Hacker News Reader

Comment by destraynor | Hacker News Reader

That's not true, every time a founder becomes a parent they build shitty solutions to all those problems too :)

But seriously this whole angle frustrates me.

Who decided that Silicon Valley had to be held over hot coals for building software companies that solve problems and make money. Why does it always read like "they alone inherited the problems of the universe, and are choosing to build dickpic apps instead".

Everywhere in the world there are smart people working on dumb things. In SV there's lots more smart people, but the percentage doesn't change. Also some things look dumb but are actually genius in hindsight, so it's easy to criticise these as problems for twentysomethings today, but fast forward a decade and they're 'problems for the masses'

View on HN

> Who decided that Silicon Valley had to be held over hot coals for building software companies that solve problems and make money.

It would appear that Silicon Valley did. Every mundane piece of software is going to 'change the world.' People are just waiting for that to happen.

A recent example of that: Google's Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen just wrote a new-agey sort of book explicitly taking that "we're here to change the world" angle.

They could've written a different book, more like one Warren Buffet might write, about the business of software and online services, and running a profitable company in the industry. But they don't appear to consider that to be the bar for success.

At least some of Google's work has the possibility of changing the world: AI. Between self driving cars, natural interface methods, and data understanding, the future looks interesting.

On the other hand, yet another social network, photoshop filter app, todo list app, instant messaging app, advertising app, these are not going to change the world, though often heralded as such.

I'd argue that google's search changed the world. android is also changing the world.

I would much rather see people working on self-driving cars or solving problems that affect the world than see the 15784th to-do app, weather app, etc. Those only change the fortunes of a handful of people, let's be serious.

Google's social network and list of apps are an attempt to stay relevant so they can change the world.

Doing expensive R&D without a money maker generally requires government help. I don't think Google wants to go that route.

Self-driving cars are really genuinely good work.

Other than that, the continued development of AI/ML techniques mostly isn't changing the world. Miniaturizing the code and data, so that the masses can own their own AI/ML processors, that will change the world.

Did you see the Google I/O keynote? They're looking at selling Android smartphones to the whole world, and they're not just talking about the Western world for once. I'd say that'd be pretty world-changing.

Correct. Dates back to at least the interaction between Jobs and Sculley to wit: "Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?".

It's much easier to get young people to buy into a dream of changing the world and making money than it is to buy into a dream of making money w/o changing the world.

Reminds me a bit of the Capone quote something like "You get more with a gun and a smile than a smile alone.."

It's funny that Jobs implied that selling sugar water is somehow less world changing than what Jobs/Apple was doing at the time. I happened across this video [0] the other day, "Coca-Cola Small World Machines - Bringing India & Pakistan Together". Coca-cola has the means to do just as much "world changing" as any other company, and seems to. (albeit, Jobs was talking about Pepsi, not Coke, but it's still the "sugar water" industry).

I wonder if Jobs thought in 2001 that selling MP3 players was the kind of thing he was thinking about when he said "change the world".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts_4vOUDImE

Because the technology industry depends on a lot of idealistic young workers putting in plenty of unpaid overtime, and no one ever motivated that commitment with a call to increase shareholder returns by 17%.

Unpaid overtime isn't legal in the United States where SF is, as far as I know.

Are you familiar with the word "salary"?

After researching the issue deeper, apparently there are exceptions to the time-and-a-half regulation, and programmers are an exception. I'm not sure why you're specifically mentioning the word salary though.

Many people are not paid for their time (wages). Instead they're paid a fixed rate (a salary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary#United_States

I think what jimmaswell was getting at is that salary does not equate to overtime exempt. There's plenty of overlap, but salaried workers who aren't exempt get paid overtime on a calculated basis.

What passes for "salaried time" in the US and SF is called unpaid overtime to everywhere else in the world.

Developers can always quit. The only reasons they don't is that they love to code, and they are hoping for an equity cash-out from an IPO or acquisition down the line.

>Developers can always quit. The only reasons they don't is that they love to code, and they are hoping for an equity cash-out from an IPO or acquisition down the line.

Or they need to feed their family.

Seeings as a lot (MOST!) developers are not "rock stars" by any stretch of the imagination, don't make that much, and some are not willing to relocate to another state/city.

I've heard that if you're a "good" developer it shouldn't be too hard to get at least 100k a year if you try. Seems like a pretty good amount to me. Depends where you live, I guess - that might only go as far in SF as 80 would go elsewhere, or something like that.

While we claim people are addicted to FB etc because of their devices, it's somehow okay to let developers drive themselves mad so that we can ask 10 years later: So what IDE do you think axed your brain?

Startups will categorically enfeeble more people than any war. And we'll do it in the name of GTD and competition with our own machines.

Nothing in "change the world" says that the change needs to be positive or needs to solve one of the Big Problems (poverty, hunger, energy, etc).

Silicon Valley is often quite pleased with itself, and there's more than one "Ignore the complexities of your problem, what would solve this is five guys in San Francisco and a hackathon!" article drifting around out there.

I suspect that's what gets things laid on the shoulders of SV. If its teeming with smart, driven, visionary people with Yankee Know-How and a Can Do Attitude (tm), surely they can do something genuinely spectacular, instead of just inventing a clever way to order pizza.

Path makes money?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com