Dear 42 Floors: why exactly do you think you need rockstar software talent? Your execution is obviously phenomenal, but it's not like you need a team of <del>haskell/clojure ninjas</del> grizzled enterprise vets who know how to tackle ridiculous complexity of integrating dozens of services against ever changing requirements.
edit: all i'm trying to say is there are top 90% devs, and 99% devs, and 99.9% devs... not exactly sure that 42Floors needs them. if they did need them, they wouldn't be saying things like
> We can't compete with Google or Facebook on salary. We
> can't compete with being a founder on equity. So the most
> important thing I have left is my ability to commit to an
> individual employee's personal development
99.9ers don't need you for personal development. Sounds like they're trying to get young potential while its cheap. Nothing wrong with that, but when we discuss it, we should say it like it is.
by the way, I quit my 90% job to do hacker/school this summer, I intend to come out a 99er with mad functional programming chops, looking to join a team of 99.9ers so i can someday become one.
I agree. The product is very valuable, and with the right execution and marketing they'll do well. But I can't figure out why companies like this--let's be honest, 80% of YC-funded companies-- need the "best and brightest."
I ask this honestly...why would the best and brightest want to work for consumer-facing companies with minimal salary and the equivalent of a lottery ticket for cashing out in 4-5 years? Maybe I just don't get the SV hype--I'm from Chicago. I thought we were past the rockstar/ninja stuff. Don't you just need people who can, ya know, "deliver" and "execute your tasks efficiently." Maybe even scale your app to multiple EC2 servers. And maybe if they're really motivated, contribute to your "vision."
I'll admit that my "lifestyle" business plans are basically the same-- a fairly simple B2B CRUD app that hopefully gains traction when I release it. But I would never even think of courting the kind of talent I would expect to be attracted to NASA, SpaceX, <insert green energy startup here>, etc.
Depends on how you define "the best". I guess it's partly an ego stroking thing but also based on the sort of problems that the company might hope to have to solve in the future.
Of course being "the best" depends on the company. Let's consider someone like DHH from 37 Signals. He created a very popular web framework and a suite of popular products so no doubt that he is a very productive and talented developer. However would he be the best person to choose if you wanted to do complex cryptanalysis or develop a high performance OS kernel?
What if you took someone who was skilled in these things and gave them David's job, would they be "the best" then?
I think it is this confusion that makes interviewers think they must ask complex math questions to interview someone who's day job will be to write code that generates HTML.
There also seems to some confusion that you are only elite if you use the latest and coolest tools, which leads to weird stuff like someone who made a web 2.0 social chat app in nodeJS being considered better than someone who designed and implemented a 6 nines reliability infrastructure system for a bank but who was building on top of legacy Fortran/Java/Oracle.
because it seems like half the time, companies are partially bought for the talent...so if you can get a much better developer it helps adds to the valuation.
but yeah quite often it seems like these companies with thousands of developers...could be run with a 20 times smaller team
So, you're saying that people are, in effect, building lottery tickets when they create start-ups? Is no one interested in building businesses anymore?
This how it works with VC funded companies, you either need to sell them or go public. The VCs need to get a return on their investment. Since there are only 1,000 companies or so going public per year, selling to another company is your best bet. And if you do that you might as well do so for the best possible price. I don't think this is bad per se.
How does a company being bought for talent work exactly? If I join a company that gets bought, how long am I usually legally obligated to work for the company that bought my current employer?
There are a number of issues at play here, but short answer, you are not legally obligated to work at all, you can leave any time.
With that said the issues involved are as such:
1. If you had equity in a company (and sometimes even if you don't) it is not uncommon to sign a non-compete contract as part of the sale that bars you from working for a competitor for about a year.
2. Often, much of the value of the sale for employees is structured as retention payments, i.e. they set up a number of bonuses that are spread out over a few years, and you need to work at the company for that duration to get those bonuses.
i think a lot of people like to talk about how they want the best, and it makes everybody feel good, and the 90%ers (already really good, top decile!) can't tell the difference between them and a 99.9er because they haven't seen one before. also, "goodness" is multi-dimensional which confuses the issue further, its much more than raw coding chops, business ___domain knowledge is often more valuable.
but it doesn't matter if people are unaware that they're not the best. software gets built, money is made, and people sort themselves into the type of job they're ready for. especially because ability to build a highly valued company is probably a seperate dimension of "goodness" than coding chops. and a more valued dimension.
I may be too young to remember correctly, but I think this whole "we need particle physicists to sweep our floors" mentality started with Google. I'm sure it was around before then, but I definitely noticed an increase in that focus after Google became well known for only hiring "the best".
Crap teams suck, no matter what they're working on.
I find it very HN of you to think that programming talent means being able to churn out code fast that does difficult things.
I'm just guessing here, but maybe 42floors want to make good, well engineered software that users love to use and that is maintainable for a while still. This has very little to do with being a "haskell/clojure ninja", yet very much with software talent.
From experience, people like Dan often don't make "well engineered software that is maintainable for awhile." I know Dan personally and he's a great guy, but what makes Dan valuable is his intelligence, intuition, and ability to Get Things Done. Sure, he can code, but lots of people can do that just fine.
I think this is a fair point, and mostly agree. However, when I look back at my life and see all the things I got which I considered to be beyond what I deserved simply by for asking them....I have a hard time faulting them.
I would also note that things are not always as disparate as they seem. I'm sure some people at my high school raised an eyebrow when someone generally regarded as a strange, nerdy, and not particularly attractive loner started dating one of the most popular and attractive cheerleaders in school, but if they dug deeper they might have realized that we had a relationship based on a shared love of music and various other interests. So what at first might have seemed lopsided was rather balanced.
It could be that 42Floors has something to offer that Dan finds attractive, even if it's just a steady paycheck that provides the freedom to work on other things. I'll let them sort that out themselves.
I also think it's important to read this whole post. I think they probably don't expect this offer to be taken up...they're using it as link bait. I think they legitimately admire Dan and wanted a way to show that, and figured they could do that while also commenting on their hiring process, benefits, and draw in other interested parties. I'm sure they're also serious about the offer.
I have mixed feelings about link-baity content, but I can see where they're coming from.
In my experience with recent internet businesses the criteria you outline points to a management deficit. They want self-starters, likely due to a lack of process (as you note, illustrated by the lack of resources available to attract talent at the level they desire).
It seems entirely possible 42 Floors has bigger plans for the future, and would like to get some top talent to help making those plans a reality. There's a lot of companies where you could go to their starting point, and ask the same question, but you'd never ask yourself that question today, when those companies have grown into something way beyond what their initial pitch implied.
As a 30 year old with a wife, kid, and semi soul-sucking full time data job, this post causes me to feel both inspired and regretful. This guy would NEVER hire me, which I guess I should feel bummed about, but instead I'm just fired up. I will continue to get home, do the dad/husband thing, and then from 8:15 to 11:30, work on my projects. Wake up at 5, do it all over again. I HOPE I will one day be half as good as this Dan Shipper kid (whose posts I really like by the way, particularly his 2016 not 2012 post)
I hope I can get job offers like this one day, so that I can turn them down. Not saying that a company like this isn't awesome (I'm sure it is), but if you're good enough to get hired by them, then you shouldn't be hired by anyone. You should be hiring.
I'm a lot like you (30, married, one kid) and I keep basically the same schedule as you, offset one hour later. I feel oddly proud of this Shipper kid, but no regret or inspiration. If this is his dream, good for him. If it's your dream, I hope you get there. Speaking personally, I get more out of my wife, son, and side projects than any job could give, and the idea of working 80 hour weeks just to be hanging out with the cool kids in the Silicon Valley glam rock world sickens me.
There are many startups where the average age group is young families with kids. The majority of people I work with are 30/40 somethings, and it started with 30/40 somethings and we started 2/3 years ago. You'll find those family startups more in the south bay and peninsula. SF is far more attractive to singles, and they move down to the south bay to start their families.
32 year olds were born in the same year Madonna made her debut. The commodore 64 was introduced. The Falklands / Malvinas were invaded / reclaimed. Lawn Chair Larry flew his ballon-chair. Ozzy Osborne bit the head off a bat. John Belushi died. CDs started mass production.
As a general example (so not connecting it to the folks here), I've always thought hiring by 'head hunting' might be a potential way to avoid lawsuits and discrimination issues. You could head hunt 50 youthful blondes to work at your company and because you never advertised for the position publicly or requested people send in their resumes.. :-)
You're up in SF, alas. I need to start building a good list of awesome companies who are in the South Bay and Peninsula, just because I can't be the only one looking.
Not that the City isn't nice. It's just a long commute from Fremont.
Sleep is something that's highly variable from person to person, there's no "right" amount of time to sleep, only what's right for you (obviously this is a little bit of simplification, I don't think anyone could function on 1 hour of sleep a day for very long). 8 hours is generally thrown around as a good benchmark, but some people may only need 5 or 6 while others need 9 or 10. It depends on your metabolism, general health, and a variety of other factors I'm sure.
I find with exercise and by sticking to a very rigid sleep schedule (I've learned that for me, It's very bad to fight the sleepies to "just get a little more work done"), 6 is generally enough for me personally. This depends on a nice solid sleep though, if something is periodically interrupting my sleep (like a noisy air conditioner or what have you) I can sleep for longer and still not feel terribly rested. I find oversleeping too much also tends to make me groggy. YMMV
does that seem implausible? I have pretty much the exact scenario except I really like my job, and stop around 1:30am and get up around 7am. Occasionally I'll add a nap, or go to bed closer to midnight, but it's certainly a doable life-style. After those first 6 mo. with a newborn 5 1/2 continuos hours is wonderful ;)
Yeah well maybe I am a lazy person. :) I also think its a matter of age. (I am 22).
I can function with 5 hours of sleep but only if my tasks require from half an hour to one hour of continuous focus. I usually need breaks.
8 hours is ideal though, no need for coffee or naps, and I can focus for quite some time.
Am I the only person who feels really embarrassed for everyone involved? This is not the kind of thing that should be done in public. If you want to court someone then get in touch with them and make some real offers. If they say "no" even after you've made a couple bigger offers then respect that, and move on with your life.
No, you're not the only one. It brings to mind an awkward, overly public marriage proposal. Not something I'd want to be on the receiving end of. And if the other party turns them down, the rejection is just that much more awkward.
I don't know why you feel the need to hate on his success because he doesn't have any employees. It's as if whatever he built counts for nothing. Whatever you did while you were a sophomore in college it probably wasn't anything close to what Dan has achieved. From his blog: "a little app I built in a few days to review websites that's grossed a few thousand dollars to date" and "I programmed and sold apps for BlackBerry and iPhone including the first BlackBerry anti-theft program called FindIt". So yeah, he's made money.
I know I was still finding my way in college at that point, cruising by in my classes without much to show for it.
I have nothing ill to think of Mr. Shipman either, he's probably both a nice guy and a smart guy. But I do agree with you that there's a recent trend going on over the last year or so with people (especially younger people, and especially web programmers) who create a few different small websites and then present themselves as having started/built/run/sold businesses. Lots of CEOs of, well, simple Rails apps. "I'm the CEO of a WordPress blog!" There are things we can say which can be strictly true, but which waters down and muddles the meaning and importance of what the words originally meant. Which makes it hard to separate signal from noise. Which is bad.
I'm tempted to issue a challenge to Silicon Valley: I start a cooperative kosher bakery with some friends and a bank loan, and you all start web 2.0 ninja-rockstar-mobile-social app companies with VC funding. We'll see who's actually making any money a few years down the road.
I really think the handful of incredible home-runs we've seen in tech obscure the fact that tech businesses are generally pretty hard to get off the ground. I have a feeling that most of the people that have the skill and drive to build a profitable tech company could do as well or better in a lot of other fields.
And here's the other fun bit: you can add scaling and a web store to a brick-and-mortar business, but you can't add a brick-and-mortar business to lines of code.
Hiring very talented young people out of college is an easy way for companies to get lots of value for cheap.
If you haven't read pg's "Hiring is Obsolete", I suggest you do because it more or less explains why someone like Dan shouldn't take this offer: http://paulgraham.com/hiring.html
For someone in college this type of stunt could be quite intimidating, and mentorship is appealing, but (in general) people will be more willing to help you out when you are doing your own thing than if you are working for someone else.
Also note that it does not mention that he can continue to work on his own company, which (to me) is what appears to make him happy.
Why put your life on hold for someone else when you've already got so much going for you and an entrepreneurial attitude in the first place?
It's nice of you to put your recruitment email at the bottom of the post, but the only message I'm getting from this post is that you needn't bother applying until you're already a startup founder, or have written several books, or have a million downloaded app, or whatever the qualification is these days.
Is that really the message you want to send? "Hey, Almost Everybody! We're not interested in you!"
All the programmers who go to work everyday, do a damn good job, but don't follow it up with a daily blog post, or a screencast, or a brand new Haskell library. Are we not worth considering?
Yes, and I'm not evening talking about mediocrity. I'm talking about excellent developers - people like me who've spent ten to twenty years developing high performance, high reliability apps that run in very demanding environments.
These people would bring masses of skill and experience. Despite the OP's comment above this sort of hiring prioritises younger people who have time to do all the extra-curriculars, not the older developers with families and all sorts of other commitments.
Crap..I did not know Dan Shipper was a real person for a minute. I thought Shipper" was a reference to a fictitious person who regularly "ships" products.
The term for this is 'aptronym'. Famous examples include former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and former MLB pitcher Jack Armstrong. Added in the just past few years: Usain Bolt and Bernie Madoff.
the most famous example is probably "wordsworth" (in the pre-internet days, if you mentioned aptronyms or nominative determinism, the standard question was "yeah, but other than wordsworth who is there?")
Seriously? Let's not over-sell the guy here, he does enough of that himself. His last post was the 'hello, I know nothing at all about the real world' post.
Dan, Wesley and I all did wheremyfriends.be -- Wesley was the submitter of the post you linked to, and mentioned both of us in the product description. We worked together on a bunch of apps and over the summer, and Dan returned to school and continued to work on Airtime while Wesley and I just graduated from the latest YC class.
As far as I know, Dan has never misrepresented his work and has extremely high integrity and character.
Anyone who has actually dealt with Dan in person knows that he is a humble, quiet guy who would never seek to misrepresent his work in any way.
I first met Dan shortly after the launch of wheremyfriends.be, and he was effusive in his praise of the work both Wesley and Ajay had done as they collaborated on the project.
We can't compete with Google or Facebook on salary. -> We cannot raise money enough of capital from smart people with money but we think you are stupid to join us (otherwise you will be one of "smart people with money").
We can't compete with being a founder on equity -> We want to be rich ... that is pretty much the only reason why we are doing this.
So the most important thing I have left is my ability to commit to an
individual employee's personal development -> You will work min 70 hours a week.
Recruiter here. The first thing I think when I read this is "my god this seems like a great place for people who are really junior. What on earth does some super senior engineer want as far as "personal development" goes when you clearly think they are at the top of the field?" I really wish more Silicon Valley companies were willing to take a risk on some fresh young talent instead of everyone contacting the same 200 rockstars 258020823 times. Be creative. I see no reason this person would join the company from that letter.
Refreshing read – the part about how employers need to actively court employees, how those top of their game are less likely to send out resumes, etc.
But I feel some points are on the way to being old and cliched (like the terms 'rockstars' and 'ninjas'.) Not just from 42Floors but other recruitment post descriptions.
I'm referring specifically to the perks and 'freedom' the companies promise. ie:
Unlimited Holiday/Vacations days!
Work on anything you want! Make your own projects!
Don't sign anything. Total freedom!
I never worked at any place that offered these perks (I'm not that awesome yet) but do people really take advantage of them? Isn't it kind of weird to offer those perks – what exactly are is the company hiring for then? Doesn't it come off as lack of focus if employees can do whatever they want? (Unless they're in the R&D department, or they can do whatever they want 20% of the time)
It's also like the perk of having access to a game room filled with XBox's. I interviewed at a place where there was an XBox in the center of the work area – how will anyone feel comfortable playing in there, surrounded by others working away. It just feels like a gimmicky perk. Personally, a better perk would be access to a nice bathroom with a shower for those late nights when I need to refresh.
The 'Unlimited Holiday/Vacation days' particularly bugs me. In a competitive work environment, it is not uncommon for people to go for years without taking a some decent time off (I did that). If it wasn't for our 'use it or lose it' policy (we are allowed to accrue up to twice our yearly amount before we get cutoff), I would probably never go on vacation.
I have a feeling that people who work at companies with the unlimited policy probably take fewer vacation days than normal folks, just because no one wants to be 'that guy' who abuses the perk.
It struck me that "unlimited vacation days" also seems like a way to make sure that when people quit, you don't have to pay out a vacation dump. And if you have a team of workaholics who never take time off, then those payouts could get big.
I worked for a company whose policy was to cap vacation payouts when people left. The employee handbook stated that you'd be paid a maximum of 40 hours vacation unless state law at your work ___location said otherwise. If you had more than 5 days vacation in your bucket, well, tough luck. Luckily I lived/worked in IL at the time I quit that job, and IL forbids this.
When researching that, I noticed there's a disparity among states in terms of how vacation time is treated. Some states treat accrued vacation time as earned compensation that just hasn't yet been paid, and must be paid on termination. Other states treat vacation time as an agreement that you just don't have to come into work and you'll still get paid, and the employer is free to pay out vacation accruals however they like (or not at all).
It seems like by providing no defined accruals of vacation time, you step around the whole "earned yet unpaid compensation" and turn time off into an agreement that you won't come in and they will still pay you.
At what point do you actually fire people? For instance, if they go like 18 months without vacation, do you literally fire them? Wouldn't it be easier to just grab them and say "hey, next two weeks are on the house, go have some fun and I don't want to see you come into the office or make any commits"?
Our feedback cycles are much much shorter than 18 months. It would never go that long. We have semi-annual reviews. We also have weekly 1-on-1s and one of the best portions is "what sucks?"
This portion of the 1-on-1 is a time to vent about anything and everything no matter how small or seemingly insignificant. Don't like the flavor of free yogurt? Bring it up. Desirous of different snacks? Mention it. Feeling overwhelmed or burnt out? Say so.
All of the what sucks from all developers is compiled into one email and sent out along with action items on each issue is being addressed. Being conscious of what is less than ideal on all levels helps us improve our working environment and our processes.
We've set two large goals at our company, developer happiness and client happiness. Everyone's job is to fulfill those two goals and part of being happy is not being burnt out!
By making vacation mandatory, but with no set limits, and saying you can literally be fired we're signaling to each other the relative importance of being aware of our limits and addressing the importance of moderation.
Someone working 60 hours a week is indicative of a severe problem in process, planning, or execution. The same applies for someone going six months without a day off.
Some of those perks I understand are useful and there to help the employees (such as the unlimited vacation, the catch is that typically you have to be able to finish your work on time). Others, are just clever schemes to make employees stay at work longer and be ok with it.
"Doesn't it come off as lack of focus if employees can do whatever they want?"
I know I spend some time hashing something out that is unrelated to my job just because it crossed my mind and it is just too awesome not to work on at the moment. The 20% policy just says, "hey it's ok to do that and why don't you show it to us so we can make even more money off your previously non-work related thoughts".
"Isn't it kind of weird to offer those perks – what exactly are is the company hiring for then? Doesn't it come off as lack of focus if employees can do whatever they want?"
Think of it this way. If you tell people they can take 10 weeks of vacation they will feel they might take 10 weeks of vacation. If you say "unlimited", well it really doesn't mean unlimited. It forces you to think what is reasonable in your own mind by example of others in the company, what they are taking.
Salary employees by definition can take time off, say, for a Dr.'s appointment or really anything (in a traditional company at least) as long as they get their work done. The company doesn't say "you can take off 5 days for x" because then everybody would schedule that time in. Better to leave it an unknown. Most will never hit the max.
Many things work this way. When you go to a vacation resort they might have sailboats you can take out. They don't tell you how many times you can take out the sailboat. That prevents people from feeling they are justified in taking the boat out 5 times per day instead of the 1 or maybe two they might if there is no stated limit.
If my name were Jason Freedman, I couldn't bring myself to name a company "42Floors", since a guy name Jason Fried has already made "37signals" a household name.
I really don't get why startups completely repurpose their blog for HN. What's 42floors supposed to be exactly, randomstartupblog.com that secretly rents office space?
Dan is a brilliant young dude and a great friend who totally deserves this recognition, whether he takes this offer or -- knowing him -- continues to work on making his own projects amazing.
It's refreshing to see this sort of tactic on the end of the employer because it shows that the process really is a two-way street. The potential employee is as valuable to the company as the company is to the employee (in a good match). It would be nice to see the current hiring paradigm (company holds all the cards) evened out.
It's not uncommon at our works when we ask a potential employee to come and work for us that they tell us they want to think it over to make sure it is what they want also.
We endeavour to hire talented staff so it's only natural that they have had other offers. From our point of view we have never held the cards really.
I suppose that is why you have to offer health policy's, pensions etc, to sweeten the deal.
The site hasn't really changed in the month since launch. It's hard to believe that's possible with 2 devs + a designer on-board. (I'm personally involved in this space, so I've been keeping an eye on the site, and have a good idea of what can be shipped in a month)
It looks suspiciously like they burned through a lot of money developing the initial site and now are looking for a cheap way to continue development. Going after someone still in college is one way to do that I guess.
Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, and they're working on some new super-secret v2 that will blow everything out of the water.
Dear 42 Floors: People are probably more likely to take your job offers seriously once you figure out that "awhile" is an adverb, "a while" is a noun and there's no context in which "for awhile" is grammatically correct.
Why not? If you need quality developers OFFER THEM FUCKING EQUITY!! They'll listen, trust me. Offer them 0.07% equity and the most talented developers out there will brush you off and joke about you while downing beers with their friends on the weekends.
Say that Dan were to sign up tomorrow. Right now, 42Floors has a five-person team. While I'm not entire sure about the company structure, it looks like Jason and Alex are the cofounders.
Let's assume a pretty optimal funding scenario: YC took 6%, and the next 400k cost them 9%. Figure the employee stock pool is somewhere around 5%, leaving 80% to split between the two cofounders.
Dan may be awesome, but I don't really see a spare 10% or 20% in there for an employee. Dan may be awesome and talented, but you don't bring in people post-funding at that kind of equity stake, unless they've got some insane track record (and rolodex) that justifies it, and even then, getting the board to greenlight things would be a tough sell.
There's only so much room in the CAP table to hand out equity to employees.
What they can offer, and what is a big deal, is giving Dan the freedom to maximize his own potential, and to get paid for it.
That's not a small offer, and even with the small mountain of opportunity I have on the table right now, I would think very deeply about working at 42Floors if they approached me like this.
Or just take an equity hit, raise a bigger round and pay people like Dan a rate nicely above what they can make elsewhere. Founders probably end up keeping more equity and the employee takes on less risk.
Agreed; or, offer some other form of compensation that makes the offer 'worth it' to Dan. This could mean reduced hours, company time to work on personal ventures, etc.
You can have a lot of flexibility in hiring if you can offer your employees what they want, and that's not always money.
Says who? This is what I don't get. If hiring someone so talented is so critical to the success of your company then give him/her what they rightfully deserve. If it's not critical, then don't hire said person.
There is a ton of room between 10% and the typical .1% or .5% (or less) that a new hire would get. Compete on equity by widening the employee pool from the start. They still have to vest, so it's on them to prove themselves.
For an already funded company, that already has traction, I personally wouldn't consider a less than 1% equity offer. But for startup, that is still getting going, pre-revenue, I seriously would walk away at 5% or more because it is probably much better to start my own venture.
I've worked at places that "only hired the best" and such. I think this kind of mantra coming from employers is as much self promotion as it is a statement of policy.
As in, our stuff must be wonderful, we only hire the best.
But really, having a plan that requires that everyone be an Einstein is somewhat limited - a more robust organization is one that can accommodate & make maximum use of what skills an individual has. Obviously this has its limits, but making a condition of success that everyone has to be a potential Nobel Prize winning renaissance man is a bit limiting as well.
One alternative to this is the strategy explained by Lieutenant Keefer in the "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots"
If you can set something like that up, you are golden, the supply of idiots being much more plentiful and cheap than geniuses.
This is exactly it. The initial work in designing your processes should be difficult and require rare skills. Executing those processes should be relatively boring and easy.
Wouldn't be too impressed by a job offer that can't offer a good pay or equity... I mean, their target is already pumping out his ideas as companies as far as i can incur from the post...
what exactly is in it for him besides ego stroking?
edit: all i'm trying to say is there are top 90% devs, and 99% devs, and 99.9% devs... not exactly sure that 42Floors needs them. if they did need them, they wouldn't be saying things like
99.9ers don't need you for personal development. Sounds like they're trying to get young potential while its cheap. Nothing wrong with that, but when we discuss it, we should say it like it is.by the way, I quit my 90% job to do hacker/school this summer, I intend to come out a 99er with mad functional programming chops, looking to join a team of 99.9ers so i can someday become one.