Your salary from Bank of America comes from customers -- even if you're paid from investment, the investment is only there because Bank of America has customers. Your research in academia is paid for by customers of the institution, both former and present, and possibly governments (who are also interested in the product of the research). Your shortsighted world view is tragically common in those who favor academia, and without paying customers driving research into new areas, your precious academia wouldn't exist and you'd do well to understand that. Money is everything.
What the hell do you think the point of academia is? All throughout history, the sciences are almost always advanced due to a pressing need or mistake from practical execution.
> cs is what matters.
Execution is the only thing in the world that matters. You are basically admitting that you're the idea guy, searching for a "technical co-founder".
Had Mark Zuckerberg spent a lot of time worried about the runtime efficiency of parts of his code or whether there was a more efficient algorithm for sorting friends, Facebook would be nothing today. He executed and didn't give a shit, because he wasn't exercising computer science, he was exercising building a product.
Surely people went back and made things more efficient as Facebook scaled, but I've been at a rapidly-growing startup a while, and I haven't made my product more efficient through many computer science advances. Most have been using better software, better network topology, better configuration, less dumb code, and so on.
Your attitude completely misses what the article is explaining, and, frankly, your ad hominem on the guy talking about Agile is completely out of place when practically your entire LinkedIn profile is buzzwords, just your field instead of his.
(Aside: I love that HN makes it really easy to build a list of no-hires, fairly easily, just by observing how people think and communicate.)
"I haven't made my product more efficient through many computer science advances. Most have been using better software, better network topology, better configuration, less dumb code, and so on."
Please stop. You're getting irony all over my desk here.
No. I will not silence my opinion because you disagree. Although your comment is almost devoid of insight, I would infer that you're implying I'm being obtuse regarding the role of computer science in making my stuff better. Example of a performance improvement: choosing a frobnicator that uses multiple cores to frobnicate instead of a single core to frobnicate. Do I have computer science to thank for that? In a way, the same way I have medical research to thank for Advil. However, it's disingenuous to say medical research got rid of my headache. The Advil did.
Computer science has its place, but it needs to be more aware of that place. This thread is a very poignant demonstration of that.
Oh, dear Lord. This comment makes me hurt.
Your salary from Bank of America comes from customers -- even if you're paid from investment, the investment is only there because Bank of America has customers. Your research in academia is paid for by customers of the institution, both former and present, and possibly governments (who are also interested in the product of the research). Your shortsighted world view is tragically common in those who favor academia, and without paying customers driving research into new areas, your precious academia wouldn't exist and you'd do well to understand that. Money is everything.
What the hell do you think the point of academia is? All throughout history, the sciences are almost always advanced due to a pressing need or mistake from practical execution.
> cs is what matters.
Execution is the only thing in the world that matters. You are basically admitting that you're the idea guy, searching for a "technical co-founder".
Had Mark Zuckerberg spent a lot of time worried about the runtime efficiency of parts of his code or whether there was a more efficient algorithm for sorting friends, Facebook would be nothing today. He executed and didn't give a shit, because he wasn't exercising computer science, he was exercising building a product.
Surely people went back and made things more efficient as Facebook scaled, but I've been at a rapidly-growing startup a while, and I haven't made my product more efficient through many computer science advances. Most have been using better software, better network topology, better configuration, less dumb code, and so on.
Your attitude completely misses what the article is explaining, and, frankly, your ad hominem on the guy talking about Agile is completely out of place when practically your entire LinkedIn profile is buzzwords, just your field instead of his.
(Aside: I love that HN makes it really easy to build a list of no-hires, fairly easily, just by observing how people think and communicate.)