[dougws]

Please re-read the article--the author is absolutely not making the point you think he is. All he is saying is that hackers are less likely to be willing to pay for software than most people, so the fact that the typical hacker news reader is unwilling to pay for something doesn't mean that it isn't a viable product. It's a shame that the top comment on this article is attacking a straw-man argument.

[tptacek]

Yep. I reread the top comment after your comment and I'm pretty sure 'apl just skimmed this post; regardless, he's missed the point entirely.

[apl]

I re-read the article and have to admit that you and everyone else here is in the right. Crucially, I misread this paragraph as the kind of self-glorification that happens to be way too common among so-called "makers":

  > You see most people aren't hackers. Most people can't
  > build a todo app. Most people can't use an API.

He doesn't draw a line between makers and programmers, but between makers and the general population. That is reasonable. I still maintain that the optimism is misplaced (product business is difficult, even for great developers) and that the FizzBuzz myth has gotten out of control.

Other than that: point taken.

[jasonlotito]

Regarding the FizzBuzz myth, I think it's selection bias that makes us think it's just a myth. After all, everyone I work with would find the FizzBuzz problem child's play to the point where we, like you, don't trust that it's meaningful.

But having recently had the experience of going to a local job fair with the goal of looking for students to fill internships, I met with over 70 individuals that day. While we didn't administer the FizzBuzz test, I'm confident that less than a handful could have completed it during the interview process.

This is by no means concrete proof. But, I think for many of us, we suffer from selection bias, because even the worse people we work with are light years ahead of what the great majority of "programmers" can do.

[dllthomas]

Even if the stories are taken literally ("199 out of 200 applicants can't program!"), that number is itself inflated by selection bias the other direction - people who can't program don't get the job and apply at the next place. It's obviously not going to be reflective of the programmers on the other side of that wall.