Fucking

Explore resources related to fucking to help implement AI solutions for your business.

reddit

0

0

didntfinishhighschoo•This week

[D] Why can't you guys comment your fucking code?

Seriously. I spent the last few years doing web app development. Dug into DL a couple months ago. Supposedly, compared to the post-post-post-docs doing AI stuff, JavaScript developers should be inbred peasants. But every project these peasants release, even a fucking library that colorizes CLI output, has a catchy name, extensive docs, shitloads of comments, fuckton of tests, semantic versioning, changelog, and, oh my god, better variable names than ctxh or langhs or fuckyoufortryingto_understand. The concepts and ideas behind DL, GANs, LSTMs, CNNs, whatever – it's clear, it's simple, it's intuitive. The slog is to go through the jargon (that keeps changing beneath your feet - what's the point of using fancy words if you can't keep them consistent?), the unnecessary equations, trying to squeeze meaning from bullshit language used in papers, figuring out the super important steps, preprocessing, hyperparameters optimization that the authors, oops, failed to mention. Sorry for singling out, but look at this - what the fuck? If a developer anywhere else at Facebook would get this code for a review they would throw up. Do you intentionally try to obfuscate your papers? Is pseudo-code a fucking premium? Can you at least try to give some intuition before showering the reader with equations? How the fuck do you dare to release a paper without source code? Why the fuck do you never ever add comments to you code? When naming things, are you charged by the character? Do you get a bonus for acronyms? Do you realize that OpenAI having needed to release a "baseline" TRPO implementation is a fucking disgrace to your profession? Jesus christ, who decided to name a tensor concatenation function cat?

#reddit#can't#guys

reddit

0

1

asdasdasda134•This week

I'm a dev with zero fucking ideas. Help?

Long-time lurker, first-time poster here. I'm hoping you guys can help me out. I consider myself an above average engineer. With over 8 years of industry experience, I can whip out an MVP fast and iterate quickly. I love coding and learning new tech, but here's the issue—I've got absolutely no clue what to build. It's like I'm the least creative person I know, and can't find even one problem to solve. I've tried everything I can think of: Scrolling through ProductHunt until my eyes bled Asking non-tech friends about their "pain points" Stalking Twitter/X to see what people are building Experimenting with new AI tech to explore possibilities I've even attempted to build products. Almost 6 months ago, I started working on an AI conversation app to help non-native speakers like myself improve their English. But I soon realized there were already hundreds of apps doing this, and doing it much better than I could. I abandoned the project, figuring it wasn't unique enough. Same story with a couple of other projects that I started working on and abandoned later. So my question is how the heck you all come up with ideas? Any advice, commiseration, or hell—even random ideas you don’t want to build—would be greatly appreciated.

#reddit#zero#fucking

reddit

0

1

What_The_Hex•This week

I am considering starting a SaaS business that automates the creation of long-form SEO-optimized blog posts. Is this something you would find useful, as a business owner?

Trying to gauge the general interest level, from other entrepreneurs/business owners. The idea is, a tool that automates the process of creating long-form SEO optimized blog posts to promote your business -- perhaps creating entire batches of such posts, all from just one button click. Like if you could just describe your business, click a button, and BAM, it just outputs like an entire month's worth of absolutely fire SEO-optimized long-form blog posts? That would be super fucking convenient. Yes you can use ChatGPT for this, but the character limits make it so it can only output very short posts. Otherwise it requires first asking for an outline, then getting the different sections piecemeal and pasting it all together yourself. Still super time-consuming to do it that way. A GPT-based solution could probably automate the process I've hit upon in my own SEO blog-posting workflow -- where I output not just finished long-form blog posts, but also convert them into SEO-optimized HTML code so you can just paste it into your blog post website and have all the header tags etc set up for optimal SEO/keyword ranking purposes. Biggest counter-argument I make against this is, there are undoubtedly lots of companies already offering this. Doesn't mean I can't make money doing it. I just don't like entering super crowded marketplaces. Other main argument I have is, if I used my OpenAI account for this, there's the risk of some malicious/idiot user firing prompts that violate the OpenAI ToS and get me banned. I COULD have them input their own OpenAI API tokens, but that just adds adoption/usage barriers that would make it way harder to market/acquire initial customers. I guess I could sanitize the user inputs as a pre-processing step to block any obscene prompts or anything like that, but still, it's a risk. Let me know your thoughts on this idea. ASSUMING it worked effectively -- and made it very easy for you to just describe your business offerings / value propositions / target market(s), then get genuinely useful long-form SEO-optimized blog posts, is this something you'd be willing to pay for? If so, what dollar amount, to you, would seem reasonable? It would probably just be hosted on a website. Then you'd just copy the outputted final result for use as needed on your website. That would be the simplest way to do it. Technically it could function as like, a plugin for specific websites that maybe auto-posts them for you too -- it would be simpler, on my end, to start out doing this on a standalone website. (Might also make it easier to allow users to try it out, on first visit.) One last point -- MAYBE it would have an optional intermediate step, where it would first output the planned outline for the blog post, allowing you to pop in, quickly modify that, add your own thoughts / valuable ideas (to help make the blog post more unique, truly useful for readers, more your own) -- THEN you could finalize it and hit submit. Again, that's the workflow I've hit upon in my own semi-automated blog-posting workflow, and it's led to some pretty useful long-form content that isn't just, boring garbage, but contains lots of genuinely useful ideas that I would include in my own uniquely-created blog posts on the subject. But instead of me taking the time to write it, I just kinda toss in a few quickly typed out ideas to expand upon, and ChatGPT does the rest. Imagine that kind of optional / customizable workflow, but the rest of it is fully automated. OR you could just get the fully automated blog posts with no revisions on your part. Thanks!

#reddit#considering#starting

reddit

0

1

WhosAfraidOf_138•This week

Month 2 of building my startup after being laid off - $200 in revenue and 4 (actual) paying customers

In September 2024, I got laid off from my Silicon Valley job. It fucking sucked. I took a day to be sad, then got to work - I'm not one to wallow, I prefer action. Updated my resume, hit up my network, started interviewing. During this time, I had a realization - I'm tired of depending on a single income stream. I needed to diversify. Then it hit me: I literally work with RAG (retrieval augmented generation) in AI. Why not use this knowledge to help small businesses reduce their customer service load and boost sales? One month later, Answer HQ 0.5 (the MVP) was in the hands of our first users (shoutout to these alpha testers - their feedback shaped everything). By month 2, Answer HQ 1.0 launched with four paying customers, and growing. You're probably thinking - great, another chatbot. Yes, Answer HQ is a chatbot at its core. But here's the difference: it actually works. Our paying customers are seeing real results in reducing support load, plus it has something unique - it actively drives sales by turning customer questions into conversions. How? The AI doesn't just answer questions, it naturally recommends relevant products and content (blogs, social media, etc). Since I'm targeting small business owners (who usually aren't tech wizards) and early startups, Answer HQ had to be dead simple to set up. Here's my onboarding process - just 4 steps. I've checked out competitors like Intercom and Crisp, and I can say this: if my non-tech fiancée can set up an assistant on her blog in minutes, anyone can. Key learnings so far: Building in public is powerful. I shared my journey on Threads and X, and the support for a solo founder has been amazing. AI dev tools (Cursor, Claude Sonnet 3.5) have made MVP development incredibly accessible. You can get a working prototype frontend ready in days. I don't see how traditional no-code tools can survive in this age. But.. for a production-ready product? You still need dev skills and background. Example: I use Redis for super-fast loading of configs and themes. An AI won't suggest this optimization unless you know to ask for it. Another example: Cursor + Sonnet 3.5 struggles with code bases with many files and dependencies. It will change things you don't want it to change. Unless you can read code + understand it + know what needs to be changed and not changed, you'll easily run into upper limits of what prompting alone can do. I never mention "artificial intelligence" "AI" "machine learning" or any of these buzzwords once in my copy in my landing page, docs, product, etc. There is no point. Your customers do not care that something has AI in it. AI is not the product. Solving their pain points and problems is the product. AI is simply a tool of many tools like databases, APIs, caching, system design, etc. Early on, I personally onboarded every user through video calls. Time-consuming? Yes. But it helped me deeply understand their pain points and needs. I wasn't selling tech - I was showing them solutions to their problems. Tech stack: NextJS/React/Tailwind/shadcn frontend, Python FastAPI backend. Using Supabase Postgres, Upstash Redis, and Pinecone for different data needs. Hosted on Vercel and Render.com. Customer growth: Started with one alpha tester who saw such great results (especially in driving e-commerce sales) that he insisted on paying for a full year to keep me motivated. This led to two monthly customers, then a fourth annual customer after I raised prices. My advisor actually pushed me to raise prices again, saying I was undercharging for the value provided. I have settled on my final pricing now. I am learning so much. Traditionally, I have a software development and product management background. I am weak in sales and marketing. Building that app, designing the architecture, talking to customers, etc, these are all my strong suits. I enjoy doing it too. But now I need to improve on my ability to market the startup and really start learning things like SEO, content marketing, cold outreach, etc. I enjoying learning new skills. Happy to answer any questions about the journey so far!

#reddit#month#building

reddit

0

0.778

donkey_strom16001•This week

[D] The Rants of an experienced engineer who glimpsed into AI Academia (Briefly)

Background I recently graduated with a master's degree and was fortunate/unfortunate to glimpse the whole "Academic" side of ML. I took a thesis track in my degree because as an immigrant it's harder to get into a good research lab without having authorship in a couple of good papers (Or so I delude myself ). I worked as a Full-stack SWE for a startup for 4+ years before coming to the US for a master’s degree focused on ML and AI. I did everything in those years. From project management to building fully polished S/W products to DevOps to even dabbled in ML. I did my Batchelor’s degree from a university whose name is not even worth mentioning. The university for my master’s degree is in the top 20 in the AI space. I didn't know much about ML and the curiosity drove me to university. Come to uni and I focused on learning ML and AI for one 1-1.5 years after which I found advisors for a thesis topic. This is when the fun starts. I had the most amazing advisors but the entire peer review system and the way we assess ML/Science is what ticked me off. This is where the rant begins. Rant 1:Acadmia follows a Gated Institutional Narrative Let's say you are a Ph.D. at the world's top AI institution working under the best prof. You have a way higher likelihood of you getting a good Postdoc at a huge research lab vs someone's from my poor country doing a Ph.D. with a not-so-well-known advisor having published not-so-well-known papers. I come from a developing nation and I see this many times here. In my country academics don't get funding as they do at colleges in the US. One of the reasons for this is that colleges don't have such huge endowments and many academics don't have wealthy research sponsors. Brand names and prestige carry massive weight to help get funding in US academic circles. This prestige/money percolates down to the students and the researchers who work there. Students in top colleges get a huge advantage and the circles of top researchers keep being from the same sets of institutions. I have nothing against top researchers from top institutions but due to the nature of citations and the way the money flows based on them, a vicious cycle is created where the best institutions keep getting better and the rest don't get as much of a notice. Rant 2: Peer Review without Code Review in ML/AI is shady I am a computer scientist and I was appalled when I heard that you don't need to do code reviews for research papers. As a computer scientist and someone who actually did shit tons of actual ML in the past year, I find it absolutely garbage that code reviews are not a part of this system. I am not saying every scientist who reads a paper should review code but at least one person should for any paper's code submission. At least in ML and AI space. This is basic. I don't get why people call themselves computer scientists if they don't want to read the fucking code. If you can't then make a grad student do it. But for the collective of science, we need this. The core problem lies in the fact that peer review is free. : There should be better solutions for this. We ended up creating Git and that changed so many lives. Academic Research needs something similar. Rant 3: My Idea is Novel Until I see Someone Else's Paper The volume of scientific research is growing exponentially. Information is being created faster than we can digest. We can't expect people to know everything and the amount of overlap in the AI/ML fields requires way better search engines than Google Scholar. The side effect of large volumes of research is that every paper is doing something "novel" making it harder to filter what the fuck was novel. I have had so many experiences where I coded up something and came to realize that someone else has done something symbolically similar and my work just seems like a small variant of that. That's what fucks with my head. Is what I did in Novel? What the fuck is Novel? Is stitching up a transformer to any problem with fancy embeddings and tidying it up as a research paper Novel? Is just making a transformer bigger Novel? Is some new RL algorithm tested with 5 seeds and some fancy fucking prior and some esoteric reasoning for its success Novel? Is using an over parameterized model to get 95% accuracy on 200 sample test set Novel? Is apply Self-supervised learning for some new dataset Novel? If I keep on listing questions on novelty, I can probably write a novel asking about what the fuck is "Novel". Rant 4: Citation Based Optimization Promotes Self Growth Over Collective Growth Whatever people may say about collaboration, Academia intrinsically doesn't promote the right incentive structures to harbor collaboration. Let me explain, When you write a paper, the position of your name matters. If you are just a Ph.D. student and a first author to a paper, it's great. If you are an nth author Not so great. Apparently, this is a very touchy thing for academics. And lots of egos can clash around numbering and ordering of names. I distinctly remember once attending some seminar in a lab and approaching a few students on research project ideas. The first thing that came out of the PhD student's mouth was the position in authorship. As an engineer who worked with teams in the past, this was never something I had thought about. Especially because I worked in industry, where it's always the group over the person. Academia is the reverse. Academia applauds the celebration of the individual's achievements. All of this is understandable but it's something I don't like. This makes PhDs stick to their lane. The way citations/research-focus calibrate the "hire-ability" and "completion of Ph.D. thesis" metrics, people are incentivized to think about themselves instead of thinking about collaborations for making something better. Conclusion A Ph.D. in its most idealistic sense for me is the pursuit of hard ideas(I am poetic that way). In a situation like now when you have to publish or perish and words on paper get passed off as science without even seeing the code that runs it, I am extremely discouraged to go down that route. All these rants are not to diss on scientists. I did them because "we" as a community need better ways to addressing some of these problems. P.S. Never expected so many people to express their opinions about this rant. U shouldn’t take this seriously. As many people have stated I am an outsider with tiny experience to give a full picture. I realize that my post as coming out as something which tries to dichotomize academia and industry. I am not trying to do that. I wanted to highlight some problems I saw for which there is no one person to blame. These issues are in my opinion a byproduct of the economics which created this system. Thank you for gold stranger.

#reddit#rants#experienced

reddit

0

0.333

MrAcurite•This week

[D] I don't really trust papers out of "Top Labs" anymore

I mean, I trust that the numbers they got are accurate and that they really did the work and got the results. I believe those. It's just that, take the recent "An Evolutionary Approach to Dynamic Introduction of Tasks in Large-scale Multitask Learning Systems" paper. It's 18 pages of talking through this pretty convoluted evolutionary and multitask learning algorithm, it's pretty interesting, solves a bunch of problems. But two notes. One, the big number they cite as the success metric is 99.43 on CIFAR-10, against a SotA of 99.40, so woop-de-fucking-doo in the grand scheme of things. Two, there's a chart towards the end of the paper that details how many TPU core-hours were used for just the training regimens that results in the final results. The sum total is 17,810 core-hours. Let's assume that for someone who doesn't work at Google, you'd have to use on-demand pricing of $3.22/hr. This means that these trained models cost $57,348. Strictly speaking, throwing enough compute at a general enough genetic algorithm will eventually produce arbitrarily good performance, so while you can absolutely read this paper and collect interesting ideas about how to use genetic algorithms to accomplish multitask learning by having each new task leverage learned weights from previous tasks by defining modifications to a subset of components of a pre-existing model, there's a meta-textual level on which this paper is just "Jeff Dean spent enough money to feed a family of four for half a decade to get a 0.03% improvement on CIFAR-10." OpenAI is far and away the worst offender here, but it seems like everyone's doing it. You throw a fuckton of compute and a light ganache of new ideas at an existing problem with existing data and existing benchmarks, and then if your numbers are infinitesimally higher than their numbers, you get to put a lil' sticker on your CV. Why should I trust that your ideas are even any good? I can't check them, I can't apply them to my own projects. Is this really what we're comfortable with as a community? A handful of corporations and the occasional university waving their dicks at everyone because they've got the compute to burn and we don't? There's a level at which I think there should be a new journal, exclusively for papers in which you can replicate their experimental results in under eight hours on a single consumer GPU.

#reddit#don't#really

reddit

0

0.778

ballerburg9005•This week

[D] Playing big league at home on a budget?

I am a hobbyist and my Nvidia 660 is 10 years old and only has 2GB. Obviously that isn't going to cut it nowadays anymore. I am thinking about options here. I don't have thousands and thousands of dollars. And I highly doubt that spending close to a thousand dollars on a brand new card is still viable in 2020-2022. I wanted to use Wavenet today and then found out about Melnet. I mean, maybe I could run Wavenet but nobody in their right mind wants to after hearing Melnet results. On Github this one guy complained he couldn't get his implementation to work due to OOM with 2x 2080 RTX, which he bought solely for this purpose. Then on the other repo the guy casually mentioned that tier XY doesn't fit with some 10 year old lowfi dataset, even with batch size 1, on a 16GB Tesla P100. The wisdom for OOM has always been "decrease batch size". But as far as I can tell, for most of any of the interesting stuff in the last 8 years or so you simply can't decrease batch size. Either because batch sizes are already so tiny, or because the code is written in a way that would require you to somehow turn it inside out, probably involving extreme knowledge of higher mathematics. I am a hobbyist, not a researcher. I am happy if I crudely can grasp what is going on. Most of anything in the field suffers from exactly the same issue: It simply won't run without utterly absurd amounts of VRAM. So what about buying shitty cheapo AMD GPUs with lots of VRAM? This seems to be the sensible choice if you want to be able to run anything noteworthy at all that comes up in the next 2 years and maybe beyond. People say, don't but AMD its slow and it sucks, but those are apparently the same people that buy a 16GB Titan GPU for $1500 three times on Ebay without hesitation, when there are also 16GB AMD GPUs for $300. How much slower are AMD GPUs really? Let's say they are 5 times cheaper so they could be just 5 times slower. So I have to train my model over night instead of seeing the result in the afternoon. That would be totally awesome!; given that the alternative is to buy a $300 Nvidia GPU, which has maybe 4 or 6GB and simply can't run the code without running out of memory. And say $300 is not enough, let's buy a $700 RTX 3080. It still only has 10GB of VRAM not even 16GB. Then its just as useless! What's the point of buying a fast GPU if it can't even run the code? I don't know how much slower AMD GPUs really are. Maybe they are not 5x but 50x slower. Then of course training a model that was developed on some 64GB Tesla might take month and years. But maybe speed is not the issue, only memory. I have seen some stuff even being optimized for CPU, apparently because there weren't any big enough GPUs around. I don't really know how viable that can be (it seems rarely if ever it is), I have no experience. And what about renting AWS? Let's say, I am a beginner and I want to toy around for a week and probably max out 4 Teslas like 80% of the time without really getting anywhere. How expensive is that? $25, $50, $100, $500? (Found the answer: fucking $2000 https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/p3/ ) Ok, so AWS is bullshit, here its 6x cheaper: https://vast.ai/console/create/ . They don't really have 4x 16GB V100 though, just one V100. $0.5 per hour 24 7 = $84 per month (there are more hidden cost like bandwidth, it doesn't seem to be huge but I never used this so don't take it at face value). On AWS the same is over $3 per hour. So a day is $12, this could be viable! (look at calculation below). There really isn't much info on the net about hardware requirements and performance for machine learning stuff. What bothers me the most is that people seem to be very ignorant of the VRAM issue. Either because they aren't looking ahead of what might come in 1-2 years. Or because they are simply so rich they have no issue spending thousands and thousands of dollars every year instead of just 500 every couple of years. Or maybe they are both. So, yeah, what are your thoughts? Here is what I found out just today: Until 2 years ago, tensorflow and pytorch wouldn't work with AMD cards, but this has changed. https://rocmdocs.amd.com/en/latest/Deep_learning/Deep-learning.html For older cards though, ROCm only works with certain CPUs: it needs PCIe 3.0 with atomics (see: https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCm ). So you can't simply buy any 16GB card for $300 on Ebay like I suggested, even if it supports ROCm, because it will only work for "newer" PCs. The newer GFX9 AMD cards (like Radeon VII and Vega) don't suffer from this problem and work with PCIe 2.0 again... Although I have seen 16GB Vega cards for like $350 on Ebay, I think that is a pretty rare catch. However looking 1-2 years in the future, this is great because Radeon VII prices will be hugely inflated by Nvidia 3000 series hype (maybe down to $180 even) and maybe the next gen cards from AMD even have 24 or 32GB for $500-$1000 and can still run on old machines. According to this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.06842.pdf Radeon VII 16GB performs only half as good as Tesla V100 16GB, whereas V100 should be roughly along the lines of 11GB RTX 2080 Ti. So you could say that you get half the RAM, double the speed, double the price. I am not sure though if that holds. I think they were putting 16GB in those cards trying to push it for ML with ROCm, clearly addressing the problem of the time, but no one really jumped on the train and now Resnet shrinks RAM but needs more processing power. So they released 8GB cards again with slightly better performance, and I guess we are lucky if the next generation even has 16GB because games probably don't need it at all. Still though with Revnets and everything said in the comments, I think on a budget you are better on the safe side buying the card with the most amount of VRAM, rather than the most performance. Tomorrow some paper might come out that uses another method, then you can't trick-shrink your network anymore and then everyone needs to buy big ass cards again like it used to be and can do nothing but throw their fancy faster cards in the dumpster. Also the huge bulk of ML currently focuses on image processing, while sound has only been gaining real momentum recently and this will be followed by video processing and eventually human-alike thought processes that sit atop of all that and have not even been tackled yet. Its a rapidly evolving field, hard to predict what will come and stay. Running out of VRAM means total hardware failure, running slower just means waiting longer. If you just buy the newest card every year, its probably save to buy the fast card because things won't change that fast after all. If you buy a new card every 4 years or longer then just try to get as much VRAM as possible. Check this out: https://www.techspot.com/news/86811-gigabyte-accidentally-reveals-rtx-3070-16gb-rtx-3080.html There will be a 3070 16GB version! Let's compare renting one V100 at $12/day vs. buying a 3070 Ti 16GB: The 2080 Ti was 1.42x the price of the regular 2080 and released the next summer. So let's assume the same will be true to the 3070 Ti so it will cost $700. That is $30/month & $1.88/day for two years - $15/month & $0.94/day in four years (by which time you can probably rent some 32GB Tesla card for the same price and nothing recent runs on less anymore). If you max out your setup 24/7 all year, then power cost obviously becomes a huge factor to that figure. In my country running at 500W cost $4.21/day, or $1.60 / 9hrs overnight. If you live elsewhere it might be as much as a quarter of that price. Of course your PC may run 10h a day anyway, so its maybe just 300W plus, and an older graphics card is inefficient for games it eats more Watts to do the same things so you save some there as well. There is a lot to take into account if comparing. Anyway, factoring in power cost, to break even with buying the card vs. renting within two years, you would have to use it for at least 4 days a month, or almost 2 weeks every 3 month. If you use it less than that, you maybe have a nice new graphics card and less hassle with pushing stuff back and forth onto servers all the time. But it would have been more economic to rent. So renting isn't that bad after all. Overall if you are thinking about having this as your hobby, you could say that it will cost you at least $30 per month, if not $50 or more (when keeping up to date with cards every 2 instead of 4 years + using it more cost more power). I think that is quite hefty. Personally I am not even invested enough into this even if it wasn't over my finances. I want a new card of course and also play some new games, but I don't really need to. There are a lot of other (more) important things I am interested in, that are totally free.

#reddit#playing#league

reddit

0

0.6

madscholar•This week

Where Do I Find Like-Minded, Unorthodox Co-founders? [Tech]

After more than 20 years in the tech industry I'm pretty fed up. I've been at it non-stop, so the burnout was building up for a while. Eventually, it's gotten so bad that it was no longer a question whether I need to take a break; I knew that I had to, for the sake of myself and loved ones. A few months ago I quit my well-paying, mid-level mgmt job to have some much-needed respite. I can't say that I've fully recovered, but I'm doing a bit better, so I'm starting to think about what's next. That said, the thoughts of going back into the rat race fill me with dread and anxiety. I've had an interesting career - I spent most of it in startups doing various roles from an SWE to a VP Eng, including having my own startup adventures for a couple of years. The last 4.5 years of my career have been in one of the fastest growing tech companies - it was a great learning experience, but also incredibly stressful, toxic and demoralizing. It's clear to me that I'm not cut out for the corporate world -- the ethos contradicts with my personality and beliefs -- but it's not just. I've accumulated "emotional scars" from practically every place I worked at and it made me loathe the industry to the degree that if I ever have another startup, it'd have to be by my own -- unorthodox -- ideals, even if it means a premature death due to lack of funding. I was young, stupid and overly confident when I had my first startup. I tried to do it "by the book" and dance to the tune of investors. While my startup failed for other, unrelated reasons, it gave me an opportunity to peak behind the curtain, experience the power dynamics, and get a better understanding to how the game is played - VCs and other person of interest have popularized the misconception that if a company doesn't scale, it would stagnate and eventually regress and die. This is nonsense. This narrative was created because it would make the capitalist pigs obsolete - they need companies to go through the entire alphabet before forcing them to sell or IPO. The sad reality is that the most entrepreneurs still believe in this paradigm and fall into the VC's honeypot traps. It's true that many businesses cannot bootstrap or scale without VC money, but it's equally true that far too many companies pivot/scale prematurely (and enshitify their product in the process) due to external pressures fueled by pure greed. This has a top-bottom effect - enshitification doesn't only effect users, but it also heavily effects the processes and structrures of companies, which can explain why the average tenure in tech is only \~2 years. I think that we live in an age where self-starting startups are more feasible than ever. It's not just the rise of AI and automation, but also the plethora of tools, services, and open-source projects that are available to all for free. On the one hand, this is fantastic, but on the other, the low barrier-to-entry creates oversaturation of companies which makes research & discovery incredibly hard - it is overwhelming to keep up with the pace and distill the signal from the noise, and there's a LOT of noise - there's not enough metaphorical real-estate for the graveyard of startups that will be defunct in the very near future. I'd like to experiment with startups again, but I don't want to navigate through this complex mine field all by myself - I want to find a like-minded co-founder who shares the same ideals as I do. It goes without saying that being on the same page isn't enough - I also want someone who's experienced, intelligent, creative, productive, well-rounded, etc. At the moment, I don't have anyone in my professional network who has/wants what it takes. I can look into startup bootcamps/accelerators like YC et al., and sure enough, I'll find talented individuals, but it'd be a mismatch from the get-go. For shits and giggles, this is (very roughly) how I envision the ideal company: Excellent work life balance: the goal is not to make a quick exit, become filthy rich, and turn into a self-absorbed asshole bragging about how they got so succesful. The goal is to generate a steady revenue stream while not succumbing to social norms that encourage greed. The entire purpose is to reach humble financial indepedence while maintaining a stress-free (as one possibly can) work environment. QOL should always be considered before ARR. Bootstraping: no external money. Not now, not later. No quid pro quo. No shady professionals or advisors. Company makes it or dies trying. Finances: very conservative to begin with - the idea is to play it safe and build a long fucking runaway before hiring. Spend every penny mindfully and frugally. Growth shouldn't be too quick & reckless. The business will be extremely efficient in spending. The only exception to the rule is crucial infrastructure and wages to hire top talent and keep salaries competitive and fair. Hiring: fully remote. Global presence, where applicable. Headcount will be limited to the absolute bare minimum. The goal is to run with a skeleton crew of the best generalists out there - bright, self-sufficient, highly motivated, autodidact, and creative individuals. Hiring the right people is everything and should be the company's top priority. Compensation & Perks: transperent and fair, incentivizing exceptional performance with revenue sharing bonuses. The rest is your typical best-in-class perks: top tier health/dental/vision insurance, generous PTO with mandatory required minimum, parental leave, mental wellness, etc. Process: processes will be extremely efficient, automated to the max, documented, unbloated, and data-driven through and through. Internal knowledge & data metrics will be accessible and transparent to all. Employees get full autonomy of their respective areas and are fully in charge of how they spend their days as long as they have agreed-upon, coherent, measurable metrics of success. Meetings will be reduced to the absolute minimum and would have to be justified and actionable - the ideal is that most communications will be done in written form, while face-to-face will be reserved for presentations/socializing. I like the Kaizen philosophy to continuously improve and optimize processes. Product: As previously stated, "data-driven through and through". Mindful approach to understand cost/benefit. Deliberate and measured atomic improvements to avoid feature creep and slow down the inevitable entropy. Most importantly, client input should be treated with the utmost attention but should never be the main driver for the product roadmap. This is a very controversial take, but sometimes it's better to lose a paying customer than to cave to their distracting/unreasonable/time-consuming demands. People Culture: ironicaly, this would be what most companies claim to have, but for realsies. Collaborative, open, blameless environment. People are treated like actual grown ups with flat structure, full autonomy, and unwavering trust. Socializing and bonding is highly encourged, but never required. Creativity and ingenuity is highly valued - people are encouraged to work on side projects one day of the week. Values: I can write a lot about it, but it really boils down to being kind and humble. We all know what happened with "don't be evil". It's incredibly hard to retain values over time, esp. when there are opposing views within a company. I don't know how to solve it, but I believe that there should be some (tried and true) internal checks & balances from the get go to ensure things are on track. I never mentioned what this hypothetical startup does. Sure, there's another very relevant layer of domain experience fit, but this mindset allows one to be a bit more fluid because the goal is not to disrupt an industry or "make the world a better place"; it's to see work for what it truly is - a mean to an end. It's far more important for me to align with a co-founder on these topics than on an actual idea or technical details. Pivoting and rebranding are so common that many VCs outweigh the make up and chemistry of the founding team (and their ability to execute) over the feasibility of their ideas.  To wrap this long-winded post, I'm not naive or disillusioned - utopias aren't real and profitable companies who operate at a 70-80% rate of what I propose are the real unicorns, but despite them being a tiny minority, I think they are the real forward thinkers of the industry. I might be wrong, but I hope that I'm right and that more and more startups will opt towards long-term sustainability over the promise of short-term gains because the status quo really stinks for most people. What do you folks think? Does anyone relate? Where can I find others like me? P.S I thought about starting a blog writing about these topics in length (everything that is wrong with tech & what can be done to improve it), but I have the Impostor Syndrom and I'm too self-conscious about how I come off. If you somehow enjoyed reading through that and would love to hear more of my thoughts and experiences in greater detail, please let me know. P.P.S If you have a company that is close to what I'm describing and you're hiring, let me know!

#reddit#find#like-minded,