yellow_and_gray

> he being the one with the idea and money

Ideas are worth $0. Nevermind you'll switch the idea to something else.

And the type of person who wants to a get patent first instead of getting users is precisely the kind of person you shouldn't be starting a company with. A patent won't get you customers. How many companies can you friend name that lost to another company because of a patent rather than a thousand other reasons?

Both your fears are valid. Trust your gut. My suggestion: don't start a company with this friend.

Is there a way to contact you? If you are willing to be a guinea pig I have something for you to try.

From the three main things people need (competence, relatedness, autonomy) you seem to be missing autonomy.

It's not only about knowing how to build (the lots of tiny specific skills this article mentions). It's also about choosing what to build.

If you study what novelists say, they are extremely uncomfortable when they start new work. It's the same for 10x programmers. There is an initial torment and courage involved in that choice that deters the average programmer. That there will be skills one doesn't have for the new creation is a given.

I'm disappointed in Stripe on this one. There should be better rates for micropayments.

Establishing a monopoly is more valuable than monetizing, which is what Snapchat has. You can monetize later, but you can't snatch all the users later.

That link is full of wisdom, thank you for posting it! I never met anyone who wrote their own wiki and used it for so long.

I was surprised the biggest thing for you was speed and full-text search, and also by this comment: "I think people forgot how to make a simple web app with a form and plain buttons."

The biggest thing for me is learning. Not so much categorizing everything correctly.

What would you do to improve how your subconscious works?

The rewards for being a great programmer already exceed the rewards for other options. Great programmers can clump together and start companies, and be rewarded more than they are offered by existing companies. This could destroy existing companies.

Are you trying to say great programmers don't do that because starting a company that succeeds is hard? And that existing companies try to take advantage of this (and possibly a first mover or other advantages) by not rewarding programmers?

It's not an unreasonable point to make, by the way, which is also an undervalued opportunity. Markets correct themselves. Maybe the only way to be rewarded for the value you generate as a great programmer in the future will require starting a company. I don't know enough to say.

- A related issue: you can't make someone be a great programmer just by rewarding them. Great programers tend to be intrinsically motivated. Which could be an additional opposing force that keeps them from starting companies.

- Another: pg claimed data that say there aren't enough great programmers; you claim there are: can you talk more about your data?

I'm trying to understand the problem better.

Once all great programmers get a job they like they don't switch, even if you have the money to pay them more. They like what they are working on.

If a great programmer is working on the next Google, and you pay them more to work on something boring, they won't switch.

The limit is the total number of great programmers.

A table in the article says Technical Writers have an 89% chance of losing their jobs. But it's only 6% for editors.

Why? Will technical instructions be automatically generated? How?

Michelle, you are in inspiration!

Have you found yourself having different design ideas after this change? Or having developed a new style in your creations because of "mistakes" you make when you can't control your nose very well?!

Can you mention examples where you ended up designing differently?