the critical self talk is normal. you should watch seth godin's talk "quieting the lizard brain" https://vimeo.com/5895898
i just had a similar conversation, but it dealt with music instead of code. this person felt they couldn't improvise/ create.
the problem isn't with their abilities, it's that they were taught to follow instructions - like the notes on sheet music. jazz musicians play off what they hear instead. however, they first internalized the rules and then forgot them.
you've already got the rules down - so the next step is to "forget" them.
a time constraint like going to a hackathon is a good place to start. you're pushing yourself to create in a short amount of time.
here, you'll focus on shipping...drowning out the critical voice in your head.
it's much like a muscle. the more you build and struggle through, the stronger you'll get.
Very much this. If you force yourself to make lots of things at a fast pace, whether by hackathon or something else, you will eventually get over your hesitations, and you'll find yourself speeding up and building better things too.
completely agree on learning to code. i have this conversation all the time with non technical entrepreneurs. it's about controlling your destiny. you have more of that when you can at least build an MVP. these days, its easier than ever - you just have to be naturally curious.
If your goal is to be able to build something without needing a technical cofounder, then definitely, being able to do both sides of the business is invaluable. But if your goal is to focus on the business side and find someone you can trust to lead technology, then I think you're better off spending that learning-to-code time sharpening your business tools.
This will sound like a goofy analogy but my wife and I have been together for twenty years and its more important that we agree on the theory of boundaries than on the actual boundaries themselves. Although when we cooperate by having at least a minimal understanding of each other, things do go much better than working separately. Thinking back on observations of divorced people, the signals started very early with arguments about the very concept of boys night out or the only correct way (LOL) to organize household finances. May have been a divorce immediately after someone slept with someone else, or whatever, but the problem didn't initiate when the third party magically appeared in bed one night.
Anyway the analogy is obviously two founders will go further the more they can productively cooperate, but disaster is absolutely certain if they can't even agree on what level to cooperate at. And inflexibility there is going to limit the possible matching talent pool.
This was supposedly in place before the vesting schedule. Vesting is designed to limit, not give, shares to owners. So if he never signed anything and was part of the company when it formed and it was agreed that it was a 50/50 split I don't believe that vesting would matter for his position at all.
Given that the plaintiff has turned down multi-million settlement offers, and given that there's two quite reputable law firms working for the plaintiff who aren't in the habit of taking no-hoper cases, what's more likely - that the case is 'total bullshit', or that something actually was missed and overlooked in the early days that's now going to cost the company dearly?
If they initially agreed to a 50-50 split and then never nailed down the vesting paperwork or resolved the ownership issue after the plaintiff's departure - well, that's unfortunate, but that's on them.
a vesting schedule is standard and would not have been overlooked by someone who founded 2 companies w/ successful exits.
here's a direct quote from sam's post (http://blog.samaltman.com/cruise) : "Even if Jeremy had signed a stock agreement, he wouldn’t have reached the standard 1-year cliff for founders to vest any equity."
If there were an existent contract providing for a cliff, this would have been the place for him to say so. He didn't; he referred to the "standard 1-year cliff". The remaining question is, absent the signed stock agreement, what was the disposition of ownership? That should come out pretty soon here.
i'm just reading the case as i see it. there might be more or less to this - but there were multiple opportunities for the guy to come forward especially after previous rounds.
no doubt Jeremy is opportunistic, but that doesnt really affect his claims legally if he was in fact identified as a cofounder when there is no contract in place to say otherwise.
I would say most likely. No doubt would it be requested during trial and they would both know what's on it so saying something untrue about it would be profoundly stupid. In my opinion anyway.
I've noticed a decline over the past 3+.
Feels like the "move fast and break things" mantra has been adopted. This works for Facebook... but it doesn't for Apple.
Shipping new features seems to take precedent over fixing bugs.
Some of us just want the Apple quality back.
It's really not too much to ask.