Most tech companies are terrible at hiring "managers". I agree with Paul's premise, but the solution to micromanage is missing the point. If companies hired actual manager/leaders, they would see better outcomes.
correct. the last thing that a company needs is a CEO who doesn't empower his direct reports, can't hire good ones, thinks they are all fakers and tries to meddle in every detail, instead of thinking about where the company is going and where it should go and how it should get there.
This is why OpenAI being the "leader" in the space worries me. We need to be building trust in AI systems, not leaning into what the public perception is. On the other hand, maybe it's good they are showing who they really are.
The interesting part here is that it's actually a two-sided marketplace. Most investors aren't "impressive" either, and thus they'll often not be able to get into the best deals because they have no value add.
I recently read some reviews of investors in SV. Some name brand investors like Jason Calacanis, Pejman Nozad, and some YC alumnus, are all actually very clueless people, often with acerbic behaviors to boot. In that respect, at least the investor class of Wall Street seems to have a much higher degree of expertise and civility, compared to the buffoons of Silicon Valley.
There’s a lot of cargo-cult mimicry of Steve Jobs and Elon Musk that happens in terms of behavior.
But those guys were product people and to the extent that their low-empathy personalities were beneficial it’s in the fact that they cared about creating things far more than anything else, including other people or money. The phrase “artistic temperament” long predates them for a reason.
But it’s really absurd and counterproductive to try to mimic that personality if what you’re offering is anything other than being the corporate version of an auteur, and if that’s what you were you wouldn’t be mimicking anyone, and you better produce some stunningly consistent results. Lots of these guys think they’re being uncompromising about “their vision” when it’s really just “their vision” of their spot on the Forbes list.
New York is better in part, I would guess, because there’s no false premise that the investor is doing anything other than acting as a conduit for capital. There’s egos too but no one is trying to live up to the standard of “changing the world” or “innovating” or being “the next ___.”
It probably also helps that Warren Buffet is the most successful traditional investor of all time and a model of good behavior.
It reminds me of the saying: "The problem with the asshole-genius trope is it is much easier to emulate being an asshole then it is to emulate being a genius."
There is no science to backup the vegan diet is "far healthier". Also, if the entire world stopped eating meat, we'd have a series of other problems to deal with.
Just make intellectually honest arguments and try and win that way. It's a much better way to "convert" people to your cause.
What problems do you think would result? The only ones I can think of are job losses in agriculture and healthcare. And the entire world wouldn't stop eating meat anyway so it's a made up problem.
This highlights the incredibly high-risk nature of the NFT market and underscores the need for careful due diligence before making any purchases, especially ones of high-value.
This daunting reality should serve as a sobering check on the euphoria that has often surrounded the NFT space. Amid stories of digital art pieces selling for millions and overnight success stories, it is easy to overlook the fact that the market is fraught with pitfalls and potential losses.
I have a similar but slightly different take on that
Instead of "As I get older, I just don't care about new technology" it's more "As I get older, I'm more skeptical of new technology"
When I was a young programmer I thought every new framework, language, innovation was amazing. These days I just look at things with a much more critical eye and a higher bar when asking the question "why does this exist?"
My general stance is that most things we are using are not ideal but are sufficient. However, most new things are not sufficiently better enough to replace what is technically sufficient enough.
If you want to get a job at a competitive company / make a career change: no
reply