[RainyDayTmrw]

Yeah, I dunno. This seems to have really missed the mark.

I do think the original[1] is worth a read. Even if I didn't like the style, I can appreciate the message: complexity is a cost, spend your complexity budget on things that matter, take the 80/20 Pareto win, no silver bullet, Chesterton's fence, etc. Importantly, the original is ever so slightly self-deprecating in a way that the intended audience can appreciate.

Compare this quote from the OP.

> Even when new grug shout loudly, important not to give new grug too much shiny rock. Why? First: make sure new grug really want to join tribe, make tribe strong.

Those who have read enough startup executive "thought leadership" probably recognize this idea: don't hire people who care about competitive compensation - those who work for passion will accept less. For the record, I personally think this idea is inherently toxic and exploitative - but let's put that aside for a moment. Even if one were to accept that idea as valid, this framing comes off as infantilizing. The same tone that was at least arguably acceptable for self-deprecation is entirely inappropriate for deprecating others.

I can only imagine this guy's employees are going to have a bad time.

[1]: https://grugbrain.dev/

[weiliddat]

Agree, the original works because it's framing it in a way that "I am a simple man, and I appreciate simpler ways and tools to deliver my stuff". It also has the essence of, "I once was there too, and I understand why you might make the same mistake, but think about what I'm saying".

This article, past the similar language, has very much a vibe of "this is the way to do it, trust in yourself, don't listen to haters, don't hire HR". Theres 0 mention of listening to customers or your team; the assumption is your instincts and existing skills are definitely good enough and you don't need to learn anything more?!

[jokethrowaway]

In my limited experience people who don't care about compensation also don't care about shipping what's asked of them. They'll build their own toys, organise committees and various initiatives.

I'd take a freelancer / mercenary who wants to get stuff done, invoice me and afford their own house - over someone from /r/anti-work

[jmye]

I mean, people from that particular sub, in spite of its name and its one rather unfortunate representative, generally seem to care about nothing but compensation, including the idea that one might have to offer talent to justify it.

I think the point (in the article, at least, and maybe I’m losing something in the way it’s been written) is that a freelancer who offers to do the work for a justifiable/earned amount is better than hiring the guy who wants a VP/C/staff/whatever title and thinks their salary (and their equity) is important as a matter of prestige and because they showed up, rather than output.