I never thought I would fail. For 7+ years I think that's what drove me. Then things changed. Life changed. They attribute it to burnout and often that is the case, but you have to also factor in life and motivation changes. If the success doesn't come soon enough, you start looking towards other things, other aspects of life, if I may even say, more rewarding and real parts of life. Startups are a microcosm of what life is about, but we get hung up on the outcomes, our identities become intertwined with the mythology of the founder. It's important to break free of some of these notions and this retelling of the narrative even for failed founders in the way of "it's burnout", "lack of product market fit". Life goes on. We should look at these more as experiences to learn from, phases of life and then many go towards the next thing, and that's OK. To any failed startup founder here, it's okay, move on with life, try again, just keep going.
I'm closing my startup this month after five long years of toil and daily struggle. There were many times where we were just one step away from financial success that could have 10x the company. It always felt like we were just "so close" to making it. After years went by, the long hours, stress, and constantly uncertainty made me want my old life back. At this point, I'd rather do boring contract work where the success definition is clear.
Sometimes we need a reset. I think after some time away you start to gain clarity and then you understand what went wrong or what didn't work. And then if you want to decide to do it again, you can with a better perspective, but you can equally find more value, the same value elsewhere. Some people find contributing to a shared mission elsewhere also works. I hope you figure things out.
My own experience presiding over startup failure was excruciating. I had a serious personal breakdown that took a couple years to recover from. There was the burnout, but also a deep sense of guilt, weakness, and personal failure. Articles like this can inadvertently heap on guilt, insinuating that a founder "stopped trying" or "lost heart", as a if a better or stronger soul might have prevailed. But sometimes, closing the doors is the right thing to do.
For other failed founders out there... I found very few resources that could help me navigate the aftermath, so I wrote the book I wish I'd had. It's a passion project, so I give it away for free. It's titled "Eating Glass: The Inner Journey Through Failure and Renewal."
Yes, personally I think this idea that our identities are defined by careers, job titles or being a founder is inherently very dangerous. So when it all falls apart, who are you? It is very dangerous. We need to stop evangelising this way of thinking and try to be more holistic about it. Life before startups, tech, etc was not defined like this. Yes people's last names were effectively the work they did, but the whole of your identity was not wrapped up in something that could disappear in an instant. Or something we have effectively infatuated as a real necessity. The reason so many of us fail is because we're building things nobody needs. Maybe that's harsh but I have to ask myself, if I didn't build go-micro.dev, would something else have existed to replace it, yes, wholeheartedly yes. My contribution to software is not that significant. If Google didn't exist, would something else exist, Yes, it would.
We have to look at the world differently. OK there's Elon with his effed up childhood and maniacal need to "save humanity" but when you really get down to it, he falters at the simplest questions about life. This man doesn't know what's real and what's not. Let's be clear, those we follow are just human and often what gets them to where they are, while its hard work, if it wasn't them, it would be someone else and those people would be just potentially in the right place, at the right time, and sacrificing things that maybe we shouldn't sacrifice. Life went on long before tech and it will continue long after tech.
I somewhat failed my last 2 startups as well. None turned into a huge success. But the friends along the way and the contacts sticked. I think the most important thing is that you learn from those failures and improve for the next one!
A little while ago I posted Mu on here asking for feedback. It was really useful. I was hoping I could get a bit more feedback as I iterate on the product.
Mu is a personal app platform that provides services without ads, algorithms, or tracking.
Originally I wrote it entirely for me. There are still aspects that need adapting to be more broadly adopted but I'm working on it e.g card customisation on home screen.
Unfortunately Google's problem is the product is dictated by the architecture of the APIs and this is an issue for anything they do. At one point long ago every Google product was disjointed and Larry Page told everyone they needed to be unified under a single theme and login. Then over time with the scale of the company you become entirely dependent on the current workflows. To work around it, all of a sudden there's a new UI for a new product and it looks super clean right until you try do something with that login or roles or an API key that has to effectively jailbreak the flow you're in. Painful. It's why startups win. Small, nimble, none of that legacy cruft to deal with. Whoever is working hard to fix these problems at Google KUDOS TO YOU because it's not easy. It's not easy to wrangle these systems across hundreds of teams, products and infrastructure. The unification and seamless workflow at that scale is painfully hard to achieve and the issue is entirely about operating within the limitations of the system but for good reason.
I hope they figure out a lot of the issues but at the same time, I hope Gemini just disappears back into products rather than being at the forefront, because I think that's when Google does it's best work.
> The unification and seamless workflow at that scale is painfully hard to achieve
It does make you wonder, why not just be a lot smaller? It's not like most of these teams actually generate any revenue. It seems like a weird structural decision which maybe made sense when hoovering up available talent was its own defensive moat but now that strategy is no longer plausible should be rethought?
Two reasons. 1 - they print cash through Ads which means there's opportunity or desire to do more things, or even a feeling like you should or can. So new products emerge but also to try diversify the revenue stream. 2 - the continuous hiring and scale means churn, people get bored, they leave teams, they want to do something new, it all bifurcates. It keeps fragmenting and fragmenting until you have this multilayered fractal. It's how systems in nature operate so we shouldn't think corporation's will be any different. The only way to mitigate things like this is putting in places limits, rules and boundaries, but that also limits the upside and if you're a public company you can't do that. You have to grow grow grow and then cut cut cut and continue in that cycle forever or until you die.
As a sysadmin in the 2007-2011 timeframe I literally used openssl to generate csrs, went to godaddy to purchase SSL certificates and then manually deployed them to servers. Man what a world of change. Let's encrypt is one the best services we've had on the internet. I wish we had more things like this.
It's been a long time so this is my fading memory, but CAs used to generate a private key on their end and let you download both private key and the certificate containing the public key. The non-technical person who paid big money for the certificate then emails the zip file to the developer. That's when StartTLS wasn't that big back then either.
As a sysadmin in 2020 - 2024 time frame I used to do that all the time at my previous job, got a strong openlssl cli game going whenever needed to generate a new csr for existing key or new key and shovel an exact amount of SANs into the CSR too. Lot of time wasted. There were also a certain set of customers for which we managed systems and they insisted for it to be done this way as something free on the internet is not to be trusted. Oh well, strange times.
It was not always like this. Google was very secretive in the early days. We did not start to see things until the GFS, BigTable and Borg (or Chubby) papers in 2006 timeframe.
I'd like to start seeing the architecture and design of how cloudflare works. Not blog posts, like a whole write-up. If you're going to have this many outages and you're a public company which 2/3rd of US infrastructure probably depends on then it might need some external input. Obviously they know what they're doing. This is not a blame game but the tools are starting to creak.
I recently saw this https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.11714 on conversational networks and it got me thinking that a lot of the problem with polarization and power struggle is the lack of dialog. We consume a lot, and while we have opinions too much of it shapes our thinking. There is no dialog. There is no questioning. There is no discussion. On networks like X it's posts and comments. Even here it's the same, it's comments with replies but it's not truly a discussion. It's rebuttals. A conversation is two ways and equal. It's a mutual dialog to understand differing positions. Yes elite can reshape what society thinks with AI, and it's already happening. But we also have the ability to redefine our networks and tools to be two way, not 1:N.
Dialogue you mean, conversation-debate, not dialog the screen displayed element, for interfacing with the user.
The group screaming the louder is considered to be correct, it is pretty bad.
There needs to an identity system, in which people are filtered out when the conversation devolves into ad-hominem attacks, and only debaters with the right balance of knowledge and no hidden agenda's join the conversation.
Reddit for example is a good implementation of something like this, but the arbiter cannot have that much power over their words, or their identities, getting them banned for example.
> Even here it's the same, it's comments with replies but it's not truly a discussion.
For technology/science/computer subjects HN is very good, but for other subjects not so good, as it is the case with every other forum.
But a solution will be found eventually. I think what is missing is an identity system to hop around different ways of debating and not be tied to a specific website or service. Solving this problem is not easy, so there has to be a lot of experimentation before an adequate solution is established.
I recommend reading "In the Swarm" by Byung-Chul Han, and also his "The Crisis of Narration"; in those he tries to tackle exactly these issues in contemporary society.
His "Psychopolitics" talks about the manipulation of masses for political purposes using the digital environment, when written the LLM hype wasn't ongoing yet but it can definitely apply to this technology as well.
Kudos to Mitchell for doing it. Unfortunately the "rug pull" issue has been severely crippled by OpenAI's about face turn on their non profit status, but knowing Mitchell, he's not about the money, power, status, etc so the project is in good hands and you can expect this to stay free.
> A non-profit structure provides enforceable assurances: the mission cannot be quietly changed, funds cannot be diverted to private benefit, and the project cannot be sold off or repurposed for commercial gain
Yeah, OpenAI has shown us that this is more negotiable than we might have believed. Fortunately nobody will ever think terminal emulation is a trillion dollar industry, so I think we’re ok.
> Unfortunately the "rug pull" issue has been severely crippled by OpenAI's about face turn on their non profit status,
The situations aren't comparable.
OpenAI was a non-profit foundation that held a controlling share in a for-profit organisation. It's model is based around controlling access to their data (which was never open), and controlling access to their models (which are also not open).
If Ghostty does sets up a for-profit org with the NFP as the majority holder then we can have the conversation, but even at that fork + move on (like OpenTofu, Valkey, CentOS, MariaDB, Jenkins) is an option.
It's more honest than the Replicate answer but I think inevitably if you can't raise the next round and you get distracted by the shiny AI that this is the path taken by many teams. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There was an exuberant time when all the OSS things were getting funded, and now all AI things get funded. For many engineer founders, it's a better fit to go build deep technical stuff inside a bigger company. If I had that chance I would probably have taken it too. Good luck to the Bun team!
reply