Majority of my projects were the front page of hackernews, I also tracked traffic, engagement, and users each time. End result is its almost entirely for my own ego and my peers seeing what I've done. No lasting users
I wish more founders were like you, being open about what ideas failed in the past and honestly reflecting on why that was the case. Most founders I've met never speak about their failures and have a huge survivor's bias, and this is such a narrow game of chance that it's ridiculous to talk about the odds of succeeding when you don't have an unfair advantage over your competition.
You might be amused that my company literally uses raspberry pi's in production as they are cheap and let us encourage our customers to hack on the robot themselves - https://openshelf.com/
This is targeting hobbyist and not the typical kind of production usage for embedded systems. I rarely heard of embedded people encouraging customers to hack their production system...
Showing as "not reachable" for me. Luckily it's not used for controlling an elevator or a car, or even worse a plane or a bomb, which usually is what "industry" is being referred to.
> which usually is what "industry" is being referred to.
Bingo. It's always a bit hard for me to properly communicate to people that the 'industry' is not an air monitoring/grafana-prometheus/PiHole/whatever low-volume, no risk application.
Not sure where this prevailing myth comes from. I’ve went through y combinator twice, one of the batches I was in had an average age above 36. Many have never started a startup before. Paul Graham and his cofounders were 30 and up when starting their first company and much older for y combinator.
If you want to you could get a normal job or keep it running on the side. Personally, I was prepared to do anything until it worked out as I had no option to get a job.
> I was 90k in credit card debt and planning on foreclosing the company and declaring personal bankruptcy the same month we got acquired. At one point I recall having a major fight with my roommate at the time over him rounding down 30 cents on a bill we split.
Bad tech CEOs all have the same playbook. Google “glass cliff.” Elon will step down and have this new CEO execute all his most unpopular decisions. Then he’ll swoop back in and be CEO again hoping to be the hero. Reddit did this. Yahoo did this. The lamest part is it kind of does help their image.
How do I sign up to volunteer as one of these sacrificial lamb CEOs? Because I'd absolutely love to fail at something and then get paid a bunch of money to look bad for a few months before people forget and I can retire into the sunset.
First step: get a title where it wouldn't embarrass the board to put you in the CEO position. This could be founder of a hot startup, or an executive at a competitor, or CEO of a smaller company.
Getting there is left as an exercise for the reader.
Everyone parrots the same glass gliff term they recently learned but Musk has actually a good track record putting women to lead companies and them very much succeeding.
Twitter is a well-established company with a huge userbase and existing infrastructure.
Gwynne was hired to make something out of nothing in an unproven space (no pun intended), having to build everything from the ground up (also no pun intended).
Framing is a fun exercise, you can do it a lot of ways.
Because he has an outdated leadership playbook for Twitter. He has had a good track record and he also runs his other companies surprisingly well. I think this decision is set up for the new CEO to fail.
Reverting to the status quo before be bought the company and limiting free speech again to attract advertisers.
When Tucker Carlson announced that he'd post his new show on Twitter, Musk already sent a cryptic mail saying that Carlson would be subject to the same "community notes" as everyone else.
We'll see how it goes, I'm just getting vibes that everything will be reverted to a standard SV company.
That makes sense - online raconteurs were trying to act as if Twitter had some kind of unique deal with Tucker Carlson, so reiterating that Twitter is interested in factual truth, rather than partisan politics was a solid response.
Not the same. Hiring a female CEO can and should happen often. But when a company is publicly failing, this is a tool used by male boards frequently enough to have its own Wikipedia page.
But it’s different when the founder/CEO is replaced only to return later. That’s a Steve Jobs play. When the CEO takes a new role, but still owns the company, that’s completely different (and certainly fits here).
> On July 2, 2015, Reddit fired communications director Victoria Taylor, an administrator who coordinated celebrity interviews from Reddit's New York office. In protest, volunteer moderators of the IAmA community set their forum to private, effectively turning it off, and other volunteer moderators followed suit because of "anger at the way the company routinely demands that the volunteers and community accept major changes that reduce [their] efficiency and increase [their] workload".[40] The following day, a moderator of IAmA posted that "Chooter (Victoria) was let go as an admin by u/kn0thing [Alexis Ohanian]",[41] an assertion that was not widely reported on.[42] Media outlets such as Variety blamed interim CEO Ellen Pao for the dismissal. Harassment, which was already being directed toward Pao in relation to other controversies, intensified and she resigned a week later.[43] However, on July 12, former CEO Yishan Wong informed the Reddit community that Taylor was fired by "the CEO's boss" and accused Ohanian of scapegoating.[42] In the aftermath of Pao's resignation, Ohanian elaborated on his role in Taylor's dismissal, countering that even though the AMA/IAmA changes came from him, he still reported to Pao.[44] In 2017, Pao criticized Ohanian for avoiding the fallout by attending Wimbledon in the days immediately following Taylor's firing.[45]
Ellen Pao. She fired Victory who was very popular for running AMAs (Ask me anythings) with a lot of high powered people. The popularity of those dropped a bit after that and they were never the same.
Edit: Someone clarified below that Knothing took responsibility for firing Victory but Pao definitely took the heat for firing victory on top of nuking several popular (edgy and outright bad) subs
That's kind of the point of my post. She was the initial fallguy for firing victory. Knothing may have clarified it was at his insistence but I can tell you that most people didn't read his silly little apology post.
Not sure you can do anything more unpopular than lay off 80% of your workspace, saddle your company with 13B debt and drive away advertisers only to bet everything on a $8 subscription paid by right wing simps. Like, what else unpopular would he need a scapegoat for?
Twitter has 400m users. At $8 that's $3.2b/month, $38b/year. This might be a decision most social networks didn't take, and an unpopular one, but if it works it can have massive payoff.
Best estimates are "somewhere around 450k" which is $3.6M/month or $43.2M/year. Which is only $956.8M short of the $1B/year debt servicing he saddled Twitter with. It's a GENIUS PLAN.
Which was November 2022, I think? Not entirely uncoincidentally, one of the most controversial World Cups of recent times was just about to take place which always generates a surge on social media platforms...
Can you explain? I find these threads fascinating because seemingly everyone has such ironclad logical reasons for thinking elon is actually just a big stinky doodoohead. Can you try to convince me?
They literally had 10+ millions to spend on research with no prototype and only a vague idea of how to produce a profitable product by saying they will create an AGI and "ask it how to make money." for several years
https://dare.fail/me/