I started using PHP in the late 90's, back when it was pretty useful in the sense of being able to embed code directly in web pages, so I liked it in a very general sense. Then I started building larger apps, and I started to get the kind of attitude about it that leads very many programmers to declare that "PHP sucks" or "I hate PHP." Then, I started building even larger apps, and I cursed PHP for every line of code I had to write.

Then, something happened. Yes, the language matured, but I also started using application frameworks in PHP, which addressed many of the issues I had with PHP, and then I built an MVC framework from scratch, based on what I'd learned.

Now, I just don't care. I'm not going to defend PHP as a good language, not even it's creator will do that, but when people go on about how terrible PHP is, my first thought is "well, then use it more, and eventually you'll stop caring."

I stick with PHP, specifically for open source, because of it's install density, because it is extremely flexible, and because I know all it's weird quirks and inconsistencies so well that they no longer bother me. I wouldn't mind switching to a more structured and consistent language if it came up, but I don't see PHP as a limitation for anything I want to accomplish, and haven't for a very long time.

And anyways, terrible code is terrible code, and when I think about having to delve into projects that are spaghetti, or procedural, or have no separation of concerns, I don't blame the language for my frustration.

What?

a) XBOX usage destroys Wii in usage, games purchased, and subscription fees all of which are better indicators of the platform' success than hardware units sold which are traditionally a loss leader. And oh yah, XBOX is wildy profitable. Meanwhile Wii sales are down 45% since last September!

b) They are JUST launching their mobile platform which has gotten fair to begrundgingly good reviews and is opening in 30 markets supported by HTC, DELL, LG, AT&T, Verizon, etc. You can expect MSFT to be AT WORST the #3 player in an insanely huge and growing market.

c) BING just signed an innovative deal with Facebook, Google's copying features from them, and they're gaining traction while Google has been stagnant and slightly down year to date.

And that's ignoring that Windows 7 is on a tear, and a great product to boot.

2010 has been a huge year for MSFT, if they manage to keep executing at this level they are going to win a couple of these markets.

Microsoft plays loooonnnnng ball and they've got tens of billions in the bank, I certainly wouldn't say they're in trouble.

DATA:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/10/15/uh-oh-september-wii-sal...

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/halo3untitledodstgame...

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/11/microsoft-announces-ten-w...

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-total-cash-a...

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/bing.com/

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/10/...

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/6/c...

    And knowing every violation stop is a potential end to your life. Who knows who that driver is and what they're going to do?

According to Wolfram Alpha, 633,000 people are employed as police officers. From the Office Down Memorial Page, I found that 127 officers died in the line of duty in the United States in 2009. This gives us a death rate of 20 per 100,000. Of those 127 deaths, 60 were classified as the result of gunfire, during pursuit, or as the result of an assault. If we're generous and treat all of these incidents as homicides, we get a homicide rate of 9.5 per 100,000.

The 2008 murder rate in Detroit was 40.6 per 100,000. East St. Louis, 101.9 per 100,000! The murder rate across the entire United States at the same time was 5.4 per 100,000. The death rate of fishermen is 112 per 100,000.

We could dig into the numbers more and look at where these officers were killed and get an adjusted risk of homicide for police. Anyway, here's my point: The actual threat posed to police is small compared to the public perception of a threat.

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that unions exercise total capture of the Californian budgetmaking process. (100% payraises in the face of the financial collapse? For line officers? In only two years? After they're the best paid in the nation? Before you consider the pensions?!)

This is absolutely terrible advice. Lunch is the ideal opportunity to expand your social network, make connections, learn from others, etc. It is by definition a small-ish block of time and if you're not feeling particularly talkative you can just concentrate on your food.

Getting to know colleagues from different parts of the business will greatly expand future career opportunities. Lunch is the best way to do this, followed by happy hours and other after work activities.

Pay is not determined by the difficulty or unpleasantness of the job, or at least, not directly. It is determined by the balance of supply and demand. How many people are ready and willing to be police officers at some level of pay, and how many police officers are needed?

Policing isn't trivial, but you know what? Neither are most other jobs. There are many, many people with the capability of being police officers; supply is high. Demand is not actually all that high compared to supply. There's even more supply than may initially meet the eye because many people not physically strong enough to be police officers right this instant could bring themselves up to spec if needed. The difficulty or unpleasantness of the job factors into the supply but I think you'd find a lot of people who would take that job; it's hard, but there's a lot of hard jobs about that people do for much less than that amount of money. (After all, first responding is hard from one point of view, but it is uniquely rewarding too; how many lives have you saved in the course of your work? It's not all good but it's not all bad either.)

You argue that they are valuable, and this is true, but the value of an employee is not what determines their pay... it is what caps it; long term, anyhow. You can't be paid more than what you are worth, you can't even be paid exactly what you are worth, you in fact inevitably must be paid less than what you are "worth" for the whole arrangement to work. Governments aren't immune to this. They must run at a net profit or they'll bring their society down. Measurement of profit is somewhat different than a private company, but profit they must; they must be extracting more value from their employees than they are paying their employees or the society is running the government at a net loss, which can only be tolerated to a finite degree as determined by what other surpluses the society is running elsewhere. What governments can do that private industry can't is put off the pain until much later before the fact they are paying people more than the value they are actually bringing bites them.

Later's pretty much here, by the way.

We surveyed the founders after the last batch. Their main gripes were:

1. There aren't enough social events, especially early in the cycle. So we're adding more.

2. Founders were surprised how harsh our feedback was at times. We may be able to be more diplomatic. But I think the fundamental problem is that this is a domain where, so far at least, many participants fail. So if you're truthful, you're often going to be delivering bad news.

3. The speakers got swarmed after talks, because there were some founders who schmoozed with all the speakers as a matter of course, instead of giving priority to others with specific reasons to talk to that speaker. We have a plan to fix this.

4. The acoustics in the orange room are a disaster. When the room's full of people talking you have to yell to be heard. Kate is having a huge sound-absorbing curtain made to fix this.

5. It's too inflexible that office hour slots are exactly 25 minutes. Different problems need varying amounts of time. So we'll make the slots adjustable.

6. Founders wanted a more organized way of getting and sharing feedback about specific investors, so we're going to build something for that.

7. We have to start teaching founders about fundraising earlier in the cycle, because investors are approaching them earlier.

There will always be hustlers a-plenty ready to exploit entrepreneurs.

A few examples from my years working in Silicon Valley from the legal side (where, unfortunately, a lot of this crops up):

In the days when founders were generally less informed than they are today, I would often see them fall prey to "consultants" who would promise to open doors to funding and the like in exchange for a significant equity stake in their venture, only to show themselves to be nothing but B.S.ers.

I have seen lower-tier VCs who cared not a whit about their reputations take control, fire the founders and do a 100 to 1 reverse stock split in exchange for modest additional funding, reducing the entire equity holdings of the founders to less than 1% of the company in one fell swoop.

I have seen founders sell in acquisitions, take their full compensation in the form equity in the acquirer that had to vest over 4 years but without acceleration protection in the event of termination without cause, be told that "we wouldn't do this unless we wanted you to succeed," and then get fired within a few months as the acquiring company took years' worth of work from them for what amounted to a pittance.

I have seen a young founder build up incredible value in a new venture and, after a few years of devoting everything to it and building nice revenues, take in a "partner" who was a "player" in Silicon Valley, only to have that person maneuver him down from an initial 100% ownership stake to 50% to 5% and, finally, when a $30M buyout is about to happen, grant to himself massive amounts of additional stock (all for bogus reasons) to put the original founder under 1% right on the eve of the acquisition.

I could go on and on but the lesson in all of these is that entrepreneurs should always be vigilant to ensure that the deals they do are prudent and do not expose them to this sort of exploitation - it can come at you from all sides.

Very nice piece, by the way, Ryan - I find your posts consistently insightful.

This is a nice idea, with one big BUT. Not to rain on the parade here, but you've been unemployed for two years and all you have to show for it is a funny reverse job application. Sadly, it doesn't show what your actual skills are, nor whether you have ever produced something of value for anyone. These are more or less prerequisites to getting a good job.

Go look at http://jacquesmattheij.com/My+list+of+ideas+for+when+you+are... and pick one. Or come up with another idea. Then build a website that does it. Find some freelance work on the back of that. Something small that can show off your talents. Rinse, repeat. Either you'll start applying to jobs again and get accepted on the basis of your demonstratable skill, someone will give you a job (which you'll have earned,) or you'll be one of the cool consultant-entrpreneur-successes.

As you know, rejection sucks, but the worst thing is the social proof it is against you. I'm thinking to myself "there must be something wrong with this guy, so many people didn't hire him, there must be a reason." Do some things that prove you are a success and people will hire you. You've been unlucky, but sometimes you gotta make your own luck. This is an admirable attempt, but if you want me to believe you are the kind of creative achiever you say you are, you need to do more than say it. You can do it!

EDIT: Damm. As halaric points out, his personal web page does list these things. It still needs at least a direct link and preferably a mention on the application page though.

I agree with you almost entirely. One tiny exception:

>I know it's tongue in cheek, but my god does the current generation not have any humility at all?

Come on...how many times do we have to go through this "young whippersnappers don't have any humility anymore" nonsense before we recognize that young humans, in general, have less humility than they should? Just because you (perhaps) had more humility than this kid doesn't mean your entire generation did.

Call me loony but I see nothing surprising here. It's just indirection... I guess I've probably got some Elder Thing blood in me.

It's funny, one thing led to another earlier today and we found ourselves looking at the salaries for county workers in our area. Most of our county positions -- down to the road workers and clerical staff -- make more than I ever have.

I'm struggling every month, growing a business, working a ton of hours, and these goons are drawing at least $50/month from every taxpayer in our county.

I had to go outside and play for a while after that. It was extremely demoralizing. Coming back and seeing this didn't help.

As a CA taxpayer, it certainly harms my morale.

Cheers, Carson

Society didn't lie to you, society never struck a bargain with you.

Your parents may have lied to you, maybe your teachers too. Whoever it was that lied, it wasn't us. It probably wasn't malicious, some people are/were genuinely extremely misguided about how the world operates (protip: not as differently as before).

Here's what happened: you abdicated your responsibility in one of the most important aspects of your life - your career. You placed in someone's hands other than your own, and now you got bit by it.

Is it your fault? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps you were too trusting in believing every bullshit thing that came out of your career counselor's mouth. Either way, one thing's for sure: it isn't the fault of society either. If you had ever bothered to go talk to software companies (assuming that's your field) in high school, or shit, during college, you would've realized that it takes more than a fancy shiny piece of paper from a prestigious school to get a job. You failed to own this responsibility.

So, it's either your fault for entrusting your career to the incompetence of others, or it's nobody's fault that you're unemployed. In either case, sitting around complaining about how society has failed you will get nothing done - your own action will.

I'm a year out of college, FWIW, and I hate this aspect of my generation (which IMHO is one of the few notably different things about us) - when we encounter unfairness and injustice, we shut down and complain, expecting that the exposing of this unfair injustice will somehow fix everything. It won't.

I was rather fortunate in the sense that I was forced to find jobs during college (degree requirement), and was exposed to how the infernal machinations of employment worked. I was 3 months out of high school, weeks into my very first semester of university when I had to find my first paid internship.

It sucked. But here's are some lessons I learned from that:

- don't just send resumes. Sending resumes is what every Tom, Dick, and Harry does. In this economy, being Tom, Dick, and Harry doesn't work. Besides, do you believe yourself to be strictly mediocre? If not, why are you doing only what strictly mediocre people do?

- find a list of software companies in your area (and within, say, an hour's drive of your local area). Hell, expand this beyond software companies - anybody who can employ a person of your skills. It doesn't matter if they're hiring.

- polish your resume, learn how to introduce yourself. Find a friend, practice if you must.

- hit the road. Seriously, just walk into these places and ask to speak to a hiring manager. Don't ask if they have open positions - it doesn't actually matter. Make sure you get someone in charge out to shake your hand. Introduce yourself, explain that you are looking for a job, know something about what they do, and give them a paper copy of your resume. Learn about what they do.

You do this right, your phone will start ringing. I've known several practitioners of this strategy, and not a single one is ever looking for a job for very long.

That's all great and witty and so on.

But his pseudo-definition of "free" is rather misleading. I don't think Jobs argues that Android isn't free in the sense of being closed-source, or being sold for money, or not being available on most devices. It is. I know that I can compile it right now, from my command line. I know that I wouldn't have to spend any money. I know that, with enough tinkering, I can put it on my iPhone or whatever.

In the real world, on the other hand, this free Android doesn't exist. When I buy a Samsung or HTC or Motorola Android phone, I don't get plain vanilla Android - I get a distorted version full of crap and software I neither need nor want. In the real world, Android is almost never the pure version Rubin wants it to be. It's a weird hybrid, coerced into submission by Verizon, Motorola and friends. The jailbreak community for Android is as large as the one for the iPhone, meaning that in a very import sense, real-world Android is about as open as iOS and webOS.

I don't care about theoretical openness. That's just rhetorics. Jobs merely points that out.

I dunno. I was out of work for a year once and then settled for a few years of staggering underemployment. I even came to believe that I would never again be hired as a developer, that no company would look at me, that my resume was too weak and I'd never get past human resources. It got really depressing.

Then I met a guy who knew a guy, and they got me back on track. Now I have a very nice job with a very nice company where I do amazing work (if I may say so). So anyhow, there are eight million stories in the naked city. This guy's story sounds like my story. I wish him luck.

i think the reddit system of featuring one new story on the front page would be good. Show a story to a 100 users...if it doesn't get an upvote...retire it, if it does show it to another 100...if a story doesn't get 5 upvotes...retire it.