just really hard to forecast startups. Most people who think they can do it, can't. Most people who think they can't do it are right.
Also, most of us don't pick from the full space of companies, either. We pick opportunities that make sense in the context of our career stories (career coherency). For example, I'm reaching an age where non-senior/lead roles (except at top AI labs or hedge funds) don't really make sense anymore. If I'm not a strong match (enough to qualify for a senior role) it doesn't make sense for me to apply even if the company looks like a "rocket ship", because a junior role is not acceptable at my stage unless the people are known, world-class entities.
company on a breakout trajectory
I think he's talking about companies like Square now, Groupon a few years ago, Facebook a few years before that, Google a few years before that. $1B+ valuations, positive glowing aura, disproportionate talent attraction. The kind of company where you can tell almost anyone you work there and they say "Wow, what's that like?"
I think he's talking about companies like Square now, Groupon a few years ago, Facebook a few years before that, Google a few years before that. $1B+ valuations, positive glowing aura, disproportionate talent attraction. The kind of company where you can tell almost anyone you work there and they say "Wow, what's that like?"
Sure, but by the time companies are at that point, the equity they give out is trivial (sub-0.01%) and the important positions are already filled.
I just watched someone turn down one of these breakout companies because Microsoft offered him $30k per year more in salary—that was a terrible decision. He will not build interesting things and may not work with smart people.
Interesting things....like making people click on ads? Microsoft products are used by billions of people worldwide and by virtually every Fortune () company. And then we have Microsoft Research, love or hate Microsoft as company all you want but Microsoft Research is top notch. Quite a few smart people there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Research. Maybe not as smart as Sam Altman (the OP) but smart nonetheless.
Interesting things....like making people click on ads? Microsoft products are used by billions of people worldwide and by virtually every Fortune () company. And then we have Microsoft Research, love or hate Microsoft as company all you want but Microsoft Research is top notch. Quite a few smart people there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Research. Maybe not as smart as Sam Altman (the OP) but smart nonetheless.
I've met and had the opportunity to learn from top people at Microsoft Research in Santa Barbara. I guarantee you Sam Altman isn't fit to tie their shoelaces. No disrespect to him and not saying he couldn't get there, but they're just in a totally different ballpark and level of problem solving and execution. They're solving problems people don't even realize they're going to have yet.
I guarantee you Sam Altman isn't fit to tie their shoelaces. No disrespect to him.
My ass.
My ass.
When Sam Altman becomes a Fields Medalist or invents a new kind of particle (that was subsequently discovered!), then we can talk about the same playing field.
He's not even trying to play the same game as them. Sam Altman 's ideal looks a great deal more like Elon Musk, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates than Djikstra. Would you consider Bill Gates fit to tie a Fields Medalist's shoelaces?
They are solving problems people won't ever realize they're going to have.
This is a fair point. But what's that saying about talent hitting the target in front of you, but genius hitting the target no one knew was there?
Because if Microsoft is good at anything, it's creating new problems for their users. :)
Okay. MSFT Research is great. It would be unreasonable to offer that as a viable alternative for even a highly gifted and ambitious (but not genius-level) 19 year old.
Why not? If he's good to try his chance at Google like startups, why not at MSR? Can we agree that having been at MSR does wonders to your resume?
That quote drips so much of elitism its disgusting. MS still has many brilliant engineers and is building alot of really complex stuff, probably more than your average startup ever will. This is the kind of talk i find really off putting about the whole startup-scene...