I think it is very easy for the average person to forget or not realize how incredibly easy it is to get calories into the body and how little food is necessary to do so. Most people in the world (I know, this is not everywhere and everyone), live in an era of food abundance. It's cheap enough, extremely accessible, often easy to eat or ready to eat, and that has simply made it very convenient to get calories in, often while barely thinking about it. Mindless eating, not thinking about what you should eat, etc. All of these factors have played into why obesity is such a problem (at least in the USA).

Sounds like software engineering is not for you.

After 15 years in I don’t see myself doing something else.

That was realistic or if someone feels like cynical take on the friendly advice from article.

One of the biggest weaknesses of a non-technical founder looking for a technical founder are basically the following:

* Not really having 'much' to bring to the table other than the idea and self-proclaimed knowledge of the problem and domain. As the article mentions, having some capital already, having some sort of following or verifiable reputation or whatever would help a long way.

* Not really having any kind of story around "What have you tried so far?". The least sexy conversation is one where the non-technical founder is telling you about this "new" thing to work on and build and the reality is they've only been thinking about it for like 2 months and haven't really "done" anything other than some cursory research. Like, for example, if they don't have capital at all yet, have they tried before they came to you?

This is pretty well said. I tend to agree and as a founder of multiple companies, as a well an engineering-background co-founder myself, I have definitely had interactions with "non-technical" founders looking for people (like me) and totally got the vibe of the needing a "technical co-founder" because they just need some "coder" as if that's the missing key to success (or whatever).

That said, there are plenty of very smart, driven, people who are not software engineers who don't think of a technical co-founder that way. So it'd be wrong to paint with a super wide brush on this.

>> That said, there are plenty of very smart, driven, people who are not software engineers who don't think of a technical co-founder that way. So it'd be wrong to paint with a super wide brush on this.

Agree, I think business co-founders can add tremendous value. But that value needs to be shown -- upfront. Otherwise, why would any technologist sink hundreds of hours on a mere promise? Business co-founders should have already drawn out solutions, spoken to customers, perhaps gotten conditional sales POs from friends/contacts, raised funding, set up VC meetings, etc.

But a Business co-founder who hasnt done any of these, and just wants the upside after a bunch of technical work is done, isnt the type of Business co-founder you want.

This is true except FoxPro really was more of a 'normal' relational database model. It just had this 'tabular' view for its Database Viewer client front-end. FoxPro was certainly not a 'spreadsheet' product in the sense that Excel is.

Remember when a T-1 line was considered to be like the god-level status of internet connections? Whoa.... 1.5Mbps!? Later, more affordable DSL speeds would reach single-digit Mbps and it felt like being on another planet.

Now all of those speeds feel like they're dial-up modems.

T1 was a dedicated circuit though, even with DSL there was still a need for T1 lines.

This rationale doesn't make a ton of sense. Say they had paid you more. You'd still have these back issues. You wouldn't say, "I have these back issues every day of my life now but at least they paid me $2X instead of $X" ...

If you pay people enough you can get them to do nearly anything and there is currently a job shortage.

The whole premise of comparing a company to a family is not only flawed. It's just straight up incorrect/wrong. Very little about companies and the way they run and operate looks remotely like a family.

It does, but temporarily. If layoffs caused terrible, permanent, irreversible, core damage to a company, then companies would stop doing them. But they don't. It's not new, it's part of the up and down cycles of markets.

If we don't like layoffs, then we should also not like crazy hiring sprees either because of their recklessness and waste.

You mean like how crowds of people at live music events ALL have their stupid smartphones up recording the same damn recording which they should be paying attention to and absorbing the experience and living in the moment?

Forget what people should do, look at what people actually do.

>> Forget what people should do, look at what people actually do.

This seems not Apple’s way. Steve Jobs once said “People don't know what they want until you show it to them.”

I don’t think Steve would have liked the cable to a battery brick. I’m not sure this new device is a good example of the Apple Way.

I don't know which he like: tethered battery or heavier headset

Steve wanted Jony Ive to have final say, and Jony Ive wanted the product to be fully mobile. I don't think that the wire will be present in version 4+ of the product

I don't think Tim Cook likes the battery brick more than Steve would have, but there are engineering compromises to make here.

maybe if it doubled as an input device

I like this idea, but how or what? The power brick is obviously critical, but I'm guessing they want you to put it in your pocket or on the desk or bed/sofa and largely forget it's there?

The demo of Vision Pro shows a virtual keyboard for a bit. That means it supports gestures (with hands and eyes) and typing on the keyboard.

If only Apple made a device in a similar form factor...

> People don't know what they want until you show it to them

You won’t know what people want or how to build it if you don’t _look at what they actually do_ first. There’s no other way of doing it, even Steve Jobs did it this way.

It sounds like a contradiction, but I don’t think it is. He’s talking about people’s biases about new products. Understanding people’s biases is part of watching what they do, as opposed to just considering what they say. He doesn’t say you’re supposed to come up with what people want out of thin air.

This is better then thousands of people in a crowd holding up their phones.

"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster phones"

> Forget what people should do, look at what people actually do

I'm going to borrow that one mate.

> look at what people actually do.

Will do. *looks around*

Yeah, not many people wearing ski masks that cost more than many people make in a month while jumping around in sweaty hot concert halls.