Hacker News Reader

Comment by metadat | Hacker News Reader

Terrible advice, startups have so many variables it's nearly impossible to time on purpose, especially as any kind of outsider.

Go to Stanford or Harvard if you can, otherwise if it's too late to get into that club, it comes down to whatever network you can cultivate, along with timing and luck.

Hindsight is 20/20. Don't get too sucked into the casino that is Startup Land.

Go work at BigCorp for big bucks if you're actually adept at engineering. For non-harvardites, everything else is generally a gamble.

If you do work for a startup, make sure to join early for >1% total equity, and if things start to smell funny, don't waste too much time. Every day spent is one you can never get back.

View on HN

What does this post have to do with the post you replied to? What does it have to do with the thread?

The OP asked for advice or anecdotes from people who have been an early employee at a successful startup. There's value in that question, and in answers to it. Obviously not all answers will be applicable to all situations, but nobody reasonable would think they would be.

Then here comes this reply, which smells like the HN equivalent of a StackOverflow "you shouldn't be trying to solve that problem" comment.

Maybe someone doesn't want to spend years of their life writing design docs nobody will ever read, for a feature that won't ship, for a product that will get shut down in a year because the executive sponsor lost interest?

Of all sites, why post threadbare anti-startup talking points on Hacker News?

You have revealed cynicism without evidence. There is no shame in working at a BigCorp, they ship lots of useful real life products and features.

My response expressed the lessons I (and many other HNers) have learned THE HARD WAY ALREADY!

What is wrong with trying to save a young puppy from suffering the harsh consequences of reality that I've had to endure? It's free advice, if you don't find it helpful please feel free to ignore it and move along, matey. In the meantime, I'd like to keep trying to rescue the pups.

  > What is wrong with trying to save a young puppy from suffering the
  > harsh consequences of reality that I've had to endure?

Because it's incredibly rude. You're treating them like a child.

If someone goes to baking.com and asks for advice on becoming a pastry chef, don't warn them away because being a pastry chef pays poorly.

Respectfully, it seems best if we agree to disagree this time around. I acknowledge the validity of your feelings on this matter, and humbly request the same from you. There is more than enough room for us both, and you've made your position clear.

Cheers and please take care, John.

> If someone goes to baking.com and asks for advice on becoming a pastry chef, don't warn them away because being a pastry chef pays poorly.

I would want to be warned. It's highly likely I wasn't aware of that information.

Giving any advice depends on context.

I've listened to someone say they want to become a chef, and knowing it involves 12+ hour shifts, I've said "That sounds like a solid choice!" because this was an actual thing that pays money and a thing they could actually do.

Disagree - I would want to know the reality of being a pastry chef if I went to baking.com.

So this and the parent post both make sense to some degree. My problem is I don't even know how to identify the people even if they were right in front if me. And even if I did I am not sure how I can get them to "accept" me at more than a grunt (or capability level - 2) capacity.

An example, about 10 years ago a YC company (that would go on to be valued at high double digit billion valuation) was hiring. They were series A at the time. I knew I was more than qualified for that role (I had done that role at that stage of a company in similar domains multiple times). I had no pedigree ofcourse (founders were all MIT so clear they they were doing a breadth first traversal around that network of friends). Naturally never heard back. Sour grapes? Reasonably so.

To this point startup land is a huge crapshoot. Being in the in-network confers a 1000x advantage already and being outside is just tons of things you need to line up to get lucky!

My learning has also been you can try for the jackpot, or work at a big co and outside your work work on building your brand (building, blogging, side projects, marketing etc). Bonus if that brand comes through your work.

One thing I've learned from sports is that positioning wins matches. Positioning is literally being in the right place at the right time, but it's not dumb luck. There's a bit of strategy to it. I love Andreessen's breakdown of luck: https://pmarchive.com/luck_and_the_entrepreneur.html

Another good analysis of it is Gladwell's book Outliers.

Branding is an approach, but make sure it aligns with getting you in position. Some things will make you visible, but it would not position you as the smartest person on a list.

I feel it's impossible for all first 50 to get >1% mathematically. it's more like first 5 other than co-founders.

There will be "suckers" who join for a tiny slice of the pie. Don't waste your time and life, don't let it be you.

Yeah, >1% is a lot of equity for a non-founding employee.

Not really, if they aren't going to value you at >1% when they're small, they're probably delusional and you already know everything you need to make a good decision in your own best interest.

Founders being greedy when the company is worthless is always a bad sign in my considerable experience (more than 20 years in the game, and grew up in PA, CA worshipping the startup culture of the 90s).

For the quintessential case study in founder greed gone wrong, search around about how it went for a company I passed over because of low equity offer, their name was Clinkle.

2% max seems pretty normal to me. Ex: https://searchgently.notion.site/Founding-SWE-at-Gently-com-....

How much equity would you expect if you were the first engineering hire?

Yup this is correct

Reply on news.ycombinator.com