>> "How to Live a Successful Life"

This advice need not come from a rich person.

The answer is to be surrounded with deep and valuable human relationships.

Being friendless and rich is better than being friendless and broke.

Yes! I'd say there is a little more to the "answer", but yes!

I'm not successful, but my strategy for getting there is specific....

-- never put yourself in the position to go bankrupt

-- stay in the game - keep your overheads down to the minimum practical for you

-- learn to program so you can implement your own ideas without need for a cofounder or need to pay for anything more than hosting and a domain

-- just keep banging out your ideas into products until one catches on.

-- try to bootstrap and if possible avoid raising capital - it's too distracting and costly and dilutes your time massively

-- do your very best to avoid employing anyone until you really can't avoid it

-- don't get a cofounder if you can possibly avoid it - it can lead to arguments and business failure... if you really need help, bootstrap till you can employ someone

-- repeat until success or giving up, not because you're forced to stop

Forgot where I read this but the article said that you'd better pick the options that have the most probability of high returns. A way to save energy. I'm naturally drawn to hard and long and get stuck and exhausted.

By and large, this is the same algorithm I use. I've really only deviated on one point.

That said, I'd add to this the idea of thinking in terms of "Return on Capital Invested" where your time and effort are a from of Capital. IOW, it's important (IMO) to figure out how to direct your attention towards the efforts that are most likely to yield the outcomes (whether financial or otherwise) that you seek. The problem, of course, is that you don't know in advance how things will play out. So you have to experiment, but once you begin an experiment the big question becomes "do I keep going on this, or redirect my effort to something else which has a higher probability of success?" (for however you define "success").

One thing worth bearing in mind when bootstrapping a company is that to be successful you just need to earn enough to cover costs and pay yourself something at the end of the day. Which is completely different to 95% of the companies you read about on here.

If you are building it on the side even just making a few hundred dollars per month is going to completely change things for you, and give you the freedom to explore more risky ideas. We may not have a universal income, but with hard work and dedication ("showing up is half the battle"), I believe anybody here could build a side business to supplement their income in a meaningful way.

> just keep banging out your ideas into products until one catches on

Good list in general. But identifying a market and seeking to serve it is a better recipe.

You still want to get stuff out there and test it rapidly. But having some idea as to whether a product will be useful is a good idea.

To learn to listen to other people, instead of just waiting to talk - that's an ongoing problem.

To understand what "controlling behaviour" means.

To empathise, and see oneself from the eyes of others.

If only we were all as self-aware of this as you are.

This is a good intro to pen testing: https://www.sgsgroup.com.hk/en/news/2014/02/general-requirem...

Nevertheless, if you find the right one who is a fit to you, they can be an enormous help.

My primary advice would be that therapists/counsellors are NOT all the same. You need to find one who works for you, and it is a very individual thing. Actively plan to try 4 of them, and do 2 paid sessions with each before deciding to continue with one.

Also be aware that IMO some counsellors/therapists are actually bad at their job.... if you get the feeling that something really does not make sense to you, then stop going to them and find someone else.

I've tried many and found a few really good ones and definitely some really bad ones.

It's also true that some were good for a long while but then at some point things changed and they no longer were effective for me, so things can change over time.

Australia couldn't be more eager to spend tens of billions on this white elephant.

But of course anything the U.S. says is good for Australia just has to be, right?

We'd have been better off spending billions buying anti ship missiles.

No you were right with the second sentence. We're better off spending our defence budget doing what the US says.

Unless we're going to nuke up, our defence strategy is being an actual powers bitch. Solid relations with the US will go a lot further than some anti ship missiles.

After a lifetime of being anti nuke, I do now believe Australia has to "nuke up".

I also believe now that we need at least 2 very large U.S. bases on our soil, and if the U.S. aren't interested then maybe the U.K. or the Europeans.

Expansionist countries could easily see Australia right now as a virtually undefended, resource rich sweet piece of fruit to be plucked, and given that Australia's traditional allies seem to be internally engaged, there's plenty of room for such expansionists to start laying the foundations that will allow them to exert such control in the future.

Who exactly would have capability and resources to mount an invasion and then supply the necessary force to occupy a territory the size of Australia.

China.

Also worth noting that the force needed to occupy a country is mainly proportional to the population.

Indonesia is right next door and outnumber us 10 to 1.

India and China are also reasonably close.

The only thing we want is to beat you at cricket.

- India.

A blue water Navy, not proximity, is what is required to invade and control Australia. India and Indonesia are a non-starter given that prerequisite, and China is probably 10-20 years away from being able to accomplish this (if they chose to do it). Plus the Chinese are more concerned with the South China Sea and regional naval superiority when compared to invading continents.

Also, Pine Gap. All of the China is coming and the US is going to leave us hanging out to dry hubbub conveniently ignores this fact.

Current navy size seems less relevant than what it could be if they were planning to invade Australia. If I decided to invade an island nation my first step would be to build enough boats.

No invasion would be needed.

All thats needed is to get several thousand armed people to take control of Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne parliament and hold all the politicians under lock and key. And whilst Australia is too stunned to work out what has just happened, land ships and troops in Sydney then Melbourne.

There you have it - control of Australia.

All we need to do is put a bell on the cat!

Several thousand armed people acting in concert without detection?

The Australian military would also still exist even if such a thing could be done.

Not to mention that then landing ships in Sydney and Melbourne would not be allowed by the US.

The Australian populace wouldn't just take it either.

The US may decide that we are past our best before date and choose to cut and run rather than take on a land war in Asia.

You just described a (shitty and likely to fail) invasion.

China is a very real threat to Australia. They are already unhappy about how close we are to the US, our freedom of navigation routes through the South China Sea and our perceived anti-China rhetoric around national security.

And just to show you that they aren't messing around. They just funded the development of a port in Vanuatu which many have suspected as being suitable for future naval purposes:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-great-wharf-from...

I think this would be a huge miscalculation for China. First it would enrage Western governments, especially the US and UK. Second, I'm not completely convinced China would win. Australia is a very large country, with a population that has basically nothing in common with the Chinese. It would be very difficult to stop guerilla warfare even if they controlled the cities. Plus, China knows how ridiculously complicated this kind of stuff is to win in the long run. Look at Vietnam and Korea. I think China would be more likely to attempt stronger alliances now that US leadership is basically gone for 2-6 more years.

If China is a threat to Australia, maybe we shouldn't have sold them the port of Darwin...

You don't have enough money to nuke up, unless you plan a much bigger defense budget.

Really ? Australia has the 13th highest GDP in the world.

Higher than Israel, Pakistan and North Korea which all have them.

The real problem is that as an "older" programmer (50) I am probably the best I have been, but I no longer believe in the missions of pretty much any company, I'm not interested in the silly ways the companies try to build their culture with toys and trinkets and blankets and rituals and sparkles and phony constructs designed to create workplace as a funpark. I am diplomatic, so I would of course keep all this a secret - I know how to be a good employee.

I'm very happy to do a great job, and easy to get along with and productive and a team player, but I'd be happy to program in a grey box on a plain chair and table.

The employment deal for me is this:

I program, do a great and professional job

You give me money and/or equity

I do appropriate hours and give me this time I need to leave early for example to pick up the kids

I get you a great result

I set in a chair and table at an office or ideally I work from home (travel is dead time)

But that's not the deal on offer.

For me, the primary satisfaction comes from working hard and getting a result that advances the goals of the business.

And BTW I am very much on the cutting edge technically, but I probably wouldn't get through any recruiting process for god know what reason why.

I'm not sure why you say that's not the deal on offer. I'm 53 (today!) and a lot of how you describe yourself applies to me too. And yet, a year ago, I had no problem getting through one of those classic Silicon Valley hiring processes - code interviews, design interviews, the whole bit. There are two key points I'll share that might help you.

(1) That process isn't always what you think it is. Sure, some companies will copy the superficial aspects of that process, asking puzzle questions or looking down their nose at you because you don't know some trivia about a language that has existed less time than you've been programming. They're idiots. However, there are also more people than you might think who have actually been trained in such interview techniques, who almost couldn't care less about your solution because they're looking at how you solved it, how you communicated about solving it, how you reacted when surprised or confronted, and so on. That's really important stuff, and I for one don't mind being measured on it.

(2) If you're clear about expectations, you might be surprised what kind of deal you can get. For example, this company is notoriously averse to letting people work from home full time. I'm one of only a few dozen (out of thousands) apparently. Why? Because I told them right at the start that it was an immutable requirement and if they weren't willing to make that deal then we might as well not waste our time. Mentioning that kind of thing post-offer wouldn't have worked. Not a chance.

So yes, I think people like you and me can get through that kind of recruiting process and get the kinds of jobs we want. I hope that helps.

Exactly! I am young compared to you (43) and I work for a company just about to go public and on my team I am the only remote employee. It is worth it to them. My knowledge of the open source CMS used (having written significant portions of it over more than a decade) made it possible. Also, there's my favorite expression of describing what experience I am bringing to the table: "I have already made the mistake you are about to make."

"I do appropriate hours and give me this time I need to leave early for example to pick up the kids"

I think that's the problem. Young, fresh, idealistic programmers straight out of college are willing to give their whole body, life, and soul to a job; if a recruiter was charismatic enough (and if it wasn't for student loans), he or she could practically convince them to pay the company for the privilege of giving them programming to do. They don't know any better.

You, on the other hand, are old and tired enough - and more importantly, have enough other priorities in your life - that you simply can't be convinced to work 12 hours a day or make your free-time hobby also be coding for your employer.

I'm no longer interested in trying argue that experience results in higher productivity - if you have to say that then you're already in a situation where they believe young is better.

That's the point, and that's why I'm actively working to make money in other ways and not be a programmer because I'm not employable. Well perhaps employable now, but at 60?

I wouldn't say "They don't know any better."

For them, the top priority is to get actual work experience to go on a resume. That first job is partly a continuation of their education. I know a person who failed at this. He graduated, didn't find a job immediately, and thus ended up with a period of unemployment that probably made employers even less interested.

Those 12 hours are probably spent implementing unneeded buggy implementations of standard library functions. :-) There can be a struggle to keep up with the more experienced people and even a struggle to adapt to a professional workplace environment.

I sure know what you mean about other priorities though. My open source project (procps) got taken over by other people due to my lack of free time. I have 11 kids. I did OK up to 3 kids, and even with 5 when unemployed, but now there is no way I could properly maintain an open source project.

I'm not an older programmer, I'm in fact a pretty young programmer, but I want the same things:

+ A company that gives me a good work/life balance + Regular WFH or preferably be fully remote + Interesting tasks, in a relatively stable environment

Most of my peers seem to want the same thing as well. While I've done the crazy workweek startup thing before, it burns you out and it's simply not sustainable. I don't have a single peer who still works in startup land.

So my first job is for a decent sized company building our in-house tools in .Net and React. And I work about 38 hours a week, I'm well compensated, and the department is friendly and relaxed. The company's been around forever and is well-poised for the future (I've seen all the financials due to my role).

The work is interesting, though never novel.

Everybody I know tells me programmers should change jobs every 2 years, but I feel like maybe I struck gold the first time?

Don't "need" to change jobs, but ensure you're not complacent, under-paid, or unemployable elsewhere. Best way to do this is to regularly interview.

I advocate every 6-12 months, even (or especially if) you're happy where you are. There's virtually no downside to doing this except for an unpleasant vacation day. Worst case is you still have your job you like. Best case is you get an offer that gets you a raise (either where you are or with a better company).

(Doing this I've gotten about a 10% raise every year for the past ~8 years - sometimes changing jobs but usually just presenting an offer to current employer - and I'm not a rockstar interviewer or anything.)

Why change if you don't see benefit in it. You won't know everything about your current work in two years, and you probably get the chance to do different things anyway.

Enjoy your good fortune and be grateful. A lot of people hate their jobs. Even programmers.

Just make sure you're always able to get a new job if necessary. Basic stuff like keep learning something useful, don't tie yourself too much financially, etc.

You don't need to change jobs, but you should change projects/technologies as time goes on. I've been at the same company for 10 years now and I keep growing, but only because I've been on different projects throughout (Winforms -> ASP.NET -> WPF -> Angular -> Knockout/Java -> React/Kotlin).

You really have the right attitude and stick with it please.

It's not about corporates or start-ups it is as you say about sustainability.

It's rough that their is a perception that cutting edge work has to happen either in corporate or start-up or the games industry.

I suppose to some extent that is actually true, but there is a middle ground.

You can define that for yourself and it sounds like you are doing.

You already have it figured out :-)

As a recruiter, I have the same frustrations. The vast majority of founders seem to want candidates to have a deep connection to their mission so quickly and there's this expectation that the connection you built means you don't want money or free time. This doesn't work when every founder is trying to do it at the same time.

The last time someone tried to get me "passionate" about the mission of the company it was so I'd take less than market compensation.

Apparently because I would be "helping people" I should be willing to take a pay cut. The people I would be helping were paying for the service, but it seems that helping these paying customers wasn't enough motivation to set up some sort of reasonable profit share or equity scheme from the other side of this particular bargain.

I'm pretty sure this is specifically what "passion" means. It means that you're "really" getting paid the full rate, but because you love the work you're doing so much, you are then paying the employer to get to do it so it comes out as a net rate lower than you'd expect for the amount of work you're doing.

I don't actually know if employers ever mean anything else by "passion".

Right. What I'm saying is that people seem to be shoving "passion" into places where it doesn't belong, so to speak, as a way of reducing compensation.

It’s the same thing as telling artists to work for exposure or telling teachers to work for the love of seeing students learn.

That’s a relief. I thought the job adverts were a bit strange these days, but now I know why.

I'm old too.

Coming up on 50 in a few short months.

Been there done it all, from humble beginnings to the upper echelons of big five corporates.

Had the whole house in the burbs with the three car garage and five cars, the dance music studio in the basement.

Stock options and pay up the wazoo.

The money wasn't the problem, the environment was.

The cash just wasn't enough

More importantly my mental health was suffering.

Specifically I wanted to continue being a professional developer with a private space, a shared space and above all work with extremely talented people on serious projects.

My colleagues and myself didn't need break out rooms and enumerable meetings to get stuff done, because creation just happened.

So my wife and I gave it all up and started doing start-ups. She's from a similar background and couldn't stand the facade of modern corporate culture either.

Emotionally draining and ultimately unproductive. You get tired seeing a team of a hundred doing work that can be done with a team of ten or less.

Checked out of corporate and went for a walk in the metaphorical desert.

Came back from it rediscovered the joy of programming, dispersed all my assets and started again.

Now we do things on our own terms and with a low impact that we believe in.

Somehow great people, young and old appear out of nowhere and want to help. That's awesome, and we learn from each other.

Hopefully soon our current project will be released and maybe even useful.

The main thing is you don't need a lot honestly in this business. Patience and just wanting to do the right things goes an awful long way.

I say screw corporate culture, at least SV culture. It's nothing a mirage designed for churn and burn and cares less for actual humans

I mean just look how FAANGM create actual cities around their campus to suck you in.

I'm sorry but that isn't normal. It may be convenient, it may be fun when you are young, but it isnt natural and it creates echo chambers and bubbles that are not sustainable.

My hat is off to anyone who does this job, young or old, it's tough.

But please do it for the right reasons, know that you have to be in it for the long game and the game gets bigger every single day.

Good luck people.

And by the way..

It's worth it

Any way for me to contact you in a non-intrusive manner outside HN?

I'm 38 year old programmer with 16 years of career (26 with all the hobby stuff before that) and my soul cries for a break. I am working my ass off to start my first ever mortgage (don't ask, I was stupid with money most of my life) and even though investing in future stability and security sounds good, my entire being screams for a much more fulfilling job, ideally related to aspirations I had ever since I was a teenager.

What are you guys doing, if you don't mind me asking? I'm on the hunt for people like you. I need your kind in my life, very badly.

Hope this isn't creepy. Just an honest guy who's about to get fed up.

> I mean just look how FAANGM create actual cities around their campus to suck you in.

Facebook. Apple. Amazon. Netflix. Google. M ???

What's the M?

Microsoft

Oh come on. Being 50 or even 60 does not make you unemployable. Maybe that is true for web development in the Bay Area? It certainly isn't true for all the places I've worked at, all doing serious low-level engineering in less-trendy locations. I'm 43, and yes there are young people, but there are also multiple people past age 60 who are still doing technical work.

I think I could get you a job "in a grey box on a plain chair and table", though mostly my employer does drywall. There are several chair and desk/table choices.

You get money and various extras like health coverage, 401K, etc. Your preference to "do a great and professional job" "in a chair and table at an office" is fine. There are a few silly trinkets, easy to ignore.

You can "leave early for example to pick up the kids" or for no reason at all. You just need maintain a long-term average of 40 hours per week, and even that can be negotiated if you are really good or have a temporary situation. Some people keep early hours, some people keep late hours, and some people work hours that are pretty random. I take decently full advantage of this, typically showing up in the afternoon. It really makes a quality-of-life difference to be able to go do stuff in the middle of the day without begging for permission.

Believing in the mission of the company is a funny thing in my case. It's almost the same as patriotism. If you would have positive feelings about a huge American flag in the cafeteria, maybe it is the right environment for you. If that makes you uncomfortable, you'd best NOPE NOPE NOPE out of this one.

I'll try to remember to put a proper job description in the next "Who is Hiring?" thread, but FYI: It's the sort of job for people who like writing boot loaders, kernels, emulators, decompilers, hypervisors, JIT engines, and similar stuff. You can email me at users.sf.net, with account name albert.

For what it’s worth, your Who’s Hiring post is always my favorite.

Maybe try and find work with a non-profit. I could never go back to a corporate or "start up" environment. I enjoy feeling that I'm doing something that will actually make a difference to someone other than shareholders.

I want to be, and deserve to be, very well paid. Do not mistake my lack of belief in the company mission for a lack of interest in capitalism or personal financial gain.

This is a frequent misconception that I had as well: nonprofits _can_ pay very well. I worked for a nonprofit as a principal engineer, and it paid better than Google (straight up cash too, since there’s no stock in a nonprofit). You just have to have the track record that shows that you “deserve” to be paid so much. Charging less sends the wrong signal to the employer.

>You just have to have the track record that shows that you “deserve” to be paid so much.

I take it this means be a programmer with significant experience? It would be great too get a fulfilling job that pays the equivalent of a FAANG salary for junior devs, but I don't see anything like that available to me. I guess that'll be one of the good things of becoming an older programmer...

That’s the trouble with these jobs, there are not a lot of them to go around.

Is there any company that fits your criteria? I can't think of a single company that pays "very well" and does not do questionable things.

EDIT: I do not necessarily mean "questionable" here in a moral sense, more so you disagree with it or find it questionable yourself, however your interests may lie.

I didn't say anything about wanting to work for a company that does good or valuable things.

I just don't believe in the mission.

I wouldn't work in certain industries like gambling or tobacco but apart from that I really need the work to be interesting (this is critical), but I just don't feel inspired by the founders goal/mission of "changing the world through being the X of Y".

If anything it's belief in the mission that correlates negatively with financial gain. Non-profits, and companies with verifiably altruistic motives (as opposed to fake altruistic motives), do tend to shave you, but only a little. In non-profits it depends on how well funded they are, so I wouldn't be too quick to write it off.

Working for a non-profit doesn't necessarily mean you won't be paid well.

Although I can't find anything comparing software development salaries amongst non profits and your standard corporations, I did find stats showing that for profit companies have a higher salary- about 30% higher on average (much higher for top level execs).

I so wish I'd realized how inconsequential were the 'missions' of the companies I pointlessly devoted my life to in my twenties

I'm all for this. I work with two engineers who are just like this and they do a fantastic job. It doesn't bother me or our CEO at all that they might not buy into the culture or the mission as much as our younger folks.

Yep. I'm 51. Doing cutting edge GPU/Vision/VR work. Work mostly from home, but travel to Silicon Valley every week. Maybe someday they can put my brain in a jar and I could keep this up indefinitely.

I agree.... the API should hopefully be consistent, and this is more important still for APIs consumed by third parties, but for your internal projects - just get the damn thing to work.

Perfect REST API's are a total waste of time when building stuff for internal consumption.