It is a general rule that anytime there is someone above you in the hierarchy, they are going to make $2 for every $1.50 you make. Of COURSE the VC's will make more money than you. And the people who put the actual money into the funds should make even more than THEM.
The startup world, and economy in general has changed dramatically from the last time jwz was heavily involved, IMO. It's good that he made what qualifies as his own fuck you money and can now look in on things from the outside and comment thoughtfully. For a lot of people though, working 80 hour weeks grinding out a startup or 3 is still the most probable way of banking a decent retirement fund AND still having some life left to enjoy. I don't think that I'd advise many people to do a 30 year career of crazy startups, but it's kind of a geek lottery and worth the gamble for lots of people.
I don't really see where this is using his name to sell a con. If that were the case, I would think Arrington would pick someone who hadn't dropped out of the game a decade ago to sell his 'con'.
This is just gold.
And I'd rather be doing that for myself on a side project or in the start-up lottery or within my own business than for someone else. If that isn't possible, then even for someone up the chain. If someone else (VC, client of mine, landlord, etc) also profits from this endeavour, so be it.
Sometimes you have to know the lows to fully appreciate the highs.
Further to that, I tend to enjoy weeks of fulfilling hard work with those glimpses of recreation more than I do the ones where I'm procrastinating, spinning my wheels or at a loss for something I can be bothered doing that day. Hard work, or hard holiday - that half-arsed stuff in the middle rarely satisfies.
Isn't this more or less the case for any profits-go-to-owners business model? Or rather, any business model where employees are viewed as calculated costs and not owners worthy of a commiserate portion of the profit?
I've often wondered how a different ownership model would work for a company. One where the owners still make more money than the VPs, who still make more money than the engineers, who still make more money than the techs, who still make more money than the CSRs, who still make more money than the cleaning staff, but everyone is seeing a salary that is at least XX.X percent higher than it was before. Or perhaps a function of CPI, per Capita GDP, and a few other variables. Honestly, company ownership just seems like one big game of who can grab the most power in a given time metric. Rather than money being a means to an end, it is the end. But that's just my inexperienced, undereducated take on the whole thing thus far.
Startups, hard? Yes. We ALL know this. Are his opinions skewed towards his agenda? Also yes. There is no hiding the fact that he's in the money. The problem is that the "thought-leader" portion of his rant was lacking. And it's a bit of unfair baseball to bring up a random blog post from some guy nearly 20 years ago. My bets are that he didn't even bother doing follow up on this guy after the fact.
This is of course huge news after twenty years of people trying to crack this.
You need matrices of dimension 1.66x10^91 before this result yields half the number of steps. But if an algorithm exists which made effective omega = 2 then this could have huge implications. So any improvement in techniques, no matter how slight, is very welcome, as it may lead to much more significant improvements later on.
I'm having trouble seeing the value of such a paper -- the size of matrices required for this result to have a clear advantage is significant, and that is completely ignoring constant factors, real world performance and parallelization considerations.
Not that that's not a valuable contribution, but the linked article seems kind of misleading, unless I'm misunderstanding the paper...
I'm sort of fuzzily half-assedly thinking this might be applicable to image - and by extension video - work but maybe that's not the case at all. I want to be more excited, please enlighten me. :)
$ django-admin.py startproject PROJECT $ cd PROJECT $ python manage.py startapp
It's not like SHA1 is tantamount to leaving the barn door open, but it doesn't sit well with me to stick with it, until it is replaced natively.
* the site module, which is imported by default and is what is responsible for setting up the default sys.path. You can skip 'import site' by running python with the -S switch. the site module is written in python, so you can scan through it and understand how python starts up and inits.
* PYTHONSTARTUP env variable, which points to a python file that is run (like a bashrc, or AUTOEXEC.BAT, if you prefer) on interactive prompt startup. I use this to import custom paths and modules that I want to access from the REPL, such as Google App Engine
* I use pip with local repositories. clone the repos of the libs you need, and then pip install in the virtualenv from that local clone:
$ pip install git+file:///Users/nik/.python-packages/tornado
$ pip install git+git://firstname.lastname@example.org/nikcub/tornado
* don't store the actual project inside the virtualenv. the virtualenv provides the execution context (setup and torn down using the virtualenvwrapper helper scripts). a common practice is to place all your virtualenvs into a directory like ~/.virtualenvs. you should never have to cd into this dir, access it using the wrappers and pip. (edit: also agree with comment below that you shouldn't be sudo'ing).
* just a quick add, I think it is definitely worth learning how to install python from source.
I'm pretty sure a "Ruby Ecosystem, An Introduction" guide is exactly what I need.
It might be matter of taste but recommendations given starting from "Understanding the packages" and to "Install packages that need compiling" are almost harmful.
* you should not care what is your `sys.path` looks like. You need it for debugging if something goes horribly wrong. A tutorial might mention it but things like `sys.path.insert(0,..)` should be avoided or accompanied with a big disclaimer (don't use nuclear weapons if you care about the future)
* the same goes for `PYTHONPATH`. It is a hack that rarely needed
* don't use `sudo pip`. System packages should be managed by a system packager. Use `pip --user` or create a `virtualenv`
* `pip` can handle tarballs there is no need for `python setup.py install` in this case.
"Code Like a Pythonista: Idiomatic Python" is worth mentioning http://python.net/~goodger/projects/pycon/2007/idiomatic/han...
Some third-party packages that could be listed (it is subjective):
bpython - interactive prompt; something for tests e.g., pytest, tox, selenium; sphinx - docs; lxml - xml/html, werkzeug - if you talking about web-development; SQLAlchemy - sql; Cython - C extension, ~ Python syntax; async. libs e.g., gevent, Twisted.
I would apply the "if you need to" part to Python 2. "3 if you can, 2 if you must"
Or even better, give them a stackoverflow search like this one http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bpython%5D+%22install+py...
P.S. I think that your wiki page is a great idea and I'm going to write a custom one for our developer wiki.
It looks like you're covering a lot of the same ground.
I am indebted to HN community for the great feedback so far.
As per the Pragmatic Programmer, I thought I would learn Python this year. It's been a tremendously frustrating experience getting a workable stack installed.
I wish the famous "One -- and preferably only one -- obvious way to do it" Python design philosophy extended to actually installing everything :(
You should not mix multiple packaging system on your operating system.And more you can dammage it pip provide more recent package than your distro. And if you upgrade a lib that have an incompatibility with a part of the system, you can corrupt it. I have no example to give but I am sure you can find it... Ubuntu now have many tools written in python.
You should use pip inside a virtualenv only.And, fortunatelly when you create a virtualenv, pip is installed in it, and you don't need to use the --distribute to have it.
Also The Zen of Python can always be accessed by this Easter egg
>>> import this
It's the Python version of RVM. It is higher level than even virtualenv, and in my opinion, the most seamless way to manage Python environments.
I would only add iPython - a must for any console adventures.
Actually, it is :)
pip install pep8
If you're on Ubuntu LTS you should install PIP from PyPI (easy_install pip), since the system package management version is outdated and it doesn't have the (very useful, since PyPI likes to go down) --use-mirrors install option. That would be my only recommendation.
That way you can get started with coding instead of having to install everything by yourself.
As a reader, this does not strike me as against my interests in the long run. I get books teleported to my Kindle instantly -- what isn't to like? (They're cheap, too, but that isn't a huge win for me. I'd pay twice as much as I do currently without thinking twice.) A shame about Charlie's publisher. They've sold me minimally $200 worth of product in the last year, I could not tell you their name if my life depended on it, and they bring precisely zero value to me relative to any other publisher aside from having signed Charlie. If Amazon signs Charlie instead, it will be literally impossible for me to identify any way in which my life changes at a consequence.
About two years ago, my girlfriend decided she wanted an e-book reader. At the time, you could only get a Kindle online, and she didn't want to buy one without seeing the device first; so we bought a Nook reader (after she played with it in the store).
Over the next year, we probably bought about $2000 of books on it, when she finally got tired of being envious of my Kindle (which I had recently purchased) and I gave it to her.
She ended up spending like three weeks cracking the DRM on all the Barnes and Noble e-pub books she had purchased, so that she'd be able to read them on the Kindle.
Most people wouldn't have done that, I suspect. They'd have just stuck with whatever platform they initially decided on (and had amassed a collection of DRM-laden files with).
Ideally, what I would like would be to be able to buy a paper book, and get the ebook bundled for $X more (say, $2-$5 more). I would have the satisfaction of a book on the shelf, actually owning the book, and then the convenience of an ebook. I would also be less bothered by the presence of DRM. If I could buy DRM-free ebooks from Amazon, I would be willing to pay closer to price parity of the corresponding paper book.
Up till then I thought people were just whining but now I see the folly in my ways. I'm definitely for some sort of protection for content authors but there must be another way. Maybe they could have a DR,-like system that allows you to use it on X devices the same way you can authorize a number of devices to sync in iTunes. Still, we can do even better. What about a system that somehow measures ownership differently. Like maybe somehow make it so you have to use a password if you want to transfer a protected file to some other device?
Is that naive? Has it been done? I just recently changed my position on DRM so I still have much to learn. Does anyone know of something like I'm describing and is this feasible technically?
Of course Apple later proved DRM doesn't matter and people will pay for a DRM-free product if it's easy to purchase. But that's an entirely different point. As far as I can see the historical precedent is that DRM isn't enough of a deterrent for most people.
I think this is a pretty silly post, to be honest. CS covers so much, and everytime I see a list of "things you should know", I have to resist the urge to roll my eyes and ignore it. But then I read it, and inevitably roll my eyes anyway.
If you actually ever find yourself needing to show that a particular language is non-regular, it's almost always clearer to use an ad hoc argument or appeal to the Myhill-Nerode theorem. Actually the latter is much better, because Myhill-Nerode completely characterises the regular languages, whereas there are non-regular languages that pass the pumping lemma test.
Bayes's theorem is a direct consequence of this axiom and the commutativity of conjunction.
For example: the halting problem. Isn't it interesting that you can't write a computer program which can decide (in general) whether another program terminates? The proof is simple and it gives you a real tool to help you avoid trying to solve impossible problems. It's good to know the limits of your craft.
There's also o(f(n)), g(n) is a member of o(f(n)) if the limit as n goes to infinity of g(n)/f(n) is zero. Finally, there is asymptotic equality: f(n) ~ g(n) if the limit as n goes to infinite of g(n)/f(n) = 1. O,o and ~ are all subtly different, but if you're just trying to prove upper bounds then O(f(n)) is the one that comes up most frequently, which is why it's probably the only sort of asymptotic analysis most CS grads know.
"No, I don't know why your new smartphone won't sync with all three of your business accounts as well as your personal email."
So far, this kind of answer has been far better received than spending hours troubleshooting frustrating corner cases from trying to shoehorn off-the-shelf gadgets into situations they probably weren't meant for anyway. At worst, that makes me lazy, but I'm okay with that as long as I'm not known as the ill-tempered son-in-law who won't just help out his aunt and uncle without coping an attitude.
There are tons of resources on the Web devoted to syncing Outlook with the iPhone. Maybe someone more tech savvy (like Marco) could have helped. Instead he said he "couldn't help him". He really meant "I don't want to try to help you".
When I meet a fanboy of something I don't tend to use or like, I make a point to talk to them as much as possible. It starts off rocky - after all, I'm coming from a completely different perspective, and to me, everything they're saying is obviously idiotic. But I persist. I try to get them to convince me however they can, that they are right. And very frequently, I learn a whole of new _something_, if I'm not introduced to an entire new way of doing and/or thinking about things. Worst case is I hone my debating skills. Best case, my life significantly improves.
Not that fanboyism is always, or even usually, a good thing. In most cases, it's politest (and easiest!) to stop the argument before it gets to the point of calling into question the other person's expectations (and I find myself doing that alot, especially with relatively nontechnical folk). But for me - I _want_ my expectations to be called into question. And nobody forces me to refine - and trash - my own ideas as well as the most hard-headed of fanboys.
which seems like a really jerk-like perspective to take, and it is a little bit.
We are all different. Human life is full of tradeoffs, and some of those tradeoffs lead to exclusions, and some of those exclusions may be untenable to some, etc.
I like and use Apple, Emacs, etc, but I can certainly see why others might choose not to use them. They aren't wrong. They're just different.
E.g., easy file versioning and sync is fundamentally a solved problem, if you are willing to take the initial hit of workflow modification (git, sftp, etc).
So it's okay to teach people how to do it faster and better.
"The pedal to the left of the brake is the clutch. Push it all the way to the floor," I begin. She takes her left foot off the brake and pushes in the clutch...
although it was written in entertaining fashion, i am still somewhat puzzled.
...just stop it.
Number of Customers churn / (Number of customers at beginning + number of customers gained).
Number of Customers churn / (Number of customers at beginning + number of customers at end of period)/2.
If you calculate at the wrong time you will severely skew the numbers.
Its my opinion that if you have daily churn numbers and you want to be the most accurate, simple formula is no longer viable. You should model daily churn against daily sales and create a revenue model. (takes about 2 minutes in excel, less if you have the data already in a spreadsheet).
-If you want a simple formula, you should use the first two formulas you described in the article and just see how the numbers "feel".
In my opinion, anything beyond that introduces unnecessary levels of complexity that may actually make your modeling less valuable.
- In any event, the article is great and really got me to think about churn again. Well done, and I really liked your thoughts.
Try to Google it; you get drowned in results to the toolkit, not their site. Mention it to anyone else and be sure about the resulting confusion. It's like creating a new service called BMWApp which then has nothing to do with the car...
Only suggestion - find a way to speed up the deployment process. It might just be the HN effect, but once I finish my first "app" - I want to see it in action, not stare at a spinner for a few minutes.
EDIT: Looks like you're deploying to heroku, so I see why it takes more than a few seconds. It might be nice to tweak your UI, to encourage people to go through a tutorial while they wait for a deploy (rather than staring at a spinner).
I used it for awhile and it is a cool framework. However, Jquery has it beat in terms of documentation (code and usage) and community support (I can find pretty much any component I need with Jquery).
It will be fascinating to see how Facebook generates revenue, spends money, and maintains net income. I'm really looking forward to this IPO, solely for those reasons.
"Technical founders have already become prerequisites in the world of tech startups. Now get ready for the designer founder. The combination of this new duo is going to change the world of tech forever."
But this trend is not new for startups. 37 Signals has been preaching this for a long time now. I can not easily find the original blog post that I'm thinking of, but there is this:
"At 37signals, designers lead the teams. Each development team is made of up three people ‚Ä" two programmers and one designer. The designer also manages the project. In addition to designing the screens/elements, you'll keep the team focused and make calls about what's important."
But I recall quotes on the 37 Signals blog from as early as 2004 where they were essentially saying the same thing. Since they first began talking about Basecamp, they have talked about this style of development. This is not new.
For Craigslist the function is most important and credit should go to the back end guys. Something like Twitter would give it to the front end guys. I'm leaving scaling out of the equation for now and assuming all sites will perform the same under any load.
A site that is ugly doesn't get used. People always judge a book by its cover especially these days. But if the pretty site doesn't work then you're also screwed. I really hate this debate over who is more important: front or back end. You need both. Period.
I also hate the whole "design is easy" / "no, programming is easy" argument. Neither one is easy. They're different animals. The way you approach the front end and back end are totally different. I'm a generalist but lean toward design. I'm in awe of the back end guys but then some are in awe of me. We have totally different goals in mind when working. The back end guys are concerned with functionality. Security, scaling. The front end is all about beauty, load times, SEO, user experience. At one point in our work we do end up in the middle. That middle is when we're both thinking about the the front end is interacting with the back end and how will we code everything so that A) we can easily connect the two and B) we can efficiently extend the front end to accommodate new back end features and vice versa.
I understand the article wasn't exactly pitting programmers against designers but there's always that subtext and people always start thinking about it. It's a shame that the designers haven't gotten as much credit until recently but at the same time, even as a designer, I must give huge props to the back end guys as I understand the pains they go through.
But can we put the whole front vs. back debate to rest already? You just can't have one without the other. Period.
Arguably, without design, there is no product - by making decisions that are necessary to take something from paper into reality, you are going through a process of design.
Design is most acknowledged in consumer goods, but it is present everywhere. Imagine you are building a widget that forms part of the internal mechanism of a space probe. It will likely only be seen or touched by a few technical people, it probably doesn't need visual appeal, but you must still design it to be feasible to manufacture and convenient to handle during assembly.
You will have to make decisions above and beyond its basic function - does the form fit the assembly worker's perceived model of what it does? Can it be held in human hands safely and without risking damage? Would any damage or incorrect installation be visually evident?
There is a false dichotomy between engineering and design. Modern technology is closing the conceptual gap. Whilst we need a certain degree of specialization, I strongly believe there should be no such thing as a 'pure' engineer or designer. If we want to create usable tools, we all need to know a little of both.
Like, being fit has always been an advantage for organisms. But until organisms came along who developed language and became able to communicate that it was valuable (aka humans), nobody was saying "it's a competitive advantage to be healthy".
It seems that the definition of a "good designer" includes various technical skills / knowledge, while the definition of a "good developer" does not include design. I've noticed this a few times in startup culture, where people are hesitant to hire UX/designers that do not code.
The takeaway shouldn't be that you need to find a designer co-founder that cares about design, it should be that YOU, as a technical founder, need to care (and learn) about design.
Developers who launch their startup need to learn about running a business even though that's not their main domain of expertise. So why couldn't they learn about good design as well?
edit: just in case you need more info about this... http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2007/10/the_left_bra...
I think things are improving, but the fact that design is still a strong competitive advantage (in many types of businesses, not just startups) shows how lacking it is. Companies understand the importance of their brand, but they seem to undervalue how the digital experience affects the brand.
As a design/product guy I'd love to work at your startup IF the problem you're trying to solve is compelling. A good number of startups fail that litmus test for me.
If your idea is awesome, I'm in.
Case in point, Apple vs. every other small PC manufacturer in the 70's and 80's ... hell, even now.
From the lens of a role-playing gamer (big fan of Bioware games), I think this realization can best be described by the distribution of attribute points. You can drop all your points into strength, and sure enough there will be times that you excel as you bash things with swords, but there will be times when you think, boy it would be nice to have a bit of magic or better charisma or whatever to solve this problem (usually bad guys) and then you start going all magic... usually the best builds that provide the best overall advantage are the ones that are balanced. So again, as much hype as these Design people might be getting now, don't forget about the other "attributes" as it were.
Bigger picture: YaCy would need to reach a large critical mass of nodes before being useful, so it would seem to be difficult to get enough people to donate server resources.
Also, it is not clear how to keep anyone from doing SEO by running nodes that make it a priority to spider promoted web sites.
Questions, questions, questions.
The free audio versions of the stories are particularly good.
Good story and could quite easily be true
>First, let's have a primer on how Facebook makes money: The company gets you to willingly enter all kinds of demographic and behavioral information into a massive database. Advertisers, big brands and Facebook's sales team call it ‚Äúdata.‚ÄĚ You call it your profile, your likes, your checkins, your comments and everything else you do on the site. Facebook then sells that data ‚Ä" in an aggregated, anonymized form, of course ‚Ä" to brands and advertising agencies so they know how, when, where and to whom to market their wares.
Data is not "sold". Data only leaves Facebook's servers when you ask for it. Facebook makes money by targeting ads on facebook.com. This is constantly misstated and it frustrates the hell out of me.
EDIT: I tweeted at the author and she made the language much less ambiguous. Journalism points to Jolie O'Dell.
This troubles me, because information being collected and 'anonymized' is somewhat of a misnomer. I think many would contest any assertion that data capable of disassembly into its constituent parts (assuming each constituent part to be a unique combination of variables represented in the aggregate) comports with anonymity. I'm generally not one to praise governmental regulatory agencies for their technological prowess, but the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services really "got it" with HIPAA's de-identification standard.
HHS understands the importance of aggregating healthcare data and conducting statistical research, and does not let HIPAA preclude this from occurring. Instead, HIPAA outlines a "safe harbor" approach that limits a covered entity's criminal/civil liability in the event of a breach if and only if the covered entity removes 18 identifiers and has no actual knowledge that the remaining information could identify the individual. These identifiers include names, dates, geolocational codes covering populations less than 20,000, etc. Alternatively, covered entities may opt to use a 'statistical' approach by hiring a qualified statistician (or other scientific expert) who can use acceptable analytic techniques to conclude that the risk of identifying the person from the disclosed information is very, very small.
A safe harbor approach to large-scale data privacy would be absolutely wonderful. Using statistics to prove the anonymity of data being collected/used by Facebook is nonsensical, since by default, we've given them a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to 'use' anything we submit to them. Contracts of adhesion, in my opinion, are more of the problem since there's no good way to 'make change' for the information that you submit. For example, someone very active on Facebook might arguably be 'worth more' to the company than someone who isn't, but both receive the same product.
EDIT: A safe harbor approach to large-scale data privacy isn't even unknown. See COPPA, for example.
 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn... 45 CFR 164.514(b)(1)--(2).
The EC is planning to ban such activity unless users themselves specifically agree to it.
Okay, so, at worst Facebook just has to make users specifically agree to this before they can continue using Facebook. I'm sure some people wouldn't agree, but it's not a big enough deal that Facebook would change their business model.
I would also like to follow-up that people are dissimilar enough that de-anonymizing is not that difficult. I do not know why, yet, an advertiser would want to explicitly de-anonymize its data, but it is certainly possible.
Congratulations kreci on reaching your income goal!
Is there any chance of you getting apps into the Amazon store or are they only allowing U.S. developers? I know techie bloggers aren't loving the Kindle Fire, but I know a ton of normal people buying them. That's a lot of Android tablets, none of which will ever see the main Android store.
I am skeptical because I know for a fact that some people don't tell the truth. We can only speculate about the reasons..maybe it's to generate more traffic or interest towards the non-free products they offer. I know a fellow (who used to publish a competing product to mine) who boasted online in an article about making quarter million dollars a year after just being a year in business. The same fellow just was trying to sell me his "quarter-million a year business" domain name for 1K a few months before:) In this case, numbers are much more moderate and believable, but still I am not taking this just at the face value, unless there are some facts I can verify, or compare against. The number of active users, for example, and in which countries (mostly) are generating 4K+ /month in ads?
The key metric to measure is DAU, and checking that you are generating more impressions from more active users.
Thanks for all the reports and the book. It is a great read and full of good advises, I recomend it to anyone entering the mobile market.
I have a question for you. How do we go to redownload the book? I had a major crash here and lost the PDF. Can I give you the PayPal ID for the transaction and you will send it back to me?
I send you an email about this couple weeks ago as well.
Cheers and thanks for all the helpAndre
There's one thing I'd be interested in knowing: do you make more cash from your toy apps (x-Ray/cracked-window) or from the more useful ones such as your WordPress stats app?
That HAS to violate some sort of User Experience. If it doesn't I am going to say it violates mine.
Design wise, the default is pretty obtrusive.
Nice library though. Thanks.
My experience with websites that queue up notifications (the old thesixtyone.com) is that you sort of pause, sit there, and wait for them to finish up so you see what they say. A better experience is for them to stack up in the corner so you can read them, then click them away once you're done.
Also, the notifications behave strange when hovering over them with the mouse... they shrink onhover, then on the next hover they dismiss.
This is on Chromium 15.
Not saying this or any other implementation is bad and you shouldn't use it, but why does hacker news get so excited every time one of these shows up?
I'm looking for some 'arguments' to seriously consider something like this - Thank you ;-)
"Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It's Not Clear Why"https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3283768
Edit: Not implying anything about a relation to phone use during takeoff and landing (BGR and Australian press release are vague), but I just found it curious.
At this point rechargeable lithium-based batteries are a more effective bomb than 90% of the things the TSA has banned - but I suspect we won't see them trying to take away laptops and phones anytime soon.
Supplier got the order wrong? Your problem; you fix it. Sales team can't get their act together (despite a wonderfully choreographed song and dance routine)? That's on your shoulders. People fighting? Smooth things over. Someone is only working at 103% efficiency, not pumping out enough likes and tweets and check-ins? All you to handle.
Yes, that's called being in charge. If you can't handle it all and have the means, delegate.
Brief edit: turns out this guy went to my school and is a friend-of-a-friend. Did some due diligence and friend says he's just trying to provoke a reaction (aka "troll"). He is, says my friend, "one of the hardest working people" he knows. Nothing to see here.
Some people might have this experience. I'm not one of them. I love being an entrepreneur for the reasons he indicates. And I don't see or have those negatives.
John Petersel seems to have failed as entrepreneur (or maybe he never tried, which is even worse writing stuff like this...), but I think I make more money than him, have more free time, spend more time with my family, actually manage my company instead of 'doing everything myself' (as he seems to suggest). And I do what I love and have always done that. Life's too short not to.
Some people shouldn't be entrepreneurs, luckily not everyone wants to, but writing crap like this...
I know that's bait, but I can't help falling...
Maybe that's true for the author (or someone Harvard-educated), but here in the third world, enterpreneurship sounds a lot better when you see that a "dream" job like mine pays U$ 15.000 after taxes (and yes, people think I'm mad because I want to quit).
I do have job security people in Spain or the US might only dream of (six months' severance plus a year's salary if I'm fired), but being secure in a dead end isn't my dream life.