neilsharma

nord/mullvad, bitwarden, claude code (max), openai, youtube music, google drive (for the storage space).

Got a few lifetime payments too for various desktop utility apps

I pay for other ones on an as needed basis, but my tools change based on what i'm working on. Usually always have a render and supabase plan going for various hosted toy apps.

The Sound ID is amazing. Been using it for a few years now. I usually just keep it on while I'm hiking and it identifies over a dozen birds in 20-30min, nearly all of which I've eventually verified are in the area.

The photo ID feature is okay, but I assume that's because the photos I take on my phone of far away birds is too pixelated.

I actually want a similar ID feature frog species; i hear a lot of croaking

I use cline + Anthropic and Google models with a custom .clinerules for frontend react + typescript. I manually tag relevant files into context

- Gemini 2.5 pro tries to fix and refactor my entire codebase unless I aggressively constrain it, which is too much work. I've written it off as unusable for coding, but can be fine for educational purposes

- For AI IDE coding, I narrow down the scope of what I ask so Gemini 2.0 Flash or Haiku can handle it. I've haven't seen better results switching to paid models.

- For generating large swaths of code, I recently went back to copy/pasting into Claude Projects, with my github project hooked up and relevant files added to context. For a moderately complex component, it usually takes 5-15 generated versions to work, though I end up adjusting my specs a bit in the process. This is still faster than using the agent. Claude Code might get similar results, but I already pay for Anthropic so haven't tried it out.

- If I'm picking up a new library, concept, or pattern, I usually chat with Claude to level up my knowledge. The "Plan" mode in cline focuses more on task execution than skill development.

I'm open to suggestions on what to try next!

Outsource as much as you can afford, even if its just help around the house.

For my personal todo list, about 50, but a lot of them are small (send an email to X) or non-urgent (return a package, pay a bill) so I don't lose track. I don't add routine tasks like laundry/cooking/etc. In a given day i get 5-15 done. I find having more tasks really helpful because I can take a quick glance and realize i can stack chores (ie: easy to return a package if I'm grocery shopping nearby).

For my work todo-list, maybe 10, but i get 0-2 done every day. Unlike my personal tasks, I only put important (my internal definition of p0s and p1s) or aspirational tasks (learn X) and actively cut anything i realistically won't get to.

Not OP, but as an American consumer, what i would like are:

- better labeling on products i buy to know they didn't contribute to the deforestation. Ideally these products are cheaper (or at least not more expensive) than unsustainably produced ones

- more accessible/cheaper tourism opportunities so I can visit the Amazon as easily as possible. I would like to know my tourism dollars go to conservation efforts

- wrt narcotrafficking, investing in campaigns to legalize drugs in America (along with the rehab/support facilities). I suspect much of the illegal drug supply chain will disappear if the drugs were simply legal.

Thanks Shon! Got one a bit earlier while they were still there -- really excited for this :)

If I'm a citizen and want to sponsor my parents to get green card, do they have to spend 6 months/year in the US? Is there a way around this requirement? Life abroad is better for them so 6 months/year in the US is a lot, but having the flexibility to come and go would be nice without having to deal with visas.

Have there been updates on the expectations of working remotely given the current CDC guidelines?

I struggle with exactly the same problem; reading (and also playing the piano in my case) feels like a low value-generating activity. My time is more and more limited over the years, and I find myself needing to ruthlessly prioritize how I spend it. This has led to a constant re-evaluation of my values, and have roughly concluded (atm) that instead of reading, I should be sleeping, socializing with friends and family, exercising, outputting/hacking around for fun, or learning about something at work that can make my workweek easier. Or just decompressing cognitively, sometimes in the form of time-restricted TV/games.

Ultimately, after having read/listened to ~200 mostly non-fiction and fantasy books in the past several years, the ROI is non-zero but not that high relative to the other activities mentioned. I think this is partly a byproduct of the times and the culture I'm in (mid-career engineer in silicon valley), where priorities shift a lot towards career and financial successes. Personal output tied to network, skills, and work has a much larger influence on these priorities over a much shorter time frame than reading arbitrary books. If I lived somewhere else or didn't have money needs, I can see my priorities shifting more towards reading. It's not ideal, but I've come to accept this reality. Reading isn't something I have to do, nor is it always the most rewarding activity.

I try to still read every now and then, especially if there is a focused book aligned with my immediate interests, but I've also come to accept the fact that I may not finish a lot of books and that's okay.

I've also come to believe that most books have too many words for my taste given the relative paucity of ideas, and I'm under no obligation to read every word just because an author wrote it. I need to be my own editor of the content I consume; outsourcing this to the writers/publishers makes less and less sense. If I'm bored, I skip a chapter or three. Or I may read a synopsis online and if it is interesting, then I dive deeper. I have to prioritize how I read, not just how much I read. I actually find this makes the reading experience more enjoyable since I spend less time on the parts that feel "boring".

(I have the same attitude to TV/movies; some episodes are not a great use of my time so I scene skip and increase playback speeds).

I've also found myself listening to more audiobooks instead of reading. This is particularly helpful when I drive, do late-night stretches, or cook and it doesn't consume additional time.

I wish circumstances were different and I could just go outside in the shade of a tree and read all day, but at least at this point in my life letting go of the pressure to read definitely has had more stress-relieving effects than actually reading.

I agree; founders should have substantially more equity than any one early employee. But its not just about which is harder to start as (founder or early employee), but also the time/energy/emotion invested over years to bring the company to a successful scenario. Being a third employee is still pretty hard if you are working 60-80hrs/week for years and making major life sacrifices.

And you're right; $100M exit isn't always a win. That was a somewhat arbitrary milestone I used to do quick math.

I've been an early engineer (first 3) at a startup. I didn't stick around long enough to vest for reasons, but in hindsight, it wouldn't have been worth it financially even if I had. They eventually got acquired by a big brand name Silicon Valley company after 4-5 years for an undisclosed amount. My 0.4% plus salary wouldn't even break $200k/year in total unless the company sold for a fair amount above $100M.

Later in my career, I have had offers at seed stage companies. The compensations were marginally better than the one described above, but most still needed to 10-15x in value over 4 years just so the annualized comp would match the base annual comp at various series C/D companies I also had offers at.

Given the risk, often poor culture, rampant inexperience in leadership, and long hours, the upside is only worth it as an early employee if the company is a unicorn. And every founder says their company will be a unicorn...

After starting a few (failed) companies myself, I've come to adopt the mindset that the total equity allocated to the founding team (pre-seed + seed + maybe series A) should be around 20-25%. Everyone after should get 15-20%. In the event of a $100M exit, there should be no scenario in which the founders/investors walk away with a win financially, but the early employees do not. The early employees took the same risk and secured that win, and thus should be rewarded accordingly.

Edit: fixed grammar and re-ordered sections

I'm trying to help my mom's small, offline-only women's fashion boutique move onto the internet. I'm fortunate enough to have a remote job in tech, but their business is significantly disrupted by the lockdown. To help them out, I'm setting up their ebay/esty/shopify/pinterest accounts, taking pictures of the merchandise, doing logo design, etc. Teaching them how to use these platforms' complex UIs and, more broadly, learn how to effectively engage with customers on the internet, are the biggest challenges.

There are loads of businesses in this same boat; I think there's a big opportunity and sense of fulfillment in helping them keep their lights on.

As a founder, I got to do everything -- sales, design, development. This cultivated a very wide interest and general proficiency in a lot of things. My startups failed though, and I felt I needed to learn from others before trying again. Also, my savings were running dry, but that was a secondary motivator.

Over the past few years I've been an employee, either at startups or mid-sized stable organizations. When negotiating the job description, I've always requested from the founders/managers to chip in in various ways -- PM, design, engineering, etc. They always were enthusiastic to have employees with diverse interests, but reality sometimes proved otherwise:

- Some startups gave the flexibility, but it just felt worse than working on my own. I had the same long hours and work pressure, but a fraction of the ownership and was working on someone else's vision - Other startups really just needed engineering muscle. I was evaluated on pure engineering output, and any other mechanisms I had of contributing were viewed as distractions from my core responsibilities and were actively shut down. Doing one thing with my life wasn't very pleasurable after wearing all the hats, and I wasn't rewarded for being a generalist - The one mid-sized org I work for tends to value me more; they needed engineering work, but also had growing pains and needed existing employees to step up and fill in the gaps. Having a willingness to do that was eagerly accepted

Some general impressions that I currently hold loosely: - having a stable income is nice and I can afford most everything I want, but it's not enough. I miss having the startup belief that my reward is proportional to my output - company perks (food, learning reimbursement, commuter benefits, etc) are usually deterrents for me now. Colleagues feel more sedated than energized when life is too good. I miss working with hungry (figuratively) people. - I care a lot about the mission. I have the good fortune of working at an org that actively seeks empathetic, passionate people out. I don't think I can go back to normal jobs where I just need to do a thing. This includes even my own startups (which had, in hindsight, little value-add to society) - the slower pacing actually feels more conducive to personal growth, but to a point. It helps now to be on a team where we constantly try to improve and iterate, as opposed to just being a resource-strapped feature shop. I'd avoid teams that move too slowly though, or don't have the pressure to introduce something new. - both startups and large companies can have diverse employees, or can have monocultures. Turns out I like the former infinitely more; didn't get that at most startups I've worked at - leaving silicon valley for a job actually gave me a lot more perspective on the world than struggling as a founder in SF. Turns out there are a lot of big problems people are trying to solve that don't get talked about in silicon valley, and the diversity of people trying to solve it seems a lot larger.

All these impressions, however, are loosely held because I've come to think of my career as consisting of phases in no particular order: take chances, invest in personal growth, make money, hustle, have predictability and work-life balance, give back, etc.

I have a long (years worth) list of things I want to learn, and prioritized list (a months worth) for things that can indirectly help me at work. I have to further prioritize down to the 1-2hr level to have something to act on for a given day. As the list keeps growing and my time availability ebbs and flows, I never get to 90% of the things on my list. Such is life.

I specifically hunt for project-based udemy classes so I'm not just passively watching videos or reading blogs. The lectures are short, and I can make measurable progress even with 15-20min of attention/day. Usually 1-3 classes on a topic gives me the confidence to say to myself "I have enough introductory knowledge that I can now figure this out if I have to do this for work." This still takes 1-3 months of time per topic.

However, most of the items in my list don't have a curriculum or syllabus. I end up having to settle on just googling for blogs or playing with a few APIs to feel confident. I no longer prioritize mastery (except if I need the skill for my immediate work). I find taking a breadth-first approach to learning helps me connect the dots in my understanding of technology as a whole, and invest in depth only if I need it for my immediate job/projects.