I have no idea who this gentleman is either, but this type of comment captures the systemic 'good old days' spirit that has been a part of n.yC since the beginning. The more things change...
(Meant in good spirits! And also wishing OP well!)
I disagree with your assumption that this is an engineering crowd. I would say entrepreneurship is at least as important to the HN culture as engineering.
You ask a huge question, which is discussed every day all around the internet.
But to take a high level stab at it:
Marketing is crucial to an early-stage hardware startup to start to determine if anyone actually wants to buy what you're proposing to build. Good luck getting money from a VC, much less a customer, if you can't talk intelligently about your target market, and demonstrate an ability to connect with it.
Sales becomes paramount after Version 1.0 is released, when you have to demonstrate that your business is actually profitable. Many engineers are under the impression that, if the quality is high enough, the product will sell itself. While this is true for the (tiny) subset of your market that cares enough to really investigate your product, it seems that a great sales team with a mediocre product will outsell a mediocre sales team with a great product more often than not.
There seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about the purpose and intention of this test, and the Myers-Briggs type system. I'm by no means an expert, but I know enough about the system to see there are some knee jerk misunderstandings going on here. So feel free to correct me if I get anything not exactly right, but this should raise the level of discourse on this subject a bit I hope.
To talk intelligently about the results of the test, you must first understand the vocabulary they are using. That vocabulary is more technical than the common understanding of the words that are used to name the categories. This test, love it or hate it, was created by people in the sciences, and the categories, whether useful as predictors or not, have specific definitions.
The M-B test is centered around four behaviors [(N|S)(F|T)] and two attitudes [I|E]. The attitudes are perhaps the most commonly misunderstood, because we have strong natural usage around the words extrovert and introvert that is quite different from the technical definition in the M-B system. For starters, it is probably safe to just think of these as modifiers on the behaviors, such that an extroverted behavior is directed out to the world, and an introverted behavior is directed towards your mental life.
Of the four behaviors [(S|N)(T|F)], two behaviors function to Judge the world (Thinking, Feeling) and two behaviors function to Perceive the world (Sensing, iNtuiting). Feeling is another misunderstood one. While it includes "emotional" decisions, it also includes "going with your gut".
The least obvious piece of the system is how the four letters interact. Lets take INTP, since for once, we are the majority here, and it is mine, so I can use myself as the subject to discuss rather than the obnoxious "If one is a ... than he/she..."
What these four letters do (yes, in theory) is establish my PREFERENCE for these behaviors. From INTP, my core type is NT or Rational (according to Keirsey). I prefer to perceive through iNtuition, and decide through Thinking.
The I and the P are modifiers on those types. The P tells me that, when interacting with the world (in my Extraverted attitude), I prefer to be in a Perceiving behavior. The [I] tells me that, all other things being equal, I prefer to be in an Introverted attitude.
The primary piece of M-B theory that I find interesting and worthy of debate is this: A person has a primary Perceiving and Judging behavior, and they tend to prefer to use one in an Extraverted attitude and the other in an Introverted attitude.
This implies that, since I prefer to use my Perceiving behavior (iNtuiting) in my Extraverted attitude, I prefer to use my Judging behavior (Thinking) in my Intraverted attitude. This is the difference between an INTP and an INTJ.
So, M-B would say my two main behaviors are Ne and Ti. Ok, now let's deal with the [I]. This tells us which, of the two attitudes I prefer. So, according to M-B:
My primary behavior is Ti
My secondary behavior is Ne
My terciary behavior is S(i) (sometimes i is not shown)
My inferior behavior is Fe
One actionable result for me from taking this test has been that it reminds me that I have a tendency to under use my extraverted feeling decision maker. Which I have found to be true, and so I make sure to consciously bolster this response when the opportunity to use it presents itself.
In closing, it is crucial to remember that this test determines PREFERENCES. It says NOTHING about ability or correctness. If you have Judged Thinking better than Feeling, or think you can perceive more by Sensing than iNtuiting, than you are probably out of touch with your other behavior. I believe that we should all strive to be very balanced on this test.
However, I do agree with M-B theory that people do have a tendency to gravitate to the poles, often because of strength or social culture. I believe one of the best uses of this test is to recognize which behaviors you prefer, and also recognize the ones that you could benefit from giving more attention.
Good point that the norm of these axis tend to be on the line.
However, a good M-B test will also provide a degree of strength or clarity of your various dimensions. So it can be useful to see where you deviate from the norm.
Personally, though I'm INTP, the only dimension that is particularly pronounced is the N (88). And that does say something about me. While in all the other dimensions, I can't see a clear preference in myself, I can say that I do live primarily in the world of abstract thought over sensory data.
M-B is actually quite interesting to me. It is a very well defined personality type system, and I've found the results of tests to often be insightful.
The test does not claim ANY kind of "absolute quantifification". That would be claiming that there are only 16 personalities in the world, which, as you note, is absurd. It is merely an attempt to define a few of the dimensions that make up a human personality, and provide a framework for talking about how those different dimensions interact.
If you aren't interested in this, it's your business. But you should really reflect on where the attitude of "this is too nebulous and volatile" a subject to study and try to quantify, and decide if that's really how you want to react to things that are too big and complex to be immediately understood.
If you really think the test is bullshit, then why am I, and the vast majority of the respondents on the previous poll (linked above/below) NTs, also know as Rationals? Seems odd, considering the figure I've heard quotes Rationals as 10% of the US population. Unless, of course, these results are revealing something specific about this population in particular?? Hmm.
I have found from my experiences trying to force myself out of my comfort zone, that the experience of being approached and spoken to a stranger is MILDLY disorienting and raises certain alarms.
However... it is not nearly as awkward for the receiver as most people think it will be. It is mostly stressful for the initiator.
The main concern from the receiver's side is, what does this person want from me. The golden phrase for me when someone doesn't open smoothly is,
>>"I just saw you sitting there, and you seemed like a really interesting, stylish person."
Or some other statement of interest. That seems to set their minds at ease, because you've "shown your cards" as it were, and aren't about to spring some sales pitch on them.
I actually don't fully know if there is cash "entering or leaving the company." Basically, I'm thinking a scenario where one of the founders is a full time developer for the company, with a "salary." The other founder is initially working full time elsewhere, and paying a portion of that salary in exchange for equity. But is there a better way to structure that agreement somehow? Seems like a question for an accountant to me.
Somewhat. Different animals, part of the same ecosystem.
If people are using your site, that implies you are providing value for them. Which implies you should, somehow, down the line, be able to find a way to make money - even if it isn't immediately apparent how.
This logic isn't entirely flawed, despite the fact that it's as unfashionable now as it was fashionable 3 years ago.
A few fundamental flaws to look out for.
I. Being one source of a cheap abundant resource.
Very few people will pay for a chat client, no matter how much value it provides them. There are too many freely available competitors.
II. Transaction costs.
This mostly refers to the time, hassle, and risk that come along with making online payments, that ultimately come out of the amount you can charge. If the value you are providing is very small, but among a billion people, these transaction costs can prevent you from monetizing.
Any other things to look out for before going for a monetize-later strategy?
Disagree. HN is a community very much shaped by conscious decisions and discussion of what is and is not appropriate.
I care about this guy I've never known, and that he gets help.
I also care about HN, and that discussion here continues to remain on topic. I do think this case is important enough to maybe make an exception, but still worth raising the point afterward that it is a bit off topic.
If these three paragraphs can help shape this community, and what people do and do not choose to up vote, I think the comment is spot on and very well directed. I think that was the point, not trying to emphasize callousness or whine.
Agreed. It only took me 1-2 years out of college to begin to regret all the things I DIDN'T study while I was there. If I'd taken a year or two, worked, and got some "partying" out of my system, my college years would have been much better spent.
College should not be a way to delay a child's real life. It should be part of their strategy to live a good one.
I'm pretty much in the same boat as you (aspiring founder), but the event is hosted by Ivan Kirigin of Tipjoy (YCW08 I believe) and there's been a number of other local startup founders at the games, YC and otherwise. Really fun time.
Also, I've got good things to say about the Betahouse meetups. I've been for Django and Plone. Interesting group of people, and great hacker space.
Oy... if we're talking image... do you really want to be a "professional programmer"?
I think there is _something_ to the rockstar image... namely passion. Accept no bullshit, swear at the suits, light shit on fire to get results passion.
But I agree, "rockstar"
A) doesn't cut it as a metaphor and
B) is not a word a real developer would use to recruit a real developer
If you want to give my kind of programmer a nickname, save it for your business docs. My fathers already gave me one:
Amazon'd. I've actually meant to research her recovery. Can't wait.
I agree that the spiritual half of the story is crucial as well. Actually, this reply got too long and spawned a short blog post, check it out if you are interested. ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=442574 )
I was merely reaching across the aisle, lending her some tech credence despite the fact that she sounds like "one of those spiritual types" at times.
Her talk illustrates the different processing styles of our right and left hemispheres. This is a fascinating subject, that often gets trivialized because of all the New Age BS revolving around it.
Her experience is remarkable, and very powerfully delivered. Don't be fooled by her "spiritual" overtones, the science she references is very real and convincing, and the way she ties it to her own experience is fascinating.
He is suggesting that top executive and trader pay be based on the long term performance of the fund. In particular, their own money should be invested in everything they do, and likely also for a number of years after they leave.
I was looking to get my thumb more involved in the action, which is what led me to the Kinesis Advantage. After seeing the built in Dvorak support and the natural contour, I was sold. 6 months in, I love it, and am considering buying a second for my home setup.
I remapped a LOT of the keys however. Caps -> Ctrl is crucial, put escape on an elevated thumb button... all the navigation keys to the "4th row"... basically I sat down and thought about where i wanted my control keys to be for easy access, and remapped them there. That solved all of my initial control key problems.
If you're the kind of person who's interested in learning Dvorak, and shelling out $200 for a keyboard, that's not much of a stretch.
(Meant in good spirits! And also wishing OP well!)