Drew Yates

Silicon Valley: where the two hottest girls at a party full of guys flirt with each other.

Rant versus Reason popularity as measured by traffic:

(as inspired by this and my pledge to positively contribute thoughtful ideas with less ranting)

I understand the frustration that engineering students and fledgling programmers feel when they first experience petitions from business students with startup ideas because I’ve felt that frustration myself. It’s a social struggle for status and identity which intrinsically favors business student. The engineering student is learning that their hard work in school does not entitle him to recognition and respect, and the business student is learning that he has no means to create anything alone. So the engineer seeks somebody to reward him, and the business student seeks somebody to reward —to create greater value for himself. As students are products school, the dynamic resembles school. Once again, the student programmer will work unhealthily hard to earn a reward imposed by others (like honor students), and the business student will work less but be respected more by capitalizing on his identity as a “social leader” (like football players).

Further, as business students almost always initiate the engagement, they lead relationship dynamic —to be in their favor. Often, the justification is that because the business student approached the programmer, the programmer works for the business student. This is called “having the idea,” but in practice, a startup idea is merely a decision to execute, not an idea of intrinsic value. [1] Leadership and the ability to make decisions is valuable, but only in groups with realizable ability to execute. Leadership of zero people is like division by zero: it’s undefined. Leadership of one people is like 1/1: two people to produce a one functional person. A 1 leader / 1 follower works for an Olympic gymnast and her coach, but in a startup, it’s a frustrating waste.

Since the business student needs the programmer, why doesn’t the programmer demand control of the engagement like, for example, an investor? Because the business student sets the initial expectations of the relationship, and changing those expectations may be very difficult or impossible for the programmer. For example, assume the business student suggests 10% equity for the programmer. To counter with 90% has been maneuvered to be too aggressive and would kill the deal. Even ambitious programmers will probably counter with 50%/50% (”fair”) and then compromise down to close. But even if a deal is reached, the programmer will feel offended and abused if they first thought that they deserved the better share.

Why don’t programmers approach business people to pay them to contribute their ideas? They do, for patent licenses, for example. But if my hypothesis is correct —that most startup ideas are merely decisions to execute rather than ideas of intrinsic value— then who would pay for a decision to execute? Nobody would unless they were convinced by others that they cannot make their own decisions. And to be convinced of that, I can see, is frustrating.

Programmers have a status inferiority complex, and ambitious engineering students feel entitled for respect for their “sacrifices” in school and esoteric technical skills —an expectation rarely socially realized outside of a geeky clique. The truth is that “engineer” and “programmer” are not high social status identities (they’re for “nerds”)[2]. Compounded by the introverted, intelligent, yet naive tendencies of engineering students, programmers may intellectually recognize that they are valuable yet do not command the respect they feel they deserve. Unfortunately, they have little ability to positively confront this frustration. So these humiliated ambitious programmers vent their frustration with violent outbursts against higher status people (business people) or retreat to status-supplements like video games like World of Warcraft. This dynamic may be intrinsic to being human, but it’s still unpleasant to be at the bottom of it.

Many business students are aggressive and gregarious, many programmers are socially awkward, and most inflammatory, the business student has no money to pay the programmer. So not only is the business student equipped to abuse, not only is the programmer equipped to be abused, but the situation forces business student to try to get more work for less. He can’t afford better behavior. [3]

Traditionally, when programmers contribute their programming skills to a business, it’s called “employment.” This is the cultural norm. So business students, despite paying less, try to mimic the employee-boss relationship model like how young girls try to mimic their parent’s dinner conversations with dolls. To them, that’s what “business” is. Programmers ambitious enough to want to start a startup will resent being treated like an employee, even if they’re called a “founder” and have an equity stake. Proud but resentful becomes humiliated, and humiliated becomes irrational and violent. Hence, a violent and socially destructive programmer rant explodes onto a blog.

---

[1] An idea like “let’s make a Facebook application about X (in March 2008)!” could lead to the realization of that idea which can be valuable (and thus the idea itself is valuable, since it initiated the effort), but such an idea by itself seems to have about a “n/0″ value, like a leader with no followers or a donut hole without a donut. …or maybe a “n/0 + n” value.[2] Is programming and engineering lower status that business? A programmer will try learn business, but a business man will avoid learning programming. Or, successful tech entrepreneurs with a programming background become “business people,” but successful tech entrepreneurs with a business background never become “programmers.” (both groups, if unsuccessful, become “technologists.”)

Note: “trying to” is not a sufficient condition for “succeeding at.”

[3] While gregarious programmers and awkward business people exist, the model is the other way. Claiming a counter example to a generality is not relevant to this essay, particularly since I assume such a dynamic would not produce the typical student programmer rant. Yes, it’s an unfortunate stereotype, and if I could discuss it without perpetuating it, I would. But unpleasantness doesn’t make a stereotype baseless.

A submission to news.ycombinator.com, a rant by a young programmer about business people with a startup idea seeking programmers to execute, incurred this comment. (the original submission has since been removed and replaced here. The original title was “So you “Just need a hacker,” huh?”):

37 points by pg 3 hours ago | link

This would be better if the half that consists of mere insults was replaced with some ideas. There’s a lot more you could say about this phenomenon, like why it happens, and what the solution might be.

Once again the top story is an embarrassment to News.YC. And unfortunately it is mostly the recently arrived users who voted it up. Maybe it’s inevitable that I’ll have to turn on some form of vote weighting.

I feel bad because I voted for the rant, and even though I’m not a new user, I feel that I have not taken the care to produce quality, well-thought ideas and have too often written or tolerated sensationalist rants.

I would like to make a commitment to express better ideas in my writing. I don’t think that this means being dull or professional, but I do think that it means that I have an obligation as a thinker and a writer to be more mature and productive.

Hey Reddit, I’m glad that you’re helping me fight The Man (Comcast)

I actually DO sometimes write meaningful, informational stuff (and not just angsty rants), too. Check out my genomics and biotech blog: Thinkgene.

To: Rick Germano, Senior Vice President of Customer Operations
Comcast

I am disgusted that I had to install your invasive software on my computer to “activate” my cable high-speed internet connection. You are an evil company, and I would happily pay more to any competitor for the same service if and when such a viable competitor sells service in my area.

This is my computer, not yours, and I especially resent your “by comcast” branding on every window. I had to spend significant time excising your inane, obnoxious, and intrusive software and settings from my system. I sincerely hope that I will soon have the opportunity to express my extreme dissatisfaction in a way that damages your business.

I have said as much in a phone interview after installation. Do not bother me with further surveys; I believe I have made my opinions regarding your business abundantly clear.

-Andrew Yates

PS: Whoever designed this email form should be fired. Your incompetence is only exceeded by your shameless and empty hypocritical “customer service” branding. “Here at Comcast, providing excellent customer service to you is our #1 priority.” Fuck you. Since your website is broken, I’m just going to post this message on my personal website where people will find it via Google until the end of time, FOREVER.

I hope that my letter published here negates the business decision you must have made that paying “customer handlers” to blunt the frustration of unhappy customers over the phone so that you may pursue evil business practices with minimal brand damage.

Again, this is Comcast high speed internet service in Mountain View, California.

Update: Basically, I was told that I had to install all this software (and enable about 3 active-x controls) before the cable modem would work. I was running Firefox at the same time, and I did check to see if the internet worked without installing the software (it didn’t). As far as I can tell, the modem won’t get a MAC address until the IE software install web application reports that you machine has been “installed.” There probably is some way to bypass this if your Comcast technician is savvy, but mine was not, and he’s paid to do what Comcast tells him to do, which is install the software as given. (no fault of the technician, it’s not his fault his company is evil. Getting upset at a technician or operator is a waste of effort and just makes the world more unhappy for no good. They have no power to make or influence policy, though they may be a jerk back to you and not help when they could have.)

Once Comcast has your MAC address, then you can uninstall everything and/or move the modem to a router with the same MAC address (which is what I did). This is far and above what should be expected of the average computer user, though.

ALSO: I had Comcast install the same service a year ago without incident, so this is a new policy.

This is too realistic to be funny.

Born Rich is an HBO documentary by Johnson & Johnson fortune heir, Jamie Johnson, about his peers: extremely wealthy twenty-something heirs to family fortunes. Big Pluses to Half Sigma for introducing me to this film (and from whom I shameless lift blog inspiration).

Characters

I want to be honest and fair to these people. These are real people talking about their lives. These aren’t actors playing parts for a television (excluding Ivanka). To be fair, I will be less-fair to the reviewers at IMDB…

• Ivanka Trump: Ivanka is by far the most media savvy of all the heirs interviewed, and she knows exactly what to say and how to act on camera to endear herself to an American audience. In fact, she’s working on a media career: Ivanka Trump at IMDB. Given her training, savvy, and experience, I can have little opinion about her personally beyond the general respect due to someone successfully pursuing a public career. That, and Ivanka is the daughter of a super model —and looks like it— helps her telegenics, too…Hilariously, other reviewers at IMDB described Ivanka as “fairly down-to-earth” and “the only genuine person [in the movie].
• Georgina Bloomberg: I like her. She’s articulate and savvy, but still sincere and vulnerable enough to be empathetic… unlike Ivanka, who presents herself as a groomed and molded character for American television. She seems to have retreated emotionally to her horses, which seems a bit sad. I hope that she has friends she can trust. (her riding outfit is sexy, too)
• S.I. Newhouse IV: XBox live Halo 3, Bud Light and liquor, and two-thirds of a industrial engineering undergrad.
• Luke Weil: Most people hate Luke, but really, he’s just paranoid that he’s nothing more than his inherited money, and he’s too immature to filter his deep misanthropy that has festered in that self-doubt. His misogynistic rant to me sounds desperately lonely and scared of women, and his lawsuit at the end confirms for me that he’s a terrified kid. I think that, as a person, he deserves more patience and sympathy. I don’t know if he’ll ever mature into a respectable adult, but he could. We’re not all the people we were when we were kids.
• Cody Franchetti: I like Cody. He is what he is, he knows it, and he’s comfortable with it. He doesn’t feel guilty about not being or tries to pretend to be an “ordinary, middle-class American” which I appreciate, because he’s not. That said, to me, his attitude invites a certain “fair game” attitude. That is, if there were some revolution and his mansion happened to be nearby… well, all is fair in love and war. Property rights are a social construct —right, Cody? I’d expect the same “fairness” from him any other weekday otherwise. Also: Books and pussy? I feel you, dude.
• Stephanie Ercklentz: Wow, one year at Merrill Lynch in a first-year banking job and the CEOs of companies write her personal notes inviting her to “ask them for anything, anytime.” That must have been some learning about “how to interact with clients.” Good thing her ibanking talents weren’t wasted in medicine, though what a shame that the American investment community no longer enjoys her economically salutary contributions. I understand. To achieve true happiness, one must follow one’s passions and not limit oneself pursuing an uninspired gift.
• Josiah Hornblower: By freshman year in high school, he owed and had nearly memorized every Goosebumps book ever published. Was in band, but not marching band. Plays the trumpet. One year of community college. Used to smoke pot and drinks hard liquor alone while watching reruns at 2am on a Tuesday. Now is trying to get a degree in business at the state university starting at 25. Currently has a B average.
• Carlo von Zeitschel
• Christina Floyd: Joined a sorority freshman year. Religiously watches American Idol. Prides herself on beer drinking skills, but “prefers wine.” Waits tables at Red Robin and aspires to bar tend. In fact, she achieves bar tender in a mere eight months at the Chili’s down the street because “she’s so tired of like, all the drama, at Red Robin.”
• Juliet Hartford: Could have been the daughter of a real estate broker in a midsized midwestern town.
• Jamie Johnson: I could imagine being good friends with Jamie.

Ok, that wasn’t very honest and fair. I tried to try.

Selected IMDB Comment Quotes

leychica from San Francisco, California, U.S.

…
Weil’s and von Zeitschel’s contributions to the film are embarrassing to watch, and epitomize everything that is wrong with inherited wealth. The other heirs in the film do not fare much better: Stephanie Erklentz quit her job as an investment banker at Merrill Lynch so she could spend her days shopping and sipping Bellinis with her friends. Cody Franchetti is an Italian textile heir who works as a model because he doesn’t want a “real job.” Juliet Hartford fancies herself a starving artist (minus the starving part) who, when asked what she would do with a million dollars in cash, says “I’d give it to the homeless,” then immediately bursts out laughing and spurts, “Just kidding!”

Cody has the power, looks, and intelligence to do whatever he wants. He doesn’t share, nor given his situation, should he share mainstream American middle class culture. His comment not wanting a “real job” was entirely reasonable and culturally relevant to him. I think that Hartford is an obnoxious brat, but I wouldn’t give a million dollars in cash to the homeless, either. A library? Ok. Foreign aid? Maybe. Assistance to schools? Definitely. Some ditzy chick to hand out a million dollars cash to bums on the street? Actually… that might be a million dollars worth of amusement…

…

The bright spot of “Born Rich” is Ivanka Trump, who is witty and articulate, and balks at the notion that the rich have no problems. She, along with S.I. Newhouse IV and Josiah Hornblower, appear to be the most well-adjusted of the bunch. They have contemplated the bizarreness of their lives, and seem to be aware of the trappings of decadence and materialism. (Newhouse chose to live in a shared college dorm instead of his father’s plush Manhattan penthouse.) These three have no pretenses: they are young adults with big bank accounts and huge legacies to fulfill.

…

If “well-adjusted” means “not threatening to what I prefer to believe about the world,” OK. Ivanka is non-threatening because she is a media professional. S.I. and Josiah are non-threating because despite their enormous power, they’re still kind of losers.

Author: Peter (fineanimal) from San Diego, California

..
Just like on skid row, a few of the young people here (especially Johnson himself) seem above average in terms of humanity, most of them are just average, and the remaining few seem to be useless wastes of human flesh that would bring shame to any family, rich or poor. That’s pretty much the same bell curve you’ll find in any other social strata of society, proving once again that money is ultimately irrelevant except to those who are obsessed by it.

Emphasis mine. The most insightful comment of all comments on IMDB. Too bad he weakened it with his statement that money is “ultimately irrelevant except to those who are obsessed by it.” On the surface, it seems profound, except on closer reading I don’t know what it’s supposed to mean. What makes anything relevant, “ultimately” or otherwise?

…

But it is Juliet Hartford who deserves the contempt award here for her answer to the question of what she’d do with a million dollars cash. Laughing at the homeless? I’ve worked with the homeless for years, and most of them are far superior in character and personality to Ms. Hartford (and from what I can tell, the homeless are more talented as well). Thank God she is locked in her own zoo, surrounded only by her own kind. I hate to think of how much damage a woman like this could cause in the real world, where real people live.

If by “locked in her own zoo” you mean “given millions of dollars and the freedom to spend them anywhere in the world” then yes.

Surprisingly, Ivanka Trump comes across as fairly down-to-earth. Ordinarily I would argue with a billionaire’s decision to use that money to simply build more ugly concrete and steel, when she has so much potential to build a better world instead. But at least she justifies her ambitions with a genuine interest in real estate development (”it’s in our blood”). That’s better than nothing.

“ugly concrete and steel?” Well, at least she justifies her ambition with a pithy cliche that’s “better than nothing.” Did you mean to say: “Ivanka charmed me, yet I can’t justify why I like her, so I’ll try to rationalize my emotional response to her telegenics?”

The only “sympathy” I can feel for these kids is the fact that they have been deprived of reality all their lives, and I don’t see any way they’ll ever experience that. They are so terrified of dating outside their own circles despite the incredibly boring people they have to choose from, I can’t see them ever making a truly meaningful connection with the masses that define their own species. Concepts such as honor, sacrifice, and simplicity seem to be completely foreign to them. Their parents really stole a lot from them, and it’s a shame they don’t recognize this and forsake their wealth for a better life. After all, they can always earn their own fortune later–it’d be as easy for them as it is for the rest of us, right?

Translation: I believe myself to be an ordinary middle-class American, and my culture is the only morally and fulfilling way to live.

tamimarie228 from Hiawatha Iowa

I know for a fact that having a ton of money does not equal happy. I am very poor and I am as happy as I could ever be. In this movie these rich offspring have all the money in the world but they seem so miserable. It’s probably because they are bored to tears playing polo and having suits made for them. I think having a purpose in life leads to greater happiness and most of these kids are trying to establish an identity away from their parents. Some are working at jobs although they are going to inherit tons of money. I liked the guy that said working hard made him feel good. I didn’t like the Luke character. I would like to stick him in a leaky trailer with no money in the middle of an ice storm when the power goes out. That would make me happy. Let’s see what he does then. I could not believe that Jamie Johnson complained when he bought bandages and whined that he didn’t get a discount. After this movie, I’ll keep on buying the generic brands and let these miserable kids suffer.

Ah, the sweet rumblings of a tiny ego torn asunder. This reads like a 42 year old gas station clerk trying to defend his belief in Jesus to some cocky atheist nerd buying RedBull at 2am.

Author: BEAuTIFuLme from United States

This “movie” was absolutely a joke. I have never in my life seen a movie so offensive or down right stuck up. Yes, learning about people who have a billion times more of everything than you is USUALLY entertaining or at least attention grabbing (for a few seconds) but this film took it way too far.

First of all, I didn’t even bother to remember who these morons were, I spent more time rolling my eyes than anything.

One kid’s family owns a bunch of magazines, he is the most stuck up, snobby, insensitive person I have seen thus far. He said that he didn’t have enough fingers on his hands to count how many THINGS his family owned and went off about “roughly” how much his family is worth (which is something that most of them did) and then he started on this sympathy trip which made absolutely no sense at all, saying that the only place he feels safe is his dorm room, pathetic.

Then there was a kid whose family has millions if not billion in the gaming business. He said things like, “Of course I’ll have a prenup, if the bitch doesn’t want one then I wouldn’t marry her anyway, she’d be a golddigger” He should only wish a woman can put up with him long enough to want to marry him for something BESIDES his money.

Then there was someone whose family has a textile business saying that he has never felt guilty in his life.

Another girl’s family owns the A&P supermarket chain and when asked what she would do with all of her family’s money she replied, “Give it all to the homeless…NO HAHA JUST KIDDING JUST KIDDING OH MY GOD, I’m SO KIDDING…no really, I’d buy a few houses maybe, with a nice art studio…”

There were a few others, look at the cast list if you wish, but they were all unbearable to watch…even a cocky boy from Germany who is “royal”.

The only genuine person there was Ivanka Trump, she was the only one who didn’t seem totally stuck on the money aspect of her life. Makes sense, at one point her father was millions of dollars in debt. “Once we were standing outside the apartment building and a homeless man was sitting outside and my father [Trump] told me, “That man has $800 million more that I do”" She was the only reason I kept watching, she was actually genuine. I applaud her.

All in all this movie was a joke. It seemed as though the kid who made the movie (heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune)was making it to have people see how rich kids really are and to even feel sorry for them because “their lives are so hard” Examples- Getting picked up from school in a limousine to go to exotic places (How embarrassing!) or Getting teased because you have the best horse in show so you must not be that good of a rider… It was a disgrace and should bring extreme shame upon his family…they already have a law suit because of it.

Despite the obvious cognitive disodence and lacking cognitive ability, “BEAuTIFuLme” actually had something intelligent to say about every character she mentioned except Ivanka and Jamie. It IS pathetic that S.I. only feels “safe” in his dorm room. Cody’s guiltless aristocratic airs are overly conscious and exaggerated. Juliet is a shallow, stupid bitch. But how is the movie a disgrace? Because television makes reality, and this reality kind of sucks if  you’re trying to pay your bills? Sorry, in a documentary, it’s the other way around, Beautiful.

(from an email)

I use XHTML Strict, I handwrite my XHTML/CSS, and while I prefer a div-based layout, I have written and sometimes use table-based layouts. I have been writing XHTML/CSS professionally for years since before CSS became vogue, and I can say with authority:

Validation is like English grammar.

• Validation is not sufficient nor necessary for comprehension. Often, (programmer-types especially) tend to blame poor communication (UI is as much communication as written language) on the “stupid user” because they “followed all the rules” and therefore the user (or browser) must be wrong. NO! The objective is comprehension itself, NOT the metric! In practice, this means thinking and working at a few levels higher than simple validation to write anything acceptable. I can and will violate any “rule” to achieve a higher objective. What George Orwell states in his essay “Politics and the English Language” applies to all communication: written, spoken, UI, and even humble XHTML.
• Announcing validation to the user is like bragging about perfect grammar and spelling. Imagine a “Certified American English” badge on the front page of the New York Times (or any other publication). Disgusting.
• Attacking minor validation mistakes of a work is ad hominium and at worst pedantic posturing to assert one’s intellect. Yes, like a reputation of poor character or lack of credentials, flagrantly poor validation is a reasonable metric by which one may condemn a work preempting comprehension. A few errors, particularly errors which do not inhibit comprehension nor suggest illiteracy, are excusable and, in context, expected.

XHTML in Practice:

• Create single-page static XHTML/CSS markup. Test this layout visually in all common browser / OS combinations, validate, and kept as a “pristine” standard. This helps establish a foundation from which one may reference to debug the UI in implementation. Maintain this static XHTML foundation XHTML as the website evolves.
• Validation is most important for heavily-dynamic DHTML applications. Weigh perfect validation much more for complex DHTML.
• Do not correct “cited” XHTML unless necessary for comprehension. Cited XHTML is code copied from a trusted source and is usually the implementation of some third-party tool like Google AdSense. This is because one trusts that the implementation suggested by the tool manufacturer is best until proven otherwise. For example:

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thinkgene.com%2F

ThinkGene does not validate because a third-party tool (Feedburner) uses a non-standard implementation. Note that this is the only validation error.

• Since attacking markup can be sociologically ad hominium, beware of attacking others about their XHTML markup, especially if that’s not their expertise. For example, on ThinkGene, my biologist contributer used ‘border=”0″‘ rather than ‘”style=”border: none;”‘ on an image in a news post. I’m not going to delay a post to irritate my biologist with pedantic grammatical details, though I eventually and quietly corrected the benign flaw when convenient. Have a process to manage quality, but don’t distract or demoralize your team with nonsense like temporary minor validation errors or TPS coversheets. Chasing non-critical XHTML errors isn’t going to make or break a business, and in a startup, one likely has other priorities that are much more business-critical.
• TEST YOUR WEBSITE VISUALLY! Internet tools exist which will display webpages in many common browser / OS environments. I personally use browsershots.org for my private projects.
• The web is not a perfectionist medium. Like virtually all engineering projects, website code quality is a variable which may be strategically adjusted.
• There is no pride in some asinine, convoluted CSS layout to avoid using a table. Grow up, that nonsense is for Digg nerds.

Wow, it’s very easy not to write for a while… People have told me that they like reading my inane daily thoughts. By this impetus I resume my journal log at log.drewyates.net.