boondoggle16

I've read this before, but many of Joel's posts are timeless, and this was a great re-read.

I did notice something new... Wondering if anyone can shed light on this?

> If you’re going into a market with no existing competition, lock-in, and network effects, you better use the Amazon model, or you’re going the way of Wordsworth.com, which started two years before Amazon, and nobody’s ever heard of them.

Then he links a reply from the Wordsworth founder, which was kinda heartwarming:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/08/07/wordsworth-respond...

but below that, Joel posts his own reply to that email, which reads as incredibly condescending and mean-spirited to me? does he use this tone with others, is it just bro talk?

> [several paragraphs complaining about independent bookstores] > Anyway, that’s my bookstore rant It’s great to hear from you, and I suspect a lot more people will hear of Wordsworth if Amazon runs out of money as quickly as some analysts think they will!

Yeah, strange it didn't mention it, I though Steinberg started the operation. But he's just a greedy vulture that ruined a great thing.

If you ever get there, you'll see ;) don't worry, you're not special, and you too can become bored with infinite money... it's just nature.

> So for those of us who learned that life is a grind from a young age, life loses some of the luster when the grind becomes unnecessary. Time to look elsewhere for fulfillment.

Fascinating. That may explain why my privileged-from-birth coworkers feel so differently about things than I do.

I also find life without the grind to be dull. It's like an MMO with a finished economy, no leveling up process, everyone just sitting around chatting? LOL. Take me to the new server, plz

Just a tangential note, but I find this use of "Seinfeldesque" fascinating. The characters in Seinfeld are based on an old stereotype, the kvetcher.

At this point, do people even know what tropes Seinfeld is based on?

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunn...

Who does profit from all this? I know that all of the mainstream media corporations (NBC, Comcast, Disney, etc) are all owned by a small number of parent corps, with a small group of trusted leadership that hires each other.

What about other industries? Do leaders and founders of all these influential industries have anything in common? Tech, banking, media, the industries that influence our youth?

Not sure what to tell ya, but if you read thousands of HN comments under housing articles like I do, they are out there.

Could you elaborate on this? It sounds interesting to me, because I have also noticed a difference in how I perceive myself, vs the reality of photos and videos.

I have a variable voice, for example, and I've considered training myself to use a single voice type instead. I could project a deeper and louder voice, and probably gain a lot of social status by doing so.

I think you're on to something here. I myself as a tech employee have scapegoated FB, but the reality is, every small startup I've worked for has has questionable ethics. That's just how business people work, they don't see things the same as us regulars. Hence why they get so rich.

I do think that tech workers have something, morally, to gain from lambasting FB. But the wider US sphere of influence does, as well. US tech makes the US super strong, and super rich. If we just forget about Google's sins, we can keep being rich and powerful.

Tech workers, politicians, heck even normal people receiving Google accounts, all have something to gain by denying reality.

Bubbles are super common, and even more common on the internet. I find this phenomenon fascinating.

For example, there are many people on HN who absolutely cannot comprehend why people prefer single family housing, with a yard, and a car. So much so, that I've considered writing an article from my perspective, about why I prefer low-density housing.

The ratio of commenters to lurkers is super low, and (speaking from experience), commenters often have mental problems, which drives them to post excessively.

The vast majority of Americans are absolutely nothing like the drivel we read online. I waffle between thinking this is caused by "terminally online" folks like myself, and bots aka astro-turfed corporatism. Either way, the opinions we read online do not reflect reality. Historians will have a hoot interpreting our society and describing it from the perspective of the Huffington Post and Wall Street Journal.

I worked in retail for years, and have also worked in call centers, gas stations, things like that. I will say the quality of employees varies widely, there's a lot of really smart folks in these jobs (sounds like yourself included).

I think it's easy for smart people to get trapped in these bad jobs due to individual circumstances or mental issues (speaking for myself).

I'm sure there's a big variety of ways people get treated, but in general, no you don't get fired for not being chipper that's an exxaggeration (except at some places I'm sure, maybe Disney or Hooters?) I don't take lyft but I do know one driver, they ended up having car issues, having to quit driving, and it was basically a big waste of money for them.

A lot of b2b opportunities. Yes, more saas companies are needed, in niche markets. Lots more saas companies, lots more value to build.

I believe the financial literacy problem is more widespread than retail workers, it actually affects a huge portion of all workers (and non-workers).

Just look at the average credit card debt, etc. The average person has terrible credit because they do not pay their bills, they are not reliable or trustworthy financially, not because they are bad people, but because they are incapable of managing risk appropriately. Of course, there are legit reasons to have bad credit (medical bills etc) but most americans are not that.

If most people you know are financially literate, I think you may be in a bubble. I was too, until I had my first few bad jobs.

> Minimum wage solves a collective action problem. You don’t have to be financially illiterate to have been fucked over by a collective action problem.

Also true and kinda obviates the need for this discussion at all. This crap should not be legal, full stop.

No, that was after globalization, not before. Exploiting the backs of other workers is at the core of globalism, and the core of evil (imo).

Yes, there was starvation, but if we're all starving, who cares, really? Better we all starve than to have a despot in power starving me while he eats fat. Eat his fat instead.

Hi Doreen, hope this doesn't come across as creepy as I'm neurodiverse and have a hard time understanding sometimes.

But, I've read your comments over the years, and have a lot of respect for you. I'm also sick, and also struggle with employment sometimes (unemployed currently) and it's a really tough lot. Your consistent positivity is something I've noticed and really appreciate. Your realistic takes are a wonderful balance to the ivory tower bs coming from "academics".

> Bluntly, we should listen to the people working the jobs.

We should do this in a study, not by asking people at work.

Have you ever worked in retail, customer service, or other emotional labor positions? You are literally not allowed to look or be sad for most of the day, or you will be fired. Looking happy is part of the work.

> They can all do basic math.

Sadly, this isn't true. Financial literacy is super low, and no, people driving for uber do not understand the math behind deferred risk. If they did, none of them would take the job.

Do you know any uber drivers? Anyone in low paid positions at all?

This is only true in a low-trust society. In a high-trust society, it's absolutely on the presenter to make their claims not only true, but realistically true, and acceptable by the average person. When people defect from that norm, they are shamed, or worse.

> People respect the rule of law and there is an expectation of justice.

I'll preface this comment by saying, I recognize that the injustices in Honduras and Brazil are not at all like what we see in the U.S. But my comment is about the perception of justice in the U.S. by common citizens (in my opinion).

This is a very privileged take. Vast numbers of people in the United States of America do not believe this to be true.

The sides don't matter. Leftists believe that black people can be executed at will. Rightists believe that white people can be imprisoned for life, for doing their job (police) or defending themselves.

I'm honestly surprised to hear this take. Up to this point, you may be disagreeing with me, thinking I'm crazy, or whatever. But consider the three letter agencies. CIA, FBI, ATF, doesn't matter how you spell them. They have supranational powers which are not balanced by any civilian or even political oversight whatsoever.

People are allowed to inject drugs in the streets (where it's illegal), menace, defecate in the streets, expose themselves, rob, steal, and nothing at all really happens.

Americans haven't woken up yet, but the rule of law is already dead.

How do you identify liars who are technically skilled at lying? It seems like an intractable problem.

The best option I can see is to refuse to hire "obvious" dishonest people, aka unintelligent dishonest people. But intelligent dishonest people are able to pass without us knowing they are dishonest, and cannot be identified until their low performance becomes apparent. And we wouldn't hire unintelligent people to begin with.

And, evaluating performance in software is notoriously difficult, dare I say impossible? A skilled and intelligent dishonest person can come up with many plausible-sounding excuses for why things are taking so long.

So do you just fire anyone that takes longer than normal? In that case, you scare the actual good engineers, they will just go somewhere safer.

In the end, I don't think there's a way to evaluate honesty, without ruining your business. So I think bad actors are always rewarded.

Where would we be, if we didn't tolerate those that drag us down?

Careful, this kind of thinking leads to ideas which are unacceptable in the current world :)

Greed is not in our own best interest emotionally... but it is probably in our own best interest materially.

Nature doesn't require that we be happy, only that we procreate. Excess resources often make us feel comfortable enough to procreate, despite any unhappiness we may feel.

I think you've nailed a sad reality.

I just want to point out that this is an amazing comment. These gray areas are everywhere, and cognizance of them betrays intellectual rigor and honesty. I salute you good sir.

edit: I just realized there's a great irony here. I salute you, while recognizing that honesty and intellectual rigor is not valued in the world. I guess that's why it's valued so highly by people like me?

Before globalization, even before the industrial revolution.

The agriculture revolution has been a disaster for the human race. Or at least the individuals within it.

Respectfully, I disagree. At it's core, business school is the study of making money. How to make power and social status numbers go up.

The business domain is interesting, and intellectually deep and rewarding, but without the money, all interest goes away. The money is the point.

With tech, there are complicated technical mechanisms. They still exist to make money, but, there are many layers of translation in between. And it seems easier for humans to be interested in computers in a more pure way, because of these layers between. Kinda like how a gift card "feels" more personal than cash even though it's a strictly worse gift.

So I think business school attracts many more "ends justifies the means" types of people because of these inherent properties.