Summary: Working in a really bad start-up is less good than working in a really good corporate environment.

There are shitty, corrupt, nepotistic, lying corporations and there are also sterling start-ups. The world's not black and white.

"The dot coms I have known were all doomed. Almost all of them were the classic two-founder startups going after a niche in the market. All of them needed outside money to achieve their goals, and in every case the outside money wrecked the company. Uncontrolled hiring wiped out the competence and the culture of these places within months. Executives who came in with the outside money were out of their depth and resorted to arbitrary decision-making and tyranny, and sometimes deliberately failed at their fiduciary responsibilities. "

I worked for a company matching that description precisely, and can attest to the fact that it really sucked, a lot. The strange thing for me was that it was a subtle shift from "wow, this is so exciting" to "I can't believe how much this sucks". I can't even pinpoint exactly when it happened.

In the beginning it was exciting. Lot's of money floating around, everyone assuming things would be wildly successful and we'd all be rich. Reality was a hard pill to swallow (I was the fifth employee of a company that grew to just over 100 then contracted to around 25). That said, I'm not really tempted to go to the corporate world. I can't just unplug my ambition and accept being a small cog in a giant machine. I would much rather take all the lessons I've learned on "what not to do" and channel that into a new (and hopefully better) startup.

No, there are some things that happen in startups which absolutely don't happen in established businesses in North America. I've seen fraud, overt sexism, early-stage employees fired the week before they vest, and tyrannical abuse of underlings.

That said, the author of the post works only in the LA area, so I think all his experience has been with media-oriented startups. I have a feeling there's a higher degree of frat boy douchiness in that world. San Francisco startups tend to have a more placid, nerdy, bike-rack-in-the-lobby atmosphere, although they can ultimately be just as cruel.

(Disclaimer: I'm reading HN because I'm procrastinating work on my Ph.D. thesis...on an evolutionary model ;-)

There isn't a good reason why this would ever matter to someone.

How's this for a reason why it should matter: You pay taxes, as do your neighbors. When you pay those taxes, you expect them to pay for things you feel are worth while. You also vote, and you will probably vote for people who you are confident will steer those tax dollars to projects you feel are worth while.

I'm a scientist (or at least, I am for now...I don't think I'll be able to make a living at it for much longer. I'll have to get a "real" job). Most of the research I do is funded, directly or indirectly, by tax dollars. When the people who value evolution and an understanding of the biological world had their way, a lot of money was steered toward funding that sort of research. Then, people who didn't accept evolution came into power. They steered money away from this sort of research, and into fighting wars of aggression. For nearly the past decade, funding has remained flat (after doubling in the preceding 5 years...a rate which was probably too fast, but that's a whole 'nother story).

Why would you care about my research? Well, I research evolution. Specifically, I'm interested in how to determine what factors will function as selective pressures a priori. Why is that important? Remember last April when OMG SWINE FLU!!!1!!11 Do you remember the pundits and professors and learned people of all sorts that got on the TV and the radio? Do you remember the hosts of all those show asking: Now what? How bad? And do you remember that nobody could give a straight answer?

You know why they couldn't give a straight answer? It's not so much because the don't know why the flu might be more or less severe. There's been a lot of research into that lately, and we have a good idea what mutations might make the flu a killer, and which are mostly harmless. No, the reason they couldn't give you a straight answer is because which of those mutations would be acquired, and in what proportions, depends on evolution, on selective pressures...and we can't predetermine what those selective pressures will be! Maybe we could, if you'd be ok giving some tax dollars to fund evolution research, or at least vote for people who would be ok with that.

Oh, and for the entrepreneurs that will predictably say that I shouldn't rely on the government for funding, and that I should instead count on the private sector? Here's the deal I'll offer you (and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better offer): I give you a 5% probability that the research I will do in the next, say, 40 years, at a cost of only $15mil a year, will lead to being better able to predict where the next pandemic might occur. Would you fund me? Or, more importantly, could you find a government that would allow us to keep that information as a trade secret until the original investment of $600mil (adjusted for 40 years of inflation, of course) was recouped?

/rant phew...now about that thesis...