mjolk

> So how honest are you being here?

Dead honest. I mean a quick async-okay-if-from-phone "hey, here's what I have lined up for this week, can you tell me if this is unreasonable from your perspective" exchange.

> Employers and employees can both get caught up in saying things they think the other side wants to hear.. I think it's appropriate to be very explicit. Call out the issue. Tell them you aren't signalling. Tell them you really mean what you say, and that if they're going to get burned out from that, then your shop isn't the place for them.

You nailed it. The problem is that even when being explicit in expectations, candidates will still try to get that offer, even if it's not the right fit at that time. It's really hard to tell if someone means it when they say "oh, that's fine." I think startups have a certain glamour that masks the reality and people see interviews as tests, not conversations.

Further, I'd love to keep that person in the pipeline -- employee happiness and feeling valued is huge for me, so if that person needs to come in at 10 because they need to drop a kid off at school, I can respect that, and hope he/she is available when we can accommodate it.

> I think based on your responses you have the right attitude.

I really appreciate you saying this.

> It risks creating the typical monoculture of guys (yes unfortunately) between 25 and 35.

Oh yeah, totally. My motivation for asking was to make sure we don't end up in a monoculture of people that stick around after being surprised by the startup grind. That won't work for our business as we _need_ a mix of people, backgrounds, interests to really make it work (opposed to say, a hft/fintech platform, where diversity of thought/life experience isn't crucial).

> A ton of people are in this situation, much too many to ignore even for a startup. They might not seem like a good fit for your phase of startup but I think that mode of thought is counterproductive.

Yeah, it's definitely hard. Funding is limited and early stage is about maximizing the value of capital and speed of validating assumptions, and unfortunately, that often means preclusive criteria for people that need to leave "on time" regularly. Not saying it's right, but that's the reality of most startups.

I want to actively combat the bias of just short circuiting to people that are 22-30 and probably without kids, which means being able to have the conversation of "hey, please don't say this expectation is fine if it's not" and knowing how to tell if someone says it's fine for the sake of getting an offer, but it's actually not.

> Needing people to occasionally work more is normal. Even having an emergency meeting on a Sunday is normal. Just be clear with what the situation is, what is expected, and make sure that the plan is to never have 50h weeks or weekend meetings. The problem is having the "constant crunch time" culture.

The first 5 you hire are basically hopping into constant crunch with you, which is why their equity should be the carrot to make the stick worthwhile.

I think I rubbed people the wrong way or reminded them of a negative employer, but a weekend meeting for us is a few lines on Slack that essentially serves the purpose of "hey, so I decompressed and reflected, and here's where I'm thinking for this week. is this reasonable?"

I don't call meetings without a purpose and I _definitely_ don't want this to be the norm after we grow.

> Not sure I understood the problem here, was it that you would have preferred that to surface in the interview, but it didn't, which caused friction down the line when someone turned out to not want to work more than 40h weeks?

This is exactly it. If a candidate expressed this, I would say "okay, thank you for your time, I hope you're available when we know we can respect this."

I don't know why you're being sarcastic, but I actually wanted to make sure I don't bring someone on to be unhappy.

People over 25 can work more than 40 hours and not get burned out. I feel that you just want to make me out to be a bad guy, so I'm not sure it's worth writing a longer response.

> Seriously just hire 5 people instead of 4.

That's actually a lot easier said then done at an early stage startup for reasons of talent and compensation.

> The problem is you can't afford to make your company an evening pizza 27 year old bromance company because you likely can't cut out that much of the talent pool without it costing you.

Wow, wait? We're not a "bromance company" and I'm not even sure how to respond to this and I think it's vaguely insulting.

> Also: I don't mind people working a lot if compensated well.

We're very clear with compensation and living wage and actual equity is something we make sure is on the table.

> I could certainly have worked a ton of hours for a period of my life (before kids etc) but I would have been pretty annoyed had I accepted an offer at a company and later found out that the offer was for an expected 50h and not 40h. Don't have people come and waste time at your interview without knowing what the situation is.

This is really important to me and I make sure the candidate actually knows what he/she is getting into.

This is exactly why I wrote:

"I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon."

The problem isn't that I'm trying to hustle people, it's that people tend to agree to situations they don't actually want when interviewing.

I'm considering what you say, but it doesn't ring true to my interpersonal experiences at all.

> Think about it. You are asking human beings to make personal sacrifices for no personal gain, but for the sole purpose of making your dream a reality.

My team has (real) equity and I like to believe they see the worth of the product. What attracted me to startups when I entered the game was the sense of ownership and agency in projects. That and work can/should come with a sense of reward.

> so you could ask if there is any personal trauma they are trying to avoid.

I think this would be somewhat inappropriate to ask "hey, so do you put in extra hours because you don't feel whole?". Everyone I work with knows they can come to me, even if he/she needs to take his/her house keys and to go to a second location to chat.

> You could also consider hiring hourly.

There's room for hourly consultants, but that hardly makes a team.

> I wouldn't doubt overwork as a factor, but the elephant in the room is meaninglessness... people pretty much realize that the core feature of their jobs is their own economic exploitation...Burnout, like all pain, may be a feature.

Oh god, if you're feeling theatrically unhappy with your job, it's seriously time to make a move.

The core feature of my team is making something we think is awesome and missing from the world, where my role as the head of the startup is to do what needs to get done and make sure my team feels like their work and lives are fulfilling. If any member on my team felt like their work is meaningless or a source of emotional pain, I would not be able to sleep at night.

edit: Wow, I've gotten some negative responses and I'm not sure why. This isn't a "how can I exploit people" question, it's about making sure my interview process doesn't accidentally result in people that will be unhappy. It takes a lot to compete with incumbents and agreeing to work for a startup is the algebra of pros/cons.

> I have had startups expect more then the typical 40 hours a week, and yep, I burned out pretty fast.

I'm the head of an early stage startup and have a favor to ask: can you give me advice on how to detect someone with your 40-hours-or-I'll-be-unhappy mindset? I've never heard a candidate employee express anything close to "I'm in at 9AM and expect to be out by 5:30", even if shortly down the road, it becomes clear that they feel their work/life balance is being infringed upon.

I don't mean this in any negative way and I envy people that aren't boolean in or out, but people that would feel burned out on 5x10h days (+ sometimes a quick Sunday Slack session) aren't good fits _right now_ for my team. Reliable "I do my 40, put in good work, and I'll be here for years" people are _great_ for much later stage (post-IPO, for instance), but it would deeply bother me if I found out one of my workers was feeling burned out/demotivated.

I'm not sure that my response helps build a constructive discussion, but I'd suggest that you at least have the direction reversed (lobbyists propose actions, the "assholes" (as you put it) vote as they're told).

> You're obviously way more legally savvy than I am. Just goes to prove that a _little_ knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Oh no, don't feel that way. The law is a man-made thing at the intersection of logic and opinion, which is why there's so many laws and tests -- if you haven't read the source document that's linked in the Arstechnica article, I would, as it has a lot of important detail.

> I'm referring to the 4th, about needing a warrant to intercept communications...Doesn't the 4th -- on the face of it -- preclude any system of wholesale collection of electronic communications?

Law enforcement were specifically targeting traffic expected to have child pornography and the people trying to exchange it on freenet who join very-special-purposed groups. Peer-to-peer platforms depend on people being free to join, and having special-purpose groups really helps with the "probable cause" condition of the 4th.

On the back of that, the defendant gave them confirmation of his illegal acts, so this case is about recovering evidence known to exist.

> hashes can be inaccurate, it isn't a foregone conclusion in reality, just in their opinion.

Not really, no. The chance of multiple hash collisions on a set of arbitrary images is a near impossibility.

No, and thanks for catching that.

My understanding is that the prosecution doesn't need the decrypted data to secure a guilty verdict, but as they're entitled to it, they likely want it for secondary benefit.

They're staying within the law -- the defendant being in violation of the law is why an order to comply was filed and why we have access to the court of appeals document.

If you don't like the process, that's a different conversation.