ticmasta

How can Atlassian LOSE money on this level of revenues, in this market, with the combination of their tools and shifts in usage... after this long?

They used to be a small, privately controlled company with focused yet ambitious goals and an audacious vision (Build a company that will last 100 years). Then ~10 years ago they took a butt load of money, pushed big towards US enterprise and acquired what appears (to me anyway) a random set of companies that looked good at a specific market/time period but have largely faded away?

I find it quite mind boggling; there must be something going on beyond what I can see.

>> something that increases wages faster than raises.

not sure if you misspoke or I don't get your point

>> fair profit-sharing

"Fair" is just a trigger that one side uses to put the other on the defensive. Companies by their very nature a designed to share profits with their owners, i.e. legal shareholders. If you want profit sharing guaranteed join an employee-owned cooperative or alternative structured org.

The only way you can accurately evaluate and attribute the work of this hypothetical intern is to answer the question "what would happen if they took their idea and implemented it independently?"

* Does it require a big capital investment? the company provides that.

* Is it risky? The company gets a risk premium.

* Does it need a bunch of specialized resources? the company needs to provide those.

* More subtly, is it net-new or incremental value? Providing a company with something that boosts what they already do isn't evaluated on the incremental increase because you can't realize them without the previous baseline.

There are countless factors measuring value-add, making it extremely hard to allocate back to a single cog in the machine - unless you're a startup with very few cogs, hence they're responsible for all value (or costs).

If you want to be evaluated based solely on your individual contribution, put yourself into a situation where this is possible, i.e. do it all yourself. Otherwise join the broader team and take the benefits and costs that comes with that.

Ha! I was the only one taking AP-level everything and electronics and power mechanics as my electives!

The shop teacher was so grateful that he finally had someone super-interested in more advanced topics that I got to do extra projects he'd had on his wish list for years. One of my favorite high school memories and experiences.

I used this justification to buy a really good router. I would love to have a drill press and a spindle sander; there's some things you just need one to accomplish well.

We have this problem with our non- OS project but found that after the initial review (of which most were false-positives) we could permanently suppress them with a comment and fail the build for net-new work without a huge impact on developers.

I agree with you, but it is a really hard problem with huge, diverse, systemic drivers. The OP mentions how much work from how many people this takes - the entire process could fall apart at any of the steps, plus it required personal relationships and favors. There's also the measure of success; it's pretty relative. I've seen programs touted as huge successes when the recidivism rate is "only" 25%. This speaks about how hard it is to break the cycle, but also would your company be happy with 1/4 employees having a serious drug problem, or stealing or committing a violent crime, vs. (number pulled from thin air) 1/50?

We DO need more of this. It's going to take a lot of time and effort, and (sorry growth hackers) it won't scale.

The demands for background checks tends to be inversely proportional to the ability of the employee/applicant to do criminal or civil harm. You'll need a clean criminal record to work a random retail job but could have numerous convictions and be a software developer. A crummy rental will require it but fancy executive rental will not.

I know some of this has historical/data underpinnings on experience, but fear most of it is based on biased expectations.

including a YC-backed firm that does this explicitly. I find it sad/humorous that they have copy about "connecting companies with a more diverse set of candidates" while essentially selling a service for streamlined filtering out this pool of people. I get the need in certain circumstances, just get tired of companies trying to have it both ways.

https://checkr.com/company

This advice is all targeted at the technical challenges which, in the language of NSB, are all accidental factors. The essential challenge of video calls is bandwidth; you just don't get the same depth of rich, non-verbal communication. I find I need to turn up my antennae to 11 to really "hear" what people are trying to communicate, which is incredibly exhausting.

Nothing wrong with the advice here, but done perfectly it will take your meetings from a 3/10 to a 6. I was hoping for tips on improving communication.

Do you think the lifespan of the topic or the delivery platform impacted your returns? I don't buy a lot of books anymore but used to drop 40-50 bucks on an O'Reilly book that would be used for years. My LP purchases probably top out under $10 and are for more immediate, short-lived topics (which seems to be what the platform targets with it's digital & updated content focus)

yes, why would an employer want employees who have the capability to write a book on the payroll? That's time that could be spent heads-down coding! </s>

way more people finish college than publish a book though. It's a higher-level signal IMO, even a self-published book is a massive accomplishment that shows huge dedication.

>> They first need to start thinking in steps, loops, commands, ifs

This is exactly what turtle logo does, with the modest, easily definable, straight-forward goal of drawing cool pictures. I think one of the big mistakes we're making with kids is telling them "you can build awesome video games with almost no work". Well, a video game to my kids is Zelda or Halo. Nobody is building those games over an afternoon in scratch. Coding may be easier, but it's still hard work.

There's a big difference between making obvious mistakes that make everything worse and making the "right" decision for a future consideration. Beyond first-hand experience (i.e. making the mistake and then recognizing it in a future, similar decision) I'd say even the best "architects" have about a 20% success rate when moving into uncharted territory. Planning for tomorrow at a strategic level is hard.

not if you traded early comp for the promise of astronomical equity returns. Especially if you were sold hard on this by the founders; in this scenario they have failed because the goal was not to build a stable, self-sustaining business.

There can definitely be different psychological motivators at work IME: VC => we're building something big and I want to ride on the rocket ship; Bootstrap => We're cultivating something that embodies part of me; I'm in the product.

Of course there's always the other outcome where both of these are just jobs and you are not invested beyond that. Then there's no real difference beyond the economics.

Pretty funny that the push towards static serverless has made something you used to get essentially for free on your dynamic client-server app into quite a complex undertaking.

Static compile-time sites are fantastic for a huge swath of applications, but this is a good reminder that you can shift the work around and even come up with better isolated, decoupled approaches but somewhere it still has to get done. Introducing functionality that is dynamic outside the browser and requires state (i.e. persistence) is definitely an area that seems to "fight" the natural inclinations of frameworks like Gatsby et al.

That's what gives cows the taste most consumers recognize as "prime beef". Eating solely grass-feed is definitely a different taste;I'm not sure most consumers would like it, at least initially (outside of a hamburger).

For many of us in the Western World and specifically Canada, water use is a major area of concern as well. Seaweed obviously doesn't use a lot of fresh water to grow, but I'm not sure about the processing. Cattle production still does use a lot of water and we don't raise a lot of cows by the oceans, but this has some interesting applications.

Does this generate diagrams from schemas and vice versa? That's always been my preferred way to both refactor and get started, and a few tools do this.

Traditionally payment & accounting has never been a problem in the music business, so I think blockchain would not really help. The underlying economics is what has changed dramatically. Distribution is close to free, but unlike the ~ $1 an artist might have seen out of a CD sale (before discounting for costs & advances) they now see sub-cents on a single track. You used to pay $15-20 for an entire album to get 2 or 3 good songs; now you only stream everybody's top tracks and pay less than that a month. So the artist gets a couple of pennies for the period when they are hot, then nothing.

70% of an apple purchase goes to the app developer. That's not ripping off developers.

Isn't this just an abstraction on living in your parent's basement? I don't believe that most newish techies have parents with spare, vacant homes ready to go.

This totally ignores the fact that a big reason salaries are so high in these markets is because cost of living is very high as well. Living on 25K a year wouldn't even cover your shared accommodation costs.

There's also old with lots of experience but it's 20 years of doing the same thing, or 10 x 2 years experience vs. 20 years of xp

>> "St. George Security and Alarm".

isn't this why Vivint has been so successful? I thought they pioneered converting recent missionaries into DTD alarm sales...

Then you don't understand the specialization of labor very well, and you're being very disingenuous to the parent post. They made no reference to certain work being beneath them, only the idea in maximizing resources. Maybe you could help the shelter with some database work while a junior high kid picks up poop.

regardless if you're a billionaire or not, at some point money is for keeping score. We all have biases that influence our desires and actions; he was able to indulge his more fully.

What's your proposed alternative to the amalgamated actions of rich individuals? I'm not sure what else could work better, and we've certainly seen worse collective approaches throughout history.

I don't think Chuck Feeney set out to be purposely secretive as much as anonymous and focused on the money doing the work. I think stories like this one in Forbes highlight he understands the necessity of good leadership by talking about the mission after it's accomplished, rather than looking for recognition during the process. Gates & Buffet are role models for the getting started; Feeney for how you finish.