Sure, you can be a good manager and write great code at the same time. But not on the same project or company. Maybe your pet project outside of work or an open source project.
To be clear, I'm making a distinction between a great tech lead vs. a great manager. Both those roles are often confused with each other.
A tech lead will lead the project to launch by managing resources, unblocking team members, making tough decisions, writing productive code, etc.
A manager will ensure smooth operation of their team by making sure their reports are motivated, encouraged, challenged, etc. They will actively seek to recruit new team members, solve resource issues, have tough talks with underperforming reports, navigate politics and negotiate with other teams, etc.
You cannot simultaneously do both. They require very different skill sets to be good and even higher skill to be great. If you are looking to keep coding and do some of the leadership work, then being a tech lead is better for you.
Step back from the marketing speak hyperbole and read that last sentence again. All you're saying is that "this app lets you take a picture and print it".
Simply put: that's a risk you take for being an early adopter. Deal with it, there's a good chance it will happen with any/all early adoption startup products out there.
Actually, there is no risk at all (if you know what's behind the covers).
She is stagnating at Google. She had high ranking high influence positions at Google but over the years has been relegated to a position that has little visibility and control, mostly due to her non execution. This is a great opportunity for her to make some serious cash and be the "top dog" in a kennel of average dogs, rather than the opposite at Google.
Also, even if she crashes and burns at Yahoo, she will get many more opportunities simply due to the brand recognition she has due to her tenure at Google.
I'm sorry but I find it so hilarious. I worked at Yahoo and Google both. I know both their cultures (and especially the culture at Yahoo after all the good engineers left). IMHO, she is status quo - no different than the horrible string of CEOs being hired by Yahoo. In fact, I will put a stake in the ground that she will not move the needle further than what Scott/Bartz did.
I just can't get over how hilarious this situation is.
Wow, haven't read such a vaporware article in awhile. The author promises a "I'm going to change 30+ years of email UI/UX" and instead proposes 4 different labels and a workflow that works for him. Yup, you revolutionalized email alright.
Sure, I understand you now. You're taking the content-centric approach vs. the social-centric approach. Which I guess should have been your question all along if you were adding the +1 button in the first place?
In your specific case, it sounds like you want users to look at content that you pick as relevant. In most cases that Google is targeting, they want to give authors the ability to have their readers pick what to read based on social signals and past reading/+1 behavior.
I don't understand your logic here. If your site deals with a niche subject, wouldn't you want Google to recommend more in-site links to your visitors (especially ones you care enough to +1 your content)?
Basically, Google is enabling you to keep your readers on your site by giving you recommended links to your site for free.
Adding to what you said, someone who discovers, attempts and solves this solution is already better than 70% of the programmers out there. They show promise of being motivated to crack a puzzle that robs them of their sleep, and take the time to learn and code against the Scribd API.
Even if they don't "win", they are greatly superior than a normal resume pusher.
While your pitch deck is beautiful (no argument here), your usability is less than average. If those navigational elements are meant to be sections, why do you not support back/forward navigation?
As an investor, these sorts of omissions make me doubt if your team is detail oriented (not just in the design sense) and will be able to make a product that is truly intuitive and easy-to-use (because honestly that's all that you're pitching).
This is exactly why I both love and fear the power of Kickstarter. It enables half-thought out ideas (claimed as "projects") to have a way to sucker good people out of their money.
This is Hacker News. Where hard working entrepreneurs look for advice, hope, reality checks, and support.
Yes, Facebook has wildly exceeded what most people expected. But to build a social honey pot isn't to inspire other hackers/entrepreneurs.
I don't wish them ill but I also don't take any inspiration from Zuckerberg/Facebook. In fact, I learnt many things not to do (i.e. screwing your founders, doing shady deals, making immature decisions, etc.). Interestingly, Facebook has succeeded so far in spite of doing those things. And I give more credit to Sheryl Sandberg than Zuckerberg.
So excuse me if I don't agree that the top-voted comment on this thread should be words of praise for Zuckerberg.
Usual practice in most companies. It protects them from exactly these sorts of things.
Most companies that have this agreement in place also have a similar agreement when joining the company that if you forego signing the exit agreement, you forego any outstanding debts owed to you by the company.
Yes, debt can be (and usually is) zeroed out when you leave a company.
As I explained in another comment, most companies (don't know about Miso) make you sign an agreement during your exit interview that the company does not owe you anything except X, Y, Z items that are enumerated clearly (these usually include your last paycheck and check for unpaid vacation days).