Perhaps you didn't notice that the subtitles didn't show up for the questions.
And even if there was some assurance up front that there would be subtitles (albeit shitty ones, as anyone who looks at them can see) he still wouldn't know up front that the assurance was going to be backed up with action.
The most useful piece of information was don't spend all your time studying successes but study failures. I had to personally learn that one the hard way.
Every startup wants successful founders as advisers. Theres nothing wrong with that. Yet people who failed can provide just as valuable if not more valuable lessons. They're also a lot easier to get time with than the startup all stars.
Coincidentally, I had run into it recently. I wanted to ask pg the following:
- Around 12:30 you say that there is a combination of 3 things that drives hackers: 1) the desire to get rich (so they could be "free") 2) the desire to "make something" 3) the desire for "power". If that is still your observation, then how does it relate to the change in YC focus to admit a nonprofit startup? I mean, by definition, shouldn't the hackers doing a nonprofit startup give up on 1) above?
The reason they want to be free is to work on what they want. If someone starts a nonprofit that they expect to be their life's work, they've achieved the same result (though perhaps with a bit more risk).
As a developer watching that video, that line was the one that stood out the most.
There is nothing more frustrating than to be asked to build something using old tools when better options exist, or when you are asked to build apps that don't stretch your abilities, or when you work for people who don't understand how software can change the way that their business operates (who tend to not be technical).
> when you work for people who don't understand how software can change the way that their business operates (who tend to not be technical).
This is rather frustrating for me. I love automating labor, and making things more efficient. But people won't trust a computer to do repetitive work as much as they'd trust a person who is more prone to errors. Plus they don't seem to understand how it impacts their finances. If you pay me $5K to automate very labor intensive tasks and processes that take 2-3 people to do, then you are making money. Even if workers are paid minimum wage, the business is going to start making money on the investment after the first month. Without the extra set of issues that employees bring in.
I also want to add that it is a bit frustrating when you are told to work on a code base that is in an obvious need of a cleanup and targeted refactor. You spend more time fixing issues that writing code. And must somehow explain why progress is not being made, because new features are still waiting to be incorporated. Its also a rather boring.
Yet another reminder that passive income is the greatest arsenal in a programmers' toolbelt. Not having a salaried job gives one more time and energy, total focus. Having total focus and ability to also indulge in leisure allows one's true goals to be attacked and achieved. It's interesting that my life right now is based around 'becoming rich', well actually just self-sufficient, so I can then work on my true projects. Life after life ;-) Let's just hope I don't get too old before the passive income kicks in. Thanks for all your essays and other forms of enlightenment Paul.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and disagree with you :-D
I know that the Toastmasters folks will ding you for saying "Um" or "So", etc. And yes, if it is too common it can be annoying (sort of on along the lines of someone who inserts "you know" into almost every sentence). However, in this interview, it was obvious that you were doing that while trying to come up with a thoughtful and meaningful answer. I don't think that it detracts from the interview at all. In fact, I would say it is a sign of you being real, sincere -- and not just trying to BS your way through the interview.
I realize you notice it but it's certainly not unusual. President Obama does something similar [1].
"the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can't keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN."
If that's what umming really means it wouldn't annoy me at all to umm more.
Umming could also be the symptom of an additional mental load. Such speaking disturbances occur once in every 4.4 seconds [2], which suddenly makes me less worried and more tolerant about how people sound when they speak.
As I am working on my startup today, I found the interview very relevant and insightful. I wonder how much of that information has changed for 2013 if at all?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8Lb8ZgQP74
I don't know why, but there's something sort of inspiring about rolling with the punches and then going on to keynote PyCon.