Did you know that exercise makes you smarter and happier?

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

5016 2

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (2)

Facebook’s Notify App Custom Updates Onto Phone Screens

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

1058 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Runoff for Congress

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

1296 1

Winner to Go to Washington at a Tense Time

The primary last month to choose the next Congressmember for District 34 (including Northeast Los Angeles), shrank the field from 23 candidates to two: Jimmy Gomez, currently the State Assemblymember for NELA and Robert Lee Ahn, a businessman, lawyer and formerly a Planning Commissioner with the City of Los Angeles. One more election, on Tues., June 6, will determine the winner. A few things, however, are already known. For example:

The area’s next representative will be a man.
Twelve of the 23 primary candidates were women, but only the top two vote getters – Mr. Gomez, with 25% of the vote, and Mr. Ahn, with 22% – get to compete in the final. Among the female candidates, Maria Cabildo came in third with 10% of the vote, followed by Sara Hernandez in fourth place, with nearly 6%.

The winner will be the child of immigrants.
Mr. Gomez’s parents came to the United States from Mexico. Mr. Ahn’s parents came from South Korea.

The winner will be a Democrat.
The top six candidates in the congressional primary were all Democrats. The top vote getters among non-Democrats were Kenneth Mejia, the sole Green Party candidate, who took seventh place, and William Morrison, the sole Republican, who took eighth place.

Money mattered.
Campaign financing reports required by the Federal Elections Commission show that as of Mar. 31, just ahead of the Apr. 4 primary, Mr. Ahn had raised the most money – over $821,847. Mr. Gomez was second in terms of fundraising at $635,252.

Price per vote.
Spending by Mr. Ahn through Mar. 31 was $767,415, and he received 9,415 votes – or $81.50 per vote. Mr. Gomez spent $447,412 – or $41.71 per vote.

Up Close and Personal
In April, the Boulevard Sentinel sent each of the candidates the same seven questions. Here are their answers:


Mr. Jimmy Gomez

Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top national priority?
My top priority is fighting the Trump Agenda. It is not enough to merely say “no” to the harmful and divisive policies coming out of the White House. With my experience as an organizer and legislator, I know that it’s not just about giving speeches. You have to fight back using the rule of law, transparency, accountability and the power of collective action. That is why I believe I am the best prepared to hit the ground running on day one – to expose the flagrantly unconstitutional actions of this Administration with respect to immigration and the undermining of our civil liberties, and the rolling back of key environmental protections. I also understand that we cannot compromise our values or the policies that Americans depend on.

Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top priority for California District 34?
Health Care – The threat of repealing the Affordable Care Act (or parts of it) is the biggest threat facing our district. While Donald Trump and the Republicans failed at their first attempt at repeal, I take them at their word that they will try again. No district in the country has benefitted from the Affordable Care Act as much as California’s 34th. I will be a strong opponent to any attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and a vocal advocate for increasing the benefits to the families of the 34th district. When we stood together against the Republicans’ attempt to roll back the Affordable Care Act, we won and showed the power of collective action, of people speaking with one voice.

Q: Ideally, what would be your top choice for a committee assignment in Congress?
My top choice would be to serve on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the House Homeland Security Committee because they both have a great impact on my constituents. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce addresses efforts to improve education, health care and workplace conditions. The Homeland Security Committee deals with immigration reform and protecting our civil liberties. Q: What did you learn during the primary that you didn’t know before – -about voters in the district, their concerns, attitudes, engagement, etc? I have represented 50% of the 34th Congressional District in the State Assembly through my work for the 51st Assembly District, doing over 90 community events and town halls in the last four years. During the course of the campaign, I have gotten to know the communities not in my assembly district and I was struck by the common issues and concerns that working families have across the region. They want a good education for their kids so they can have a better life, clean air and water, they want quality affordable health care, good jobs with a livable wage, to know that they and their parents will be taken care in their retirement and the security of knowing that they and their neighbors are safe and their rights protected. Q: Which thinkers have had the most influence on your political beliefs and why? My political beliefs are based on my personal experiences growing up; not having health insurance, watching my parents work three to four jobs to make ends meet, and attending community college. That’s why we need to make our policies and programs work for everyone at every rung of the economic ladder. My support for universal health care, a livable wage, and affordable debt-free college reflects these experiences and my desire to see others have access to the opportunities I have had. Q: Which politicians do you consider models for your professional political life and why? I have always admired President Barack Obama for his ability to listen to others and find common ground to solve community problems. Some of the elected officials I have worked under, such as Hilda Solis [currently the Los Angeles County Supervisor for NELA, former Congressmember and Secretary of Labor in the Obama adminitration] and Mike Feuer, [currently the Los Angeles City Attorney, formerly a State Assemblymember] have taught me a great deal about listening to your constituents and standing up for what you believe in. Q: Please tell us about one or two opportunities that opened up for you in your life that turned out to be important in the development of who you are today. I hurt my back when I was working in a Target warehouse after graduating high school. Not having health insurance made me realize that not only did I need a job with benefits, but that I needed to change my life. So I decided to go to community college. In community college, I attended a workshop on political activism. That is where I first heard about the power of collective action and how one person could make a difference. It also inspired me to run for president of the honor society and started my interest in public service. I ended up changing my major from biochemistry to political science. One year later, I would transfer to UCLA. Mr. Robert Lee Ahn: Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top national priority? Defend and improve the Affordable Care Act to ensure that everyone in this country has access to affordable and quality healthcare. It is essential that Democrats protect critical portions of the existing law, including: Low income families and individuals must have access to affordable, quality health care; People with pre-existing conditions must have access to affordable, quality healthcare; Young adults must remain on a parent’s plan until age 26. Any threat to Medicaid is unacceptable. We must stand firm to protect the most vulnerable among us. We cannot deny millions of people the ability to receive quality and affordable medical care. Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top priority for California District 34? Homelessness, particularly with respect to our veterans and mental health services. Q: Ideally, what would be your top choice for a committee assignment in Congress? Foreign Affairs or Veterans Affairs Q: What did you learn during the primary that you didn’t know before – about voters in the district, their concerns, attitudes, engagement, etc? Throughout the course of the primary, it was clear that people do care, however they are not engaged for a number of reasons. People believe that their voices are not heard and that their elected officials are increasingly disconnected from their needs and challenges. In short, the voters of the district feel disenchanted and do not feel properly represented. Many have said that the only time our public officials listen is when it’s time to for re-election. Q: Which thinkers have had the most influence on your political beliefs and why? Senator Bernie Sanders. He proved that you don’t have to be beholden to special interests to have your voice heard. He showed that you can be an independent voice and stand for your principles, regardless of whether they are popular or not. Q: Which politicians do you consider models for your professional political life and why? Congressman Ted Lieu. You can see how effective he is at fighting against the Trump administration’s policies and inflammatory rhetoric, even though he is a junior member of Congress. He has been able to shape national conversations and promote a progressive platform in the process. Q: Please tell us about one or two opportunities that opened up for you in your life that turned out to be important in the development of who you are today. My parents immigrated here from Korea before I was born. Through hard work and because of their immense personal sacrifices, my sister and I were able to find success and we were able to find our family’s piece of the American Dream. America is not only the land of opportunity, but is also the land of opportunity and freedom. I suffered a medical emergency when I was 34 years old, at a time when I was in between jobs and without health insurance. Through that experience, I not only had a second chance at life, but gained a first-hand understanding of the struggle and horrors that millions of Americans face when they don’t have access to affordable healthcare.

In this article

Join the Conversation (1)

What 10 Things Should You Do Every Day To Improve Your Life?

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

599 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that.

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

1169 6

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (6)

The world's Youngest Billionaire is Just 24 and She's From Chicago

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

4561 2

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (2)

Kenneth Cole Challenges You to Do Good Deeds and Prove it via Google Glass

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

580 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Did you know that exercise benefits blood pressure?

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

686 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

What Happened When the Fed Last Diverged With Europe

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

494 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition.

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

497 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Did you know that exercise makes you smarter and happier?

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

5016 2

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (2)

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

4837 2

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (2)

The world's Youngest Billionaire is Just 24 and She's From Chicago

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

4561 2

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (2)

How to Avoid the Most Common Design Mistakes

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

4502 2

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (2)

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it?

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

4249 2

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (2)

The world’s Youngest Billionaire is Just 24 and She’s From Hong Kong

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

3708 1

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (1)

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition.

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

3598 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Runoff for Congress

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

1296 1

Winner to Go to Washington at a Tense Time

The primary last month to choose the next Congressmember for District 34 (including Northeast Los Angeles), shrank the field from 23 candidates to two: Jimmy Gomez, currently the State Assemblymember for NELA and Robert Lee Ahn, a businessman, lawyer and formerly a Planning Commissioner with the City of Los Angeles. One more election, on Tues., June 6, will determine the winner. A few things, however, are already known. For example:

The area’s next representative will be a man.
Twelve of the 23 primary candidates were women, but only the top two vote getters – Mr. Gomez, with 25% of the vote, and Mr. Ahn, with 22% – get to compete in the final. Among the female candidates, Maria Cabildo came in third with 10% of the vote, followed by Sara Hernandez in fourth place, with nearly 6%.

The winner will be the child of immigrants.
Mr. Gomez’s parents came to the United States from Mexico. Mr. Ahn’s parents came from South Korea.

The winner will be a Democrat.
The top six candidates in the congressional primary were all Democrats. The top vote getters among non-Democrats were Kenneth Mejia, the sole Green Party candidate, who took seventh place, and William Morrison, the sole Republican, who took eighth place.

Money mattered.
Campaign financing reports required by the Federal Elections Commission show that as of Mar. 31, just ahead of the Apr. 4 primary, Mr. Ahn had raised the most money – over $821,847. Mr. Gomez was second in terms of fundraising at $635,252.

Price per vote.
Spending by Mr. Ahn through Mar. 31 was $767,415, and he received 9,415 votes – or $81.50 per vote. Mr. Gomez spent $447,412 – or $41.71 per vote.

Up Close and Personal
In April, the Boulevard Sentinel sent each of the candidates the same seven questions. Here are their answers:


Mr. Jimmy Gomez

Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top national priority?
My top priority is fighting the Trump Agenda. It is not enough to merely say “no” to the harmful and divisive policies coming out of the White House. With my experience as an organizer and legislator, I know that it’s not just about giving speeches. You have to fight back using the rule of law, transparency, accountability and the power of collective action. That is why I believe I am the best prepared to hit the ground running on day one – to expose the flagrantly unconstitutional actions of this Administration with respect to immigration and the undermining of our civil liberties, and the rolling back of key environmental protections. I also understand that we cannot compromise our values or the policies that Americans depend on.

Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top priority for California District 34?
Health Care – The threat of repealing the Affordable Care Act (or parts of it) is the biggest threat facing our district. While Donald Trump and the Republicans failed at their first attempt at repeal, I take them at their word that they will try again. No district in the country has benefitted from the Affordable Care Act as much as California’s 34th. I will be a strong opponent to any attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and a vocal advocate for increasing the benefits to the families of the 34th district. When we stood together against the Republicans’ attempt to roll back the Affordable Care Act, we won and showed the power of collective action, of people speaking with one voice.

Q: Ideally, what would be your top choice for a committee assignment in Congress?
My top choice would be to serve on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the House Homeland Security Committee because they both have a great impact on my constituents. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce addresses efforts to improve education, health care and workplace conditions. The Homeland Security Committee deals with immigration reform and protecting our civil liberties. Q: What did you learn during the primary that you didn’t know before – -about voters in the district, their concerns, attitudes, engagement, etc? I have represented 50% of the 34th Congressional District in the State Assembly through my work for the 51st Assembly District, doing over 90 community events and town halls in the last four years. During the course of the campaign, I have gotten to know the communities not in my assembly district and I was struck by the common issues and concerns that working families have across the region. They want a good education for their kids so they can have a better life, clean air and water, they want quality affordable health care, good jobs with a livable wage, to know that they and their parents will be taken care in their retirement and the security of knowing that they and their neighbors are safe and their rights protected. Q: Which thinkers have had the most influence on your political beliefs and why? My political beliefs are based on my personal experiences growing up; not having health insurance, watching my parents work three to four jobs to make ends meet, and attending community college. That’s why we need to make our policies and programs work for everyone at every rung of the economic ladder. My support for universal health care, a livable wage, and affordable debt-free college reflects these experiences and my desire to see others have access to the opportunities I have had. Q: Which politicians do you consider models for your professional political life and why? I have always admired President Barack Obama for his ability to listen to others and find common ground to solve community problems. Some of the elected officials I have worked under, such as Hilda Solis [currently the Los Angeles County Supervisor for NELA, former Congressmember and Secretary of Labor in the Obama adminitration] and Mike Feuer, [currently the Los Angeles City Attorney, formerly a State Assemblymember] have taught me a great deal about listening to your constituents and standing up for what you believe in. Q: Please tell us about one or two opportunities that opened up for you in your life that turned out to be important in the development of who you are today. I hurt my back when I was working in a Target warehouse after graduating high school. Not having health insurance made me realize that not only did I need a job with benefits, but that I needed to change my life. So I decided to go to community college. In community college, I attended a workshop on political activism. That is where I first heard about the power of collective action and how one person could make a difference. It also inspired me to run for president of the honor society and started my interest in public service. I ended up changing my major from biochemistry to political science. One year later, I would transfer to UCLA. Mr. Robert Lee Ahn: Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top national priority? Defend and improve the Affordable Care Act to ensure that everyone in this country has access to affordable and quality healthcare. It is essential that Democrats protect critical portions of the existing law, including: Low income families and individuals must have access to affordable, quality health care; People with pre-existing conditions must have access to affordable, quality healthcare; Young adults must remain on a parent’s plan until age 26. Any threat to Medicaid is unacceptable. We must stand firm to protect the most vulnerable among us. We cannot deny millions of people the ability to receive quality and affordable medical care. Q: If elected to Congress, what would be your top priority for California District 34? Homelessness, particularly with respect to our veterans and mental health services. Q: Ideally, what would be your top choice for a committee assignment in Congress? Foreign Affairs or Veterans Affairs Q: What did you learn during the primary that you didn’t know before – about voters in the district, their concerns, attitudes, engagement, etc? Throughout the course of the primary, it was clear that people do care, however they are not engaged for a number of reasons. People believe that their voices are not heard and that their elected officials are increasingly disconnected from their needs and challenges. In short, the voters of the district feel disenchanted and do not feel properly represented. Many have said that the only time our public officials listen is when it’s time to for re-election. Q: Which thinkers have had the most influence on your political beliefs and why? Senator Bernie Sanders. He proved that you don’t have to be beholden to special interests to have your voice heard. He showed that you can be an independent voice and stand for your principles, regardless of whether they are popular or not. Q: Which politicians do you consider models for your professional political life and why? Congressman Ted Lieu. You can see how effective he is at fighting against the Trump administration’s policies and inflammatory rhetoric, even though he is a junior member of Congress. He has been able to shape national conversations and promote a progressive platform in the process. Q: Please tell us about one or two opportunities that opened up for you in your life that turned out to be important in the development of who you are today. My parents immigrated here from Korea before I was born. Through hard work and because of their immense personal sacrifices, my sister and I were able to find success and we were able to find our family’s piece of the American Dream. America is not only the land of opportunity, but is also the land of opportunity and freedom. I suffered a medical emergency when I was 34 years old, at a time when I was in between jobs and without health insurance. Through that experience, I not only had a second chance at life, but gained a first-hand understanding of the struggle and horrors that millions of Americans face when they don’t have access to affordable healthcare.

In this article

Join the Conversation (1)

The Plan for Pillarhenge

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

1233 1

The End of Colorado Boulevard As We Know It?

When Eagle Rock’s City Councilmember, José Huizar, announced recently that a mixed-use development had been slated for Pillarhenge, the eyesore construction site on Colorado Boulevard, he noted that the new building would include two low-income apartments. What he didn’t mention is that the planned development is a 55,652 square-foot building that looks for all the world like the Love Boat come to rest on dry land.

When all is said and done, the plan, if approved, would yield a building that is twice the size of what would be allowed under plain-vanilla zoning rules for Colorado Blvd.

The Boulevard Sentinel obtained the plans for Pillarhenge the old fashioned way. We went downtown to the Department of City Planning, asked to see them and made copies.

The plans are detailed, including architectural drawings, zoning data, environmental information, unit information, legal descriptions and specs galore.

Under general zoning rules for Colorado Blvd., 19 apartments would be allowed on the Pillarhenge site. But by including two very-low income apartments in the plan, the developer is allowed to build seven additional units, for a total of 26 apartments; the developer also gets to increase the maximum building area by 9,644 square feet beyond what would otherwise be allowed, creating space for those additional units.

To summarize: That’s seven additional apartments and nearly 10,000 additional square feet in exchange for two low-income apartments that will probably add up to 3,000 square feet, tops. And that’s not all. Once all of the zoning bonuses are thrown in, the maximum residential and commercial space permitted adds up to 41,354 square feet. But the developer wants approval from City Planning for 55,652 square feet – an additional 14,298 square feet.

Some of that extra space would be needed for elevators, mechanical systems, stairwells and other building features. But it seems unlikely that such features would take up all the additional space that is being asked for. The extra space is also not needed for the 59 planned parking spaces, which are not included in the building’s square footage.

The Boulevard Sentinel emailed Mr. Huizar a number of questions about the project. We asked if he had been involved in the planning in any way, if he had seen the plan and, if so, what he thought of it. We also asked if he thought it would be good for Eagle Rock. We sent the same questions to David Greene, the co-chairperson of the Land Use and Planning Committee on the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council. Neither Mr. Huizar nor Mr. Greene responded.

The Boulevard Sentinel also contacted the owner and developer of the Pillarhenge site, Imad Boukai, a businessman in Orange County, to ask about the plans. He was polite and said he would answer our questions, but never replied to our email. Last year, when Mr. Boukai bought the property for $1.9 million, he also politely did not get around to answering questions from the Boulevard Sentinel about how he became interested in Eagle Rock and Pillarhenge or about his experience with large-scale property development.

It’s understandable that players-that-be in a major development wouldn’t want to invite scrutiny before they have to. In general, community input is not sought before plans are at an advanced stage. But it’s not as if nothing is going on of public interest. On Nov. 30 , 2016, for instance, Mr. Boukai made a $700 campaign contribution to Mr. Huizar, according to records posted by the City at ethics.lacity.org.

Pillarhenge became a rallying cry in Eagle Rock in 2015, when a local group formed a Facebook page – Friends of Pillarhenge Park (FOPP). The group had grown tired of looking at the abandoned site with its ugly concrete pillars. They began a campaign of filing complaints and discussing their dissatisfaction publicly. They got some results, like trash removal and a new sidewalk installed by the City. The FOPP goal, however, was to see the property developed into something useful, proportionate and beautiful or to restore the hillside to its natural condition. Full disclosure: Tim Tritch, editor of the Boulevard Sentinel, was one of the first members of FOPP before he had any affiliation with the paper and still shares the group’s aims.

Talk about not getting what you wish for.

In this article

Join the Conversation (1)

You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher.

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

1216 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Midnight Memories

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

238 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

California King Bed

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

241 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Everything Has Changed

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

277 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Hate That I Love You

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

226 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Headlights

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

253 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

10 Reasons Why Nature is the Best Medicine

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

631 1

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (1)

Loco Ft. Romeo Santos

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

242 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Drink To That Official Video

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

603 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)

Birthday Song

I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That's been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word "startup" dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar.

499 0

If you wanted to get rich, how would you do it? I think your best bet would be to start or join a startup. That’s been a reliable way to get rich for hundreds of years. The word “startup” dates from the 1960s, but what happens in one is very similar to the venture-backed trading voyages of the Middle Ages.

Startups usually involve technology, so much so that the phrase “high-tech startup” is almost redundant. A startup is a small company that takes on a hard technical problem.

Lots of people get rich knowing nothing more than that. You don’t have to know physics to be a good pitcher. But I think it could give you an edge to understand the underlying principles. Why do startups have to be small? Will a startup inevitably stop being a startup as it grows larger? And why do they so often work on developing new technology? Why are there so many startups selling new drugs or computer software, and none selling corn oil or laundry detergent?

The Proposition

Economically, you can think of a startup as a way to compress your whole working life into a few years. Instead of working at a low intensity for forty years, you work as hard as you possibly can for four. This pays especially well in technology, where you earn a premium for working fast.

Here is a brief sketch of the economic proposition. If you’re a good hacker in your mid twenties, you can get a job paying about $80,000 per year. So on average such a hacker must be able to do at least $80,000 worth of work per year for the company just to break even. You could probably work twice as many hours as a corporate employee, and if you focus you can probably get three times as much done in an hour. [1] You should get another multiple of two, at least, by eliminating the drag of the pointy-haired middle manager who would be your boss in a big company. Then there is one more multiple: how much smarter are you than your job description expects you to be? Suppose another multiple of three. Combine all these multipliers, and I’m claiming you could be 36 times more productive than you’re expected to be in a random corporate job. [2] If a fairly good hacker is worth $80,000 a year at a big company, then a smart hacker working very hard without any corporate bullshit to slow him down should be able to do work worth about $3 million a year.

In this article

Join the Conversation (0)