Ask HN: Finding interesting work if disenchanted with "big tech" & "VC-backed"
43 comments
CS Degree from 1996, been working for startup then big company, startup then big company, over and over for, yikes 30 years. I'm now at big company again and I've completely lost the urge to "change the world" and the product my big company makes isn't even a product I use myself. (Not that it's bad, just not my thing.) I'm in it now for the people and the tech. You'll never find that fulfillment you are seeking in working for the right company doing what you think is important. Just pick one and fall in love with your co-workers, make them friends, and do tech for the sake of tech.
>> I've completely lost the urge to "change the world"
Changing the world sounds like a lofty goal, but in practice is just a cop out. I too started out with that in mind, but looking back with more maturity I see it differently now.
"Changing the world" means what? A billion users? More? Less? What I got instead was hundreds to thousands of users. But to those folk my software really matters. It makes every day suck a bit less, and if that's "all" I've achieved then I'm happy with that.
Here's an analogy (not my field at all). Do you think writing a program that allows 100 blind people to navigate the world is less satisfying than say improving ad-tech? And if helping blind people is perhaps a fulfilling goal, then what groups of metaphorical "blind" people are all around you?
You change the world by changing one person's life. And if what you make can remove just a little bit of pain from just a few people, then rest assured, that's good enough.
Changing the world sounds like a lofty goal, but in practice is just a cop out. I too started out with that in mind, but looking back with more maturity I see it differently now.
"Changing the world" means what? A billion users? More? Less? What I got instead was hundreds to thousands of users. But to those folk my software really matters. It makes every day suck a bit less, and if that's "all" I've achieved then I'm happy with that.
Here's an analogy (not my field at all). Do you think writing a program that allows 100 blind people to navigate the world is less satisfying than say improving ad-tech? And if helping blind people is perhaps a fulfilling goal, then what groups of metaphorical "blind" people are all around you?
You change the world by changing one person's life. And if what you make can remove just a little bit of pain from just a few people, then rest assured, that's good enough.
Less satisfying? Not necessarily.
Less likely to make an impact? Statistically, yes because it touches so many less people.
It’s similar to the generalist vs specialist debate or the quality vs quantity. No one right answer.
Less likely to make an impact? Statistically, yes because it touches so many less people.
It’s similar to the generalist vs specialist debate or the quality vs quantity. No one right answer.
This is a great point, I think the only other thing I would add is that if you happen to have a passion in a certain hobby, try to find technical work around it (if possible). For example you like running, look into sport tech, or if you like biology, look into biotech companies.
That is great advice. It’s something I’m actually working on.
> I've completely lost the urge to "change the world" and
I’m there as well. Working for a agency at the moment and trying to figure out how to balance “shutting up and doing as I’m told with out concern for the why or the outcome,” with making the client feel I’m “bought in” when I’m truly not, I just want to do my hours execute the project they think they need, and move on to the next client
I’m there as well. Working for a agency at the moment and trying to figure out how to balance “shutting up and doing as I’m told with out concern for the why or the outcome,” with making the client feel I’m “bought in” when I’m truly not, I just want to do my hours execute the project they think they need, and move on to the next client
here's your challenge then, without quitting (actual or quiet) embrace the job. Yeah _this_ job. It's perfect. Find a way to enjoy this and then life will reward you with both peace AND maybe a year from now, without even trying, all of a sudden you'll be placed on this amazing team doing something cool.
But if you force it. Go out and make it happen tomorrow, life will give you the opposite. </end yoda talk>
But if you force it. Go out and make it happen tomorrow, life will give you the opposite. </end yoda talk>
“Finding a way to enjoy it” is a lot of what I decided I need to do (as of like 96 hours ago), didn’t quite phrase it that way but that’s a good way to put it.
Thanks for sharing
Thanks for sharing
[deleted]
What about being a teacher? I've started out my career being a teacher. That felt quite impactful
This is a great response. I'm about 10 years sooner in my career than you. With young kids at home...I'm still holding hope that I can effectively balance my own health, family, spirituality, etc. with a product/technology I'm passionate about.
Maybe I'm just not seeking out the right groups/networks...but I increasingly struggle to trade-off a project that I'm passionate about with time spent focusing on health/family.
Maybe I'm just not seeking out the right groups/networks...but I increasingly struggle to trade-off a project that I'm passionate about with time spent focusing on health/family.
I remember going to a psychiatrist for the first time when I was around 30 and I told him "well there is fun code and unfun code". I was explaining how I hated my job at the time I had to write unfun code all day long but my side projects, that was fun code.
He looked at me like I was literally a crazy person and said, "Ok, explain more what you mean by un-fun code..."
At the time I sighed and thought oh geeze, this is so painfully obvious how do I even explain the difference. BUT looking back now, nope. He was right. That is crazy. It's all just code. The people and your attitude make all the difference.
Before enlightenment: write code, fix bugs. After enlightenment: write code, fix bugs.
He looked at me like I was literally a crazy person and said, "Ok, explain more what you mean by un-fun code..."
At the time I sighed and thought oh geeze, this is so painfully obvious how do I even explain the difference. BUT looking back now, nope. He was right. That is crazy. It's all just code. The people and your attitude make all the difference.
Before enlightenment: write code, fix bugs. After enlightenment: write code, fix bugs.
On the other hand I think it’s an awful response.
> pick one and fall in love with your co-workers, make them friends, and do tech for the sake of tech.
Not caring about what you are building and why is how we got here. Too many hyper focused people in tech only interested if they could do things without wondering if they should.
Precisely how we now have technology-oligarchs who got rich off of the work of such single minded people now destroying the country.
Enough people thinking like this is what has led to people like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin to thrive and become influential.
Sure that algorithm is cool and all but it’s been used for techno-fascism.
> pick one and fall in love with your co-workers, make them friends, and do tech for the sake of tech.
Not caring about what you are building and why is how we got here. Too many hyper focused people in tech only interested if they could do things without wondering if they should.
Precisely how we now have technology-oligarchs who got rich off of the work of such single minded people now destroying the country.
Enough people thinking like this is what has led to people like Peter Thiel and Curtis Yarvin to thrive and become influential.
Sure that algorithm is cool and all but it’s been used for techno-fascism.
You can have small collaborative teams building cool impactful things inside a big company. It does take a particular set of conditions to pull off, a mix of vision and ambition by the engineers as well as agenda and trust by the management I'd say.
Niches can have some deeply interesting stuff too that can keep you busy and interested for a long time, but that's more up to personal tastes whether any given niche would be a match for someone or not.
I won't go into specifics, but I've seen first-hand the achievements of such a team in a particular niche I happen to find interesting. Unbelievably cool and unique tech just hidden in plain sight and a joy to work with under the hood. On the other hand, it can feel like being on the other side of a treasure hunt, where you secretly hope one day someone outside gets nerd-sniped inside your particular niche, follows the breadcrumbs out in the open and pieces it all together, just to see what madness they could pull off.
Niches can have some deeply interesting stuff too that can keep you busy and interested for a long time, but that's more up to personal tastes whether any given niche would be a match for someone or not.
I won't go into specifics, but I've seen first-hand the achievements of such a team in a particular niche I happen to find interesting. Unbelievably cool and unique tech just hidden in plain sight and a joy to work with under the hood. On the other hand, it can feel like being on the other side of a treasure hunt, where you secretly hope one day someone outside gets nerd-sniped inside your particular niche, follows the breadcrumbs out in the open and pieces it all together, just to see what madness they could pull off.
Having always shunned big companies, I think this is something I never realized until someone mentioned it last spring.
You don’t work for ACME corp, you work for your team there.
You don’t work for ACME corp, you work for your team there.
Having worked at a Big Tech for 5+ years now, I'd disagree.
Not only do you work for ACME corp., your team's manager (and their manager, all the way up to the director) need to do what the C-Suite thinks will make Wall St. happy, to raise the stock price. All work planning must justify why this and not something else.
You almost certainly cannot pretend that your team is like an independent startup/lab embedded within Acme.
If you've always shunned big companies thus far, your intuition has not led you astray.
Edit, to add that you do interact with your team, so if that is good, you can be insulated from the rest of Acme in that particular dimension (which is a big component of one's experience of working for any employer).
Not only do you work for ACME corp., your team's manager (and their manager, all the way up to the director) need to do what the C-Suite thinks will make Wall St. happy, to raise the stock price. All work planning must justify why this and not something else.
You almost certainly cannot pretend that your team is like an independent startup/lab embedded within Acme.
If you've always shunned big companies thus far, your intuition has not led you astray.
Edit, to add that you do interact with your team, so if that is good, you can be insulated from the rest of Acme in that particular dimension (which is a big component of one's experience of working for any employer).
Are you disenchanted with technology, or disenchanted with being a wage-slave code-monkey following orders and shipping crap software to make shareholders rich?
I only ask because I wasted too long confusing the two.
I only ask because I wasted too long confusing the two.
Undoubtedly the later
"Big tech" & "vc backed" is a huge inspiration, but it's not meant for you, an employee. It was meant for VCs and other beneficiaries, actual stakeholders.
Nothing wrong with that.
But you better find inspiration where it actually is, not where the light shines - either in the journey to becoming the actual beneficiary. Or in the work itself, like an artist. Like many wise people here already commented.
Nothing wrong with that.
But you better find inspiration where it actually is, not where the light shines - either in the journey to becoming the actual beneficiary. Or in the work itself, like an artist. Like many wise people here already commented.
100% agree
I guess I’m not even sure what other options there are. Any suggestions?
I guess I’m not even sure what other options there are. Any suggestions?
You’re human being, you have a free will, go make yourself any choice you want to see in the world. No matter how small or big.
I'm currently reading Startupland by Mikkel Svane. While I'm not fully done with the book yet, I think its content resonates with what you're looking for. After all, Zendesk was self-funded and 100% focused on building something its customers loved (back in that day and age). Perhaps give it a try?
I'm assuming you're an SE.
If you go looking, there are many non-VC backed mission driven companies that either a) aren't VC backable - often because the founding team is minority, or female, not because of any real reason, or b) the tech isn't the flavour of the month, or c) the founders are bootstrapping and don't have interest in VC.
If you've got all 3 of those, that sounds like a winner to me!
If you're in the US, which I assume you are, and particularly in SF, NYC, or even LA, or Austin, you're probably in so much of a bubble, that you just hear so much VC nonsense start-ups.
It's why I moved to Sydney, Australia (from Canada) instead of going to SF. Sydney is a hub of people doing real interesting work, and building real companies. The VC environment here is quite pathetic - maybe I'm just sour grapes because we couldn't raise, but we now realize we don't have to, and it is a HUGE relief.
BTW, myself and my co-founder were never interested in slinging-ads for big-tech. This was HUGELY helpful for me, as there is no way my co-founder would have joined if he was mostly just interested in the big paycheck and not taking on the risk and wanting to make an impact.
So, before finding interesting work, are you willing to take the drop in pay and options that big-tech offers? Are you willing to risk it on a bootstrapping start-up where you believe in the mission?
Another way may be to look at the post-growth companies that have a good product in a good niche, but are not looking for the escape velocity being a start-up. I'm thinking of places you may have thought of as "has been's" . Mozilla, IBM, etc, where interesting work is happening, but it isn't in the spotlight like may of the other big-tech firms.
Those are my thoughts.
If you go looking, there are many non-VC backed mission driven companies that either a) aren't VC backable - often because the founding team is minority, or female, not because of any real reason, or b) the tech isn't the flavour of the month, or c) the founders are bootstrapping and don't have interest in VC.
If you've got all 3 of those, that sounds like a winner to me!
If you're in the US, which I assume you are, and particularly in SF, NYC, or even LA, or Austin, you're probably in so much of a bubble, that you just hear so much VC nonsense start-ups.
It's why I moved to Sydney, Australia (from Canada) instead of going to SF. Sydney is a hub of people doing real interesting work, and building real companies. The VC environment here is quite pathetic - maybe I'm just sour grapes because we couldn't raise, but we now realize we don't have to, and it is a HUGE relief.
BTW, myself and my co-founder were never interested in slinging-ads for big-tech. This was HUGELY helpful for me, as there is no way my co-founder would have joined if he was mostly just interested in the big paycheck and not taking on the risk and wanting to make an impact.
So, before finding interesting work, are you willing to take the drop in pay and options that big-tech offers? Are you willing to risk it on a bootstrapping start-up where you believe in the mission?
Another way may be to look at the post-growth companies that have a good product in a good niche, but are not looking for the escape velocity being a start-up. I'm thinking of places you may have thought of as "has been's" . Mozilla, IBM, etc, where interesting work is happening, but it isn't in the spotlight like may of the other big-tech firms.
Those are my thoughts.
That is very good advice.
Where would these sorts of companies congregate and/or what kind of terms would you use to filter for them?
Where would these sorts of companies congregate and/or what kind of terms would you use to filter for them?
I guess it depends on what is interesting to you, or what resonated with you in the above statement.
It definitely isn't easy to find the "what's really uninteresting that nobody is talking about" type of stuff.
Is there an open source project you find interesting? Maybe find out who is using that, and if there is something you could do for them?
Maybe go on a road trip to somewhere in the US (again, I'm assuming you're American) which isn't one of the main hubs of tech, speak to people, see what's interesting. I can almost guarantee there is some tech sort of business that is doing something interesting that is just head down getting the work done and enjoying being in the environment they are in and doing real work rather than being part of an echo chamber just trying to tell everyone about how great they are.
It definitely isn't easy to find the "what's really uninteresting that nobody is talking about" type of stuff.
Is there an open source project you find interesting? Maybe find out who is using that, and if there is something you could do for them?
Maybe go on a road trip to somewhere in the US (again, I'm assuming you're American) which isn't one of the main hubs of tech, speak to people, see what's interesting. I can almost guarantee there is some tech sort of business that is doing something interesting that is just head down getting the work done and enjoying being in the environment they are in and doing real work rather than being part of an echo chamber just trying to tell everyone about how great they are.
- Try to regain some agency, instead of being a ticket monkey. Self-employment can be much more satisfying to some.
- Work outside of tech. There are so many places where a single developer can have disproportionate impact simply because developers never work on those problems.
- Work on smaller scale problems where you have an impact on the entire solution, and not only on a tiny part of the implementation.
My job is to help immigrants settle in Germany. I still write a lot of code, but it's in support of a more concrete goal. I have a lot of agency and essentially choose what I work on. The scale is small but the impact of even simple tools is disproportionate.
It's the best job I have ever had.
- Work outside of tech. There are so many places where a single developer can have disproportionate impact simply because developers never work on those problems.
- Work on smaller scale problems where you have an impact on the entire solution, and not only on a tiny part of the implementation.
My job is to help immigrants settle in Germany. I still write a lot of code, but it's in support of a more concrete goal. I have a lot of agency and essentially choose what I work on. The scale is small but the impact of even simple tools is disproportionate.
It's the best job I have ever had.
I could have said, "work for a small company", but I did exactly that, and they got acquired by a PE-fund backed company...
So I'm back to square one.
So I'm back to square one.
I think a researcher position in a big tech is good enough. Good pay and you don't have to face business directly.
It sounds like you should start your own company.
Would you mind elaborating on how you got from my post to this suggestion?
So many ways to interpret your statement.
So many ways to interpret your statement.
You like being on small collaborative teams building cool impactful things, but you don’t like how the companies you worked at do things (depend on VC, or whatever). So just start your own - build cool things and don’t take VC money. You only need VC money if you want to scale fast, hire a ton of people, etc.
I understand what you mean. Thanks for clarifying.
This is likely it. I’ve always been an IC, avoided any sort of leadership role and even ones that are collaborative (lots of only child vibes), but I need to change that.
This is likely it. I’ve always been an IC, avoided any sort of leadership role and even ones that are collaborative (lots of only child vibes), but I need to change that.
Yeah that is definitely a sure fire means to supporting himself and his family.
VCs, simply put, are a creative force that makes their rich sponsors richer. They are like an intelligent gravity force for money. On the other hand, projects that help people do the opposite: they distribute wealth and make the rich poorer. Of course, the selfish rich aren't going to fund such initiatives. That's why many struggle with a cognitive dissonance: do the right thing and stay poor, or do the wrong thing and make real money.
Insightful, thank you.
Follow your hobbies!
There is no such thing as any for profit company focuses on anything aside from making a profit.
I would say if you want to make a difference work in the public sector and that might still be viable on the state level in Blue states. But Republican led states are now aping Trump and setting up their own DOGE like apparatuses.
The real answer is the purpose for work outside of non profits is to exchange labor for money. My interest is having money appear in my account to support my addictions to food and shelter and to afford my interests
I would say if you want to make a difference work in the public sector and that might still be viable on the state level in Blue states. But Republican led states are now aping Trump and setting up their own DOGE like apparatuses.
The real answer is the purpose for work outside of non profits is to exchange labor for money. My interest is having money appear in my account to support my addictions to food and shelter and to afford my interests
But making a profit can still come in the form of solving an issue for people. They may be the minority, but companies exist that don't just optimize for short-term profit, but have a stable base of product and customers and get better at what they're doing. Nothing glamorous, but it can still be fun if the people get along (which is kinda like a game being "fun with friends" I admit).
I'm not really debating your point, which is totally fair, but for me the question isn't so much how many companies aren't like that, but how to find that which are, or how to recognize them, filter out their spiritual opposites, etc.
I'm not really debating your point, which is totally fair, but for me the question isn't so much how many companies aren't like that, but how to find that which are, or how to recognize them, filter out their spiritual opposites, etc.
But making a profit can still come in the form of solving an issue for people
Every company is in the business of solving people’s problems to convince people to give them money. That’s not meant to be a cynical take. That’s why a company exist outside of gambling, MLM and maybe a few other companies. I gladly give companies money to give me goods and services and prefer that honest transaction over adtech.
However you choose to fault the current BigTech companies even, none of them are short term focused. That is except for Google. Google’s management has always had the focus of a crack addled flea.
If you want to work for a company with a long term focus, public companies that aren’t doing some type of financial engineering to juice stock returns like Boeing, Intel or GE back in the day is a safe bet.
Private companies are almost always in business trying to look good for acquirer.
Every company is in the business of solving people’s problems to convince people to give them money. That’s not meant to be a cynical take. That’s why a company exist outside of gambling, MLM and maybe a few other companies. I gladly give companies money to give me goods and services and prefer that honest transaction over adtech.
However you choose to fault the current BigTech companies even, none of them are short term focused. That is except for Google. Google’s management has always had the focus of a crack addled flea.
If you want to work for a company with a long term focus, public companies that aren’t doing some type of financial engineering to juice stock returns like Boeing, Intel or GE back in the day is a safe bet.
Private companies are almost always in business trying to look good for acquirer.
An absolute majority of startups are not vc funded. Only the ones you hear about are.
You either need to join the right group or talk to some founders.
We are bootstrapped genai company working on reducing hallucinations in LLMs and similarly we know tons of other AI companies that are bootstrapped
You either need to join the right group or talk to some founders.
We are bootstrapped genai company working on reducing hallucinations in LLMs and similarly we know tons of other AI companies that are bootstrapped
Agreed that likely need to find the right group. Any advice on where to look?
I’m in nyc if that helps.
I’m in nyc if that helps.
You can follow some indie people on twitter. meetup is almost dead so best bet is to get into this indie groups and then network out or even go to coworking group events
Thanks, sounds like good advice.
I attend some networking events, but often broad ones cause I think I’m not in the know enfough to attend niche ones. Only way to learn high is to attend.
I attend some networking events, but often broad ones cause I think I’m not in the know enfough to attend niche ones. Only way to learn high is to attend.
More and more I’m sick of VC backed startups as well, because I see how VC money is a deal with the devil that incentivizes people to focus on scale, valuations and exits rather than quality and intrinsic reward from creating a good product. This has rapidly accelerated as I watch VC unabashedly fall in line with this new presidential administration.
Not sure where to turn next though. I could walk away from tech and join a niche legacy industry, but there some much interesting stuff that I’d be closed off to as a result.
As much as I’m looking for an answer, curious if anyone else finds themselves asking the same questions.