[itsoktocry]

>I would have gladly accepted less money than I had made before. I don't really need it. The work is what interests me.

We need an acceptable way to express this, without desperately extolling you'll take less money. I think a lot of us "old guys" are in the same boat; I don't need 150k, I'll take 100k if the work is interesting, and I'm more likely to be loyal to boot.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> I'm more likely to be loyal

The funny thing, is that I've been told that "Old people are just cruising to retirement," but it's OK to establish your entire business infrastructure on the idea that your young, energetic, engineers will not remain at the company for more than 18 months.

[mk89]

> Old people are just cruising to retirement,

That is just BS. In my company we have quite a few 50+ and it's nice to work with them. They add exactly what younger people can't.

Reality is: They need to squeeze every dollar as much as they can. If they could, they would never hire:

1. People with kids

2. Older than 33-35 (more often than not also 1)

3. Disabled

4. Often sick People (give me your history of sick leave, that kind of stuff)

5. Anything else I am missing?

Just freaking replaceable robots.

[winrid]

I really knocked a smile off a CTO once when I said I wanted to have another kid.

[itsoktocry]

>but it's OK to establish your entire business infrastructure on the idea that your young, energetic, engineers will not remain at the company for more than 18 months.

Yeah, it's a tough nut.

It's understandable that SV companies want ambitious strivers that move on every 2 years, for the same reason many of these CEOs consider the "job done" as soon as they get "an exit". The life of the company is measured in months.

But if you're building a company for the long term, you need smart, loyal people who build institutional knowlededge within the company. This isn't something you can fast track, I don't care if you're the brightest MIT AI grad.

You need both.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I was just struggling, this morning, with the Apple App Store Connect Web interface.

We're in the final stages of releasing an app, so we're spending a lot of time on that Web app.

It's...challenging. I know that they have big issues with security, privacy, and sheer scope (I'll bet they get millions of submissions, every day), but the site is dog-slow, the CDN breaks constantly, I need to refresh the page quite often, and they seem to forget where I was, the last time; necessitating that I follow the breadcrumbs back to where I was (I have admin accounts on several orgs).

I've released over 20 apps on the store, and have dealt with this, for a while. It's actually getting worse.

But Apple is a multi-trillion-dollar company. I think they could afford for this to work a bit more smoothly, and, quite frankly, I'm surprised, as they have some of the best, and most experienced engineers on the planet, working for them. These are the types of things that lots of sites seem to be doing quite well.

</rant>

[ChrisMarshallNY]

> get "an exit"

It seems that many startups don’t actually have a product, other than the startup, itself.

A “successful exit” means that the company is sold. The company is the product.

I have spent my entire career at companies that made actual products, for use by actual end-users. These corporations never had any “exit strategy,” because they were meant to be ongoing, perpetual, concerns. They had “future planning,” and “growth strategies,” that often looked a decade into the future.

Things have changed.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=U4zlA6NoSVE