Our team didn’t seem driven; they all finished work each day at 5:30. I remember watching “The Social Network” and admiring the passion and intelligence of the group of young engineers. My team didn’t look like that.
She wasn't unhappy because of the bugs. She was unhappy because her team didn't look like a star team. (How many stars would put up with her attitude?) What a fucking narcissist.
Second and related, there's her use of The Social Network to get a sense of what programmers are supposed to "look" like. That's offensive on so many damn levels I can't keep track of 'em all. The kicker, though, is this:
Because I’m a non-techie boss, my engineers know that I don’t understand how much time they will need to complete a task, __a deficiency that I’m sure they sometimes exploit__ (emphasis mine) and that I find incredibly frustrating.
What. A. Fucking. Bitch.
New York is swarming with non-technical douchebags whose connections get them some seed capital and possibly enough resources and client contacts to get started, and maybe even hire a few talented but clueless engineers who'll throw long hours after a bad idea. Avoid those types. They're horrible. They aren't successes in their own sphere (if they were good in the business game, they'd be in finance or consulting) and they aren't technical either, so you can't learn fuck-all from them. A great business partner, you could learn from. The sad fact, though, is that the rock stars of the business world have zero interest in the VC-funded startup world. Tech 8+ like me can't find our equals in the VC-funded world (Damaso Effect) because Biz 8s are CEOs' proteges and portfolio managers at hedge funds.
Not everyone who isn't technical sucks, for sure. However, the business world sends its rejects to manage nerds and nowhere is that more apparent than when one reads articles like this. There are great Harvard and Stanford MBAs, but they don't seem to end up as "business co-founders". They go into private equity, hedge funds, and CEO-protege type roles in business and stay there.
Finally, if you're going to found a tech company, learn technology. Learn to code well enough to understand why software engineering is hard (so you don't become that douchebag who thinks he could do the programmers' jobs with a year of training), learn how to deal with 140+ IQ people, learn how to identify useful problems, and learn enough about software culture that you're not using a fucking movie for pointers.
That being said, I think you're being slightly too harsh on business types in general. Yes, the vast majority are rejects who couldn't cut it in finance/consulting so ended up "doing startups."
But there are also people who are in fact excellent but get sick of the soullessness of business. They can often even be leaving a role as a CEO-protege or private equity genius to follow a passion for solving a specific problem through a startup.
Of course, as they are few and far between, it's pretty hard to find them. Especially since if they're actually competent they have the connections to immediately hire top engineers.
One thing I've found is that, surprisingly, the closer you stay to their expertise the better they're likely to be. If some Harvard MBA is starting another social network, they're likely an idiot. But if a former bond trader is working on enterprise software for bond traders, it can often be that they really did leave because they discovered an interesting problem worth solving. At the very least, it means they're bringing a lot more to the table in an enterprise startup than "business experience."
Of course, as they are few and far between, it's pretty hard to find them.
Correct. I realize that I'm painting with a broad brush. There are good MBAs out there (I know some).
The problem is that quality business people are so incredibly rare in tech that you see a "49er" dynamic (4s thinking they're 9s, because of the disparity). Talent should trade at a premium to connections in any forward-thinking society, but unfortunately we live with the reverse of that.
I'm definitely with you on the way she treated her team and what she expected from them... but seriously... please put your IQ back in your pants.
I don't believe in "learn to code if you want to manage technical people," but it is definitely true that if you don't have at least a basic understanding of what your team is building and how, you should have someone who does informing your decisions and filtering your input.
Although I agree with your general assessment of Campbell, I think you should change your wording here.
It's not right (IMHO) to use gendered insults. That sounds sexist, I think. Much better to just say "What. A. Fucking. Asshole." and leave gender out of it.
I used the right word for her attitude. There are probably 10 usages of "bitch" and some are gendered and legitimately offense, while others are not. (I've called men "bitch" before.) This use of the word "bitch" means "mean-tempered person with unearned wealth or social standing". It's not gendered. You could use it on an ill-tempered male trustafarian and it would work.
It might simply be what part of the country I grew up in (southern CA), but I never "bitch" used in that way about men. It had an entirely different meaning, similar to serf or 'gofer' -- whereas when people used it about a woman, it basically meant the same as "asshole".
I hardly believe I've typed these words out. Blech. In any case, I think that for a large part of your audience, and perhaps US society in general, "bitch" definitely has a gendered connotation -- even if you did not intend one.
The core objection here seems to be that a dozen people have foolishly volunteered (or been manipulated) into a long series of death marches. It's painful to see so many young people exploited so severely. After enough years, it could lead to burnout, or perhaps, a life and death situation. Is there anything that fills you with rage?
You are talking about relatively well-paid engineers putting in extra hours to get ready for SXSW. I also disagree with parts of her management style, but nothing suggests that any of the employees were "severely exploited".
No it's not. She's taking up resources ($500,000 of seed capital, and a spot on the New York Times) that someone else could have.
People of substance, like me, are often out-competed in the race for resources (e.g. fundings) by douchebags like her of no merit, but with contacts. The more people like her fail, and preferably embarrassingly so, the sooner we can have a Flight to Substance.
Talent Vs. Legacy is our generation's defining war, and I'm on Team Talent. When well-connected silver spoon hacks fail for a lack of talent, it's a good thing for us. If they always succeeded no matter what, they wouldn't need talent at all, and we'd be starving in the streets getting pissed on by these legacy assholes.
As a ladygal in the tech world in NY, who has taught myself something about code, and whose grandmother did buy her a silver spoon* on birth:
These people do exist in the NY tech world. However, so what. Despite literally being given a silver spoon, this didn't equal contacts in the tech world.
I went out and made them. I cold emailed people, I messaged people on blogs, and I helped people out. I push people to talk to me. And I still do all of these things.
COuld I lean into my parents's contacts more - yes (and I might for certain aspects of my startup, since it takes years, 10 something years in some cases, to get to know the right people at some places) Do I most of the time - no.
Developing a book of contacts is a skill. You can learn it.
*My grandma did this because I was her first grandchild. It was her thing, apparently.
Or is it just something you're willing to say from a comfortable distance on the internet, where you're not actually saying that about an actual human being, just about some kind of abstract, distant thing?
You can express those feelings without being harsh, insulting, abrasive, etc. Take a chill pill and think about whether adding all this negativity to the discussion actually makes things better.
Also, I feel compelled to point out that people of substance rarely feel the need to point it out on online forums.
You can express those feelings without being harsh, insulting, abrasive, etc. Take a chill pill and think about whether adding all this negativity to the discussion actually makes things better.
It does add to the discussion. The strong language highlights the predatory behavior better than kind words would. OChurch is simply a few decades ahead of his time in the sort of business behavior he will tolerate. Its like if you went back to the 50's and started calling out the rampant sexism using today's language!
1) There's still fairly rampant sexism, we're far from being out of the woods.
2) This whole habit of degenerating into insults just because you feel the other side is wrong or disgusting is really not serving any good purpose. I'd be as civil in the 50s as I am today, when pointing out what I consider to be misbehaviour. The only thing that changes is the level of misbehaviour that needs immediate addressing - obviously the threshold would have to be higher in the 50s because otherwise you'd spend all day telling people off.
There's no excuse for behaving like an uncouth beast - to women, to people you're arguing with, to people you're talking about, or to anyone indeed. As they say, a gentleman is a gentleman even in the gutter.
So you prefer a society that rewards winning the genetic lottery? I guess the others that lose can just serve the likes of you their entire life? What kind of talents do you suppose are from nature vs nurture?
First, there's her focus on hours.
Our team didn’t seem driven; they all finished work each day at 5:30. I remember watching “The Social Network” and admiring the passion and intelligence of the group of young engineers. My team didn’t look like that.
She wasn't unhappy because of the bugs. She was unhappy because her team didn't look like a star team. (How many stars would put up with her attitude?) What a fucking narcissist.
Second and related, there's her use of The Social Network to get a sense of what programmers are supposed to "look" like. That's offensive on so many damn levels I can't keep track of 'em all. The kicker, though, is this:
Because I’m a non-techie boss, my engineers know that I don’t understand how much time they will need to complete a task, __a deficiency that I’m sure they sometimes exploit__ (emphasis mine) and that I find incredibly frustrating.
What. A. Fucking. Bitch.
New York is swarming with non-technical douchebags whose connections get them some seed capital and possibly enough resources and client contacts to get started, and maybe even hire a few talented but clueless engineers who'll throw long hours after a bad idea. Avoid those types. They're horrible. They aren't successes in their own sphere (if they were good in the business game, they'd be in finance or consulting) and they aren't technical either, so you can't learn fuck-all from them. A great business partner, you could learn from. The sad fact, though, is that the rock stars of the business world have zero interest in the VC-funded startup world. Tech 8+ like me can't find our equals in the VC-funded world (Damaso Effect) because Biz 8s are CEOs' proteges and portfolio managers at hedge funds.
Not everyone who isn't technical sucks, for sure. However, the business world sends its rejects to manage nerds and nowhere is that more apparent than when one reads articles like this. There are great Harvard and Stanford MBAs, but they don't seem to end up as "business co-founders". They go into private equity, hedge funds, and CEO-protege type roles in business and stay there.
Finally, if you're going to found a tech company, learn technology. Learn to code well enough to understand why software engineering is hard (so you don't become that douchebag who thinks he could do the programmers' jobs with a year of training), learn how to deal with 140+ IQ people, learn how to identify useful problems, and learn enough about software culture that you're not using a fucking movie for pointers.