Desingineer – the mythical person every startup is looking for - <AUTHOR> http://brajeshwar.com/2011/desingineer-the-mythical-person-every-startups-are-looking-for/ <comment><USER4> I am a designineer. The problem is that it doesn't make you an expert of all skills. Jack of all trades, master of none.

While I took AP CS in high school, I can't rattle off the to O-notation of most algorithms. While I took plenty of art and design classes over the years, I'm no Jony Ives.

But, its not about what I can't do in my mind, but what I can do. I learn most things very quickly. I'm decent in Ruby and can get stuff done. I can get around Photoshop decently. I'm good at understanding what the customer wants and the product needs. I know how the pieces glue together. I don't mind meeting with VCs, talking to customers or interviewing people.

Yet contrary to popular belief, I don't find people bashing down my door. I don't have the sexiest Github account. The startups I've worked for aren't huge. When I'm asked what I do I reply, "Coding, marketing, product and design". Then they ask if I'm a Java or Ruby coder with 4-7 years of solid experience and a CS background.

Maybe the difference is I don't see myself as being a "full stack" guy, but a "full company" guy. I understand what everyone needs to be doing, and I have (often good) ideas of how a problem might be approached better.

I personally see myself as a huge asset to any company. I often end up doing the productivity of 2-3 people with more traditional backgrounds, but its a really hard sell honestly. I could try selling myself as a manager I suppose, but I'm not sure.

<comment><USER5> I suspect the scarcity of your skillset is the main contributor to your relative scarcity of opportunities. At a previous company I helped found, we realized that we were trying to find people who were pretty good designers, front-end developers, and really good on the phone with clients for support stuff. We didn't have the margins to split these into different roles, and that was the insight that allowed me to realize that our revenue model was fundamentally broken. It's not that these people don't exist, it's that you can't design your business around reliably finding them. So maybe you're left with a handful of startups who are able to find a place for you because they recognize your value and adapt, not because they had planned on finding you in the first place.

<comment><USER4> Your last sentence has been my experience so far. Essentially, when a company gets me, they seem to realize that month that they got more than they expected and its a good thing.

One thing I've noticed about _some_ (not all clearly) people who are very good at one thing (let's say back end programming) is they might not really want to do something totally different. Dealing with customers? Writing documentation? Writing front end javascript? Its a bit like pulling teeth.

I don't mind in the least. Documentation writing is great. Making beautiful products is great. Listening to customers (and investors) is great. And yea, I like coding too!

<comment><USER5> Same, except I don't really enjoy writing documentation. :) I posted my full thoughts in a separate post, but I'm looking for a job, and every job description I read makes me feel like I'm at a crossroads where I have to pick something to give up and something to get better at.

<comment><USER4> I would really like to have some people post that are looking for someone like you or I, and how someone can actually make themselves the best candidate, or even find such positions. I know how to find standard programming gigs. That isn't a problem.

I keep hearing about the demand, but I keep not seeing it. Unicorns looking for unicorns?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the problem is not that one person can't have both of these skills, but that it is hard to play both roles on the same project unless you have a lot of discipline.

The engineering mindset and the UX design mindset optimize for different things. Even if you are excellent at both, it helps to have someone else forcing you to get the UX right when you're doing the engineering work, and to make the engineering possible when doing the design work.

The people who can do both at the same time don't differ in having both skills -- lots of people have them -- but in having the discipline to optimize for both in alternation.

<comment><USER7> _but that it is hard to play both roles on the same project unless you have a lot of discipline._

For me it's less of a discipline issue and more of a time issue.

Both the backend and the frontend take a lot of quality time to do them right. It's simply not effective to have a single person context-switch between them, even when said person is very good at both. I.e. this is one of the situations where two people can indeed produce a given result nearly twice as fast.

However, I also agree that on top of that discipline plays a role, too.

While wearing the engineer-hat you have to constantly force yourself to stick with the brain-damaged abstractions that comprise todays "state-of-the-art" and not give in to the urge of fixing them bottom-up.

I.e. when both front- and backend are in your hands then the temptation to make the frontend truly model-driven can quickly become overwhelming (auto- generate those stupid forms and validations! why mirror when we could just rpc!). Sadly more often than not this results in a huge time-sink, as you embark in an uphill battle against a tool-chain that's strongly optimized for the exact opposite.

<comment><USER8> This is the best comment so far, I think, because it highlights why a designer + engineer, even a theoretical 'designeneer' equally skilled at both, isn't _necessarily_ going to be twice as valuable, and in fact may be only as valuable as a single engineer or a single designer.

I believe strongly in the value that knowing both can give you, and for certain classes of small project it's a huge win.

But you're right: context-switching is a limiter. You only have so much free time and mental energy.

For me, I know that I prefer working with competent UX/visual design guidance. I can get some really pretty results from doing my own designs, but it's a wonderful freedom to know that I'll spend 15 minutes in the morning iterating on a piece of paper with a designer today, and then just go away and do my thing. I'll get a PSD that will make the prototype UI more concrete late- afternoon, and the next morning we can talk about how using the UI makes us want to change it.

But if I was doing it all myself? I doubt that even with twice the time, the overall result would be equal, either on the code or the design side.

That designer keeps all of his visual design acumen and photoshop 'muscle memory' loaded into cache.

I keep my emacs key-chords, the code's secret sauce, my bash and git aliases and the topography of staging environments loaded into my cache.

There are definitely projects that exist where you can 'do it all', but ... node.js' model is great for maximizing throughput, but when you've got drastically different types of work, that's what you have multiple cores for. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recently applied at a YC funded startup. Their job description had the most random combination of front-end/back-end technologies that exactly matched my recent focuses, and said absolutely nothing about design. I considered myself extremely qualified.

I received a call the following day and was told I was a top candidate. As the interviews progressed with each founder (3 of them), I started to get the impression that they also wanted a designer. I was super careful about managing their expectations and let them know I wouldn't count on my design skills for anything more than "not ugly".

I didn't get an offer.

This is the second time in my very remote, limited experience I've speculated a startup hiring stereotype that has later been echoed in the community. I've convinced myself that both indicate the lack of experience that startup founders have in hiring. Yet another reason I suspect founders can't find talent. After all, what kind of established, motivated and passionate, developer/designer would want to bet their livelihood on a startup that doesn't pay well, isn't clear about its expectations, and shows signs of inexperience?

<comment><USER10> Sounds like you dodged a bullet. The founders probably weren't going to give their first employee the kind of equity they were going to give themselves, despite the fact that their first employee would have to be more qualified than they were.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Every freelancer in my area is, by this definition, a "Desingineer." I'm in the midwest, so there's almost no other way to get work other than go full stack. Obviously, some are better at the back end and some are better designers, but they have to do it all.

Honestly, this reinforces the issue that startups do a poor job of recruiting outside of their 20 mile radius. For example, its early in the office, and I still see 5 people who have pushed high level applications, good front ends, and the occasional mobile app.

<comment><USER12> have built a company in the middle of the country as well, and know this freelance type. Typically they are "okay" at design and "okay" at development. They work well for local small businesses but not for startups looking for top caliber design.

<comment><USER13> Most startups aren't looking for, and shouldn't be looking for, top caliber design. It costs too much and usually provides no measurable value for an immature product.

<comment><USER14> _It costs too much_

Simple! Pay 'em less & give 'em equity!

<comment><USER14> _ahem_ maybe I should have put </sarcasm> tags around that. I don't believe in this, burger there are those alas that do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have about 14 years into my career as a web guy who can code (front to back), design killer UI and create, execute and grow business strategy.

What that being set! "being" a generalist is not for everyone.

There are some things to note:

1\. Keeping up with all three is a LOT of work. Understanding the latest javascript libraries, deployment tech, UI tools and successful business models take a ton of time. I roughly spend 15-30 hrs a week trying new things our, designing or running spreadsheets not to mention the meetups and whatnot.

2\. Every startup is looking for this person because they can enable so many parts of the success equation in one, self-contained shot. They add more value per square inch at critical phases of business growth that is a considerable asset. As a startup grows, this is personality turns into an optimal product lead, who can drive major decisions and participate in meaningful discussions with teams, investors and press.

3\. Large corporations are not tuned to need or understand your services, unless you are accomplished in mid- to senior-level management positions.

4\. You can visualize and eval business ideas quickly, then be able to communicate them to specialists with ease. I can't tell you the number of times being able to verbalized the need for a linked list or onHover whatever has made communcation easier with people who I bring to help me execute. This makes you a better implementer who is respected by counterparts and team members. Business folk quickly grasp CLV and burn margins when deciding to invest or advise.

4\. You don't necessarily become an expert in everything. In fact, it's near impossible. I've had to focus of two or three major activities and fine tune my skills. This could mean I will be specializing in the future.

5\. You don't get rest. The world is moving quickly, technology even faster. There are millions of able and hungry people willing to execute on their great ideas every single day. That means I have to keep moving or lose my flow. I can probably point to 7 or so ideas that were launched in the time I was evaluating the opportunity with 3 that have gone onto real growth.

<comment><USER16> I'm 21 years into my career myself, so the web is younger than my carrer. At this point, I do full stack development as well.

And... I think you are taking on more than you need to for the discussion at hand.

If you are an excellent JS programmer, you don't need to keep up on the latest libraries. You can code what you need yourself. Sure, maybe you do something from scratch that could have been done with a newer library, but the 10 hours you lose there is more than made up by not having to do those 15 hours a week keeping up.

Likewise on your other tech points. Constantly churning your toolkit doesn't speed you up. It slows you down. There is a balance to be found where you keep up "enough", but still focus the majority of your time on delivering work.

I choose to spend a day or so each month trying to keep up, then roll with what I know for a while.

Likewise with some of your other activities. Meetups and business models? They may help you be a consultant, but that is adding yet a 4th role to the topic at hand.

Many of your other points also apply more to a consultant than a heads-down designer/coder.

In general, it sounds like you are trying to be an even rarer breed. More power to ya, but it may be overkill for most people.

<comment><USER15> Good points and fitting as right now a large portion of my personal income is consultant based.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is wrong. Everyone knows that modern startups are looking for a Desingineerketer.

<comment><USER18> Sir, you are mistaken: We are in the market for a Desingineerketertesteraccountant.

(Is this how German got started?)

<comment><USER19> My beloved was a German major once upon a time, and he assures me that this is exactly how German got started... or at least it's how German works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I do all of those, and I am definitely _not_ a genius. Nor all that rare. Most of the projects I've worked on in the last 5 years have had several devs who could go end-to-end, and the ones that weren't were working towards that goal.

It's really not rocket surgery, it's just a matter of applying yourself over time and every few months acquire new skills in an essential area. CSS, JS, Ruby, TCP/IP, HTTP/REST, UI/UX, SQL, design patterns, on and on. Set em up and knock em down. Be a generalist, but be a very good one.

It's not that hard to accomplish over time and it keeps you engaged longer. Heck, it's just more fun. I'm an 'older' coder and taking that approach I think has kept me from getting bored, kept me sharp and also kept me from feeling like all these young'uns is passin me by. Hey! Get off my lawn...

<comment><USER21> Great comment, Dave.

Would you say over the years that you've oscillated between points of the stack, based on the needs of your current team? I've found that to be the case for me.

At my last job I did a lot of front end work, at my current gig I'm focused on the backend. I enjoy the oscillation and try to keep interesting side projects where I focus on the opposite of what I do in my day job.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, absolutely. It's been a matter of looking for new opportunities to do something out of my comfort zone. If you've been doing Rails for a year and an opportunity comes up to do some mobile stuff, take it. If you've been doing css/html for months and someone needs a SQL migration written, do it. If someone needs to configure Passenger/Apache/Resque, etc., be the guy. Get comfortable in Photoshop or Gimp enough to knock out an icon or two. Sketch out wire frames for Product for your next feature if someone already hasn't.

There's usually an opportunity to do all this stuff over time, you just have to be willing to jump on it when it comes up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> They're not entirely mythical. I was this person for Viaweb, and YC has funded several founders who are both hackers and designers.

<comment><USER23> Desingineers who are willing not to be founders could still be mythical. (And I think that's what the article was talking about)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've been working hard at being this guy. HTML+CSS+JS(coffee!)+Ruby, years of professional experience doing UX and website design on whiteboards and Photoshop and Illustrator, successfully launching brand-new projects.

I also know a few guys I've worked with that are very strong in the same areas. It's more pleasurable to work with a team where every member will do well in all areas, even if we have a core area that we would prefer to be an expert in. I don't believe those people are mythical or hard to find.

The myth is that startups want those people, but don't have enough money to afford them. They want desingineers that are cheap. I'm personally tired of seeing "stock options" in startups that don't have a product yet.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm a desingineer - ux, visual design, solid on front-end and okay on backend. Just wanted to point out its not all a bed of roses.

For the last month I've been interviewing at some really amazing startups. What I've found is that I have no problem getting interviews at some of the best startups (>50% response rate) because well everyone wants someone who can code and design . The problem is that I have to fight an uphill battle to prove that I'm not just a designer that writes HTML/CSS. There is ALWAYS the question of "so...how good are your frontend skills?" with an intonation of doubt. No one actually bothers to ask or determine about the level of your design skills. Another question is "which one do you prefer?". I really hate that question because it shows you don't understand what a product focused engineer is.

Positive response _really_ depends on the stage of a startup. I'm finding that teams between 5-20 are looking more for specialists in design and engineering. Any smaller or bigger and a desingineer becomes a very valuable role to fill. So feeling I'm missing out on opportunities at some great startups cause of this phenomenon. Would e interested to know if anyone else has experienced this?

It's definitely causing me to think about my career path. Do I focus on one or the other? I know I am not great at both and that is because I have to spread myself thin in both areas and dont know the best tools and practices as well as I should.

Being a desingineer makes it really easy to start your own thing be it a startup or side project - I've done it a few times myself. However, sometimes you need financial stability, or are waiting for a significant idea, or just want to work with other really smart people on an idea with traction to gain more experience.

So we aren't unicorns and it's definitely not a double-rainbow life.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm coming a little late to this discussion, but I do think that as much as startups want "desingineers", the hiring process makes it very unlikely that they will ever get one.

I remember reading Scott Adams's advice on how to get into the top 1% (well, reallu the top .0..1%). One way is to be incredibly good at one thing - <USER2> Roger Federer. The other way is to keep combining interesting and related things until you're there - ie., someone in the top 10% at coding, design, sales, biology, and construction.

Here's the thing - recently, we've been discussing the willingness of companies trying to hire to accept "false negatives" because the impact of a bad hire is so detrimental to a team. But I think a lot of "false negatives" may be coders who do _pretty_ well in the interview but not quite well enough to get past the filter. The interview process almost never gets at their other skills. So the company fails to hire someone with exceptional domain experience and good design skills because he or she struggled a bit finding cycles in a linked list.

There are solutions for people like this. One is to be a founder - get an idea, start coding and designing, create an initial app, and see what kind of traction you can get. The other is very similar - you'll managed to get hired somewhere eventually, and you can start proposing projects. Eventually, you'll get to run with one, and you can be entrepreneurial about it (well less upside but at least you'll have a salary).

It's much easier to do this on your own or once you're established with a company. It's tough to get this across in an interview process.

<comment><USER27> There is a third option that is more accessible than building your own products - consulting.

Clients seeking consultants have different interviewing tactics, even though the clients themselves have an engineering background. A good consultant is too expensive / too busy to be asked about detecting loops in linked lists or about how many balls can fill a bus. Therefore for a consultant references and a portfolio are what's taken into account.

And these can be built through hard work. At first you could build something for demonstration purposes and open-source it. Or you could work on a project pro-bono. Of course, consulting requires good marketing skills - but we are talking about generalists here.

<comment><USER26> That's a really good point, and reminds me of some thoughts I had last time I was at the white board explaining the difference between composition and inheritance. I was irritated as crap to be doing it, but I also realized that my irritation should be with myself. Even if I'm not a rock-star programmer with huge contributions to open source, I _should_ , by this point, have a body of work that speaks louder than a technical interview.

Part of the problem is that many programmers still don't get to do open source work (I couldn't have revealed the source code to what I was working on at the time in an interview), whereas many other fields (design in particular) provide more opportunity to show off your work publicly. But there is a choice here, and as you've pointed out, it's important to make sure that at least _some_ of your work is publicly available.

Even "demo" sites don't strictly need to be demo anymore - a small "real" app can be created, deployed, and used, even if the main purpose was to show off skills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> When I worked as an industrial design, we had a similar person on staff that sat at the intersection of design and engineering - we call this person a design engineer.

We have this role at Airbnb.

</comment><comment><USER29> About six years ago, I decided to become a "desingineer", by accident. Here's how it went down:

After getting a BS and M.Eng in Computer Science, everyone was pleased as punched to let me code for them. But I wanted to code and _design_ interfaces as well. What a strange idea - a programmer also making the interfaces.

Well, it turned out no one would take me seriously unless I had designed interfaces in a professional environment before. I needed someone that would take a chance on me, to actually let me design their UIs while hiding me away in their software team. (I managed to find _one_ job that would, and for that I'm forever grateful.)

Once I picked up some experience designing UIs, the top companies wouldn't would take me seriously until I had some formal design training and credentials. So, I went back for a degree in Interaction Design.

Once I finished my degree, the top companies wouldn't take me seriously until I shipped some code that had my own designs in it. So I did that for a while, in a few hybrid dev/designer positions.

Once I shipped my code, the top companies wouldn't take me seriously until I had shipped a design of my own creation that was also my own (so, owning the UI, UX, code and business strategy). So I got back into entrepreneurship (something I'd largely given up with my pure CS focus), and started creating and shipping my own designs.

Now, as an entrepreneur, interaction designer and computer scientist, the top companies won't take me seriously until I start shipping designs of my own creation that are also visually stunning. Working on it. :)

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Only now, six years later, do I realize that no one will ever take you seriously unless they can _define_ you. Programmers can be understood, and slotted. They have real, respected career paths. Designers can be understood, and slotted. They have real, respected career paths as well. Even Interaction Designers are slowly becoming understood.

Being a desingineer, while bringing me incredible amounts of joy, also feels absolutely terrible - because people are constantly coming along with ideas of what you can or should bring to an organization. The limits of the position are such unknowns, in fact, that sometimes people feel desingineers should be _everything_ to everyone.

Sometimes that comes out of with a sense of greed - after all, it's on the desingineer to prove they _shouldn't_ have to do all of those things, right? And, in fact, they feel _entitled_ to everything. Early-stage startups are particularly bad about this, I've noticed - their "first designer hire" posts often forget that everyone starts somewhere. (Sorry, but it's true.)

But other times people simply misunderstand how long it takes to become good at each of the individual skill sets involved. And other times companies are still sorting out what skill sets their companies actually _need_ in the same person.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

Is there anything we can do, as a community, to bring some clarity and definition to "desingineering" - so kids coming out of school don't have to go through what I have gone through? It's obvious that this is a position that companies need, but it's not one that will be treated with respect until its own practioners - a fair number of whom seem to be on HN - actively come together to help define it.

<comment><USER30> I think in general, being a generalist in any field puts a ceiling on your career path after a while. And like you said the ceiling is not so much about the generalist being mediocre at many things, its more about others getting confused about how you would be best moved up the career track. But the problem with the concept of a career track is that you are on a track defined by other people. I'd say the only way out is go your own way as you have - career tracks all eventually end somewhere. As a generalist you have a much broader perspective on how to create your own track and a much better vision as to what direction best suits you. I think probably the best way we can encourage up and coming tech generalists is to encourage them to get frustrated with the status quo and to become entrepreneurs. As a result hopefully the next generation of companies will have a deeper appreciation of the competitive advantage of multi-disciplined people.

<comment><USER27> Entrepreneurs that are engineers and don't have a designer as a cofounder have no choice but to become desingineers.

Generalists _are_ considered to be mediocre (jack of all trades, master of none). I don't know why though - maybe it's because many developers calling themselves specialists in a domain are doing the same thing for 5-10 years in a row and it's scary when other people take a different path.

<comment><USER31> The obvious other choice is to hire a designer or a design firm as needed (or depending on what you need, buy a design template to get you going).

<comment><USER32> This helps with some of the big, important things. But running a company will present you with a dozen of design challenges. A month. You can't just deal with these all contractually.

<comment><USER31> It depends greatly on your company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _you should try splitting it into (i) a designer who does HTML, CSS (ii) a programmer and (iii) perhaps even a separate Javascript coder._

This is how the company I work for right now does it and it is EXTREMELY inefficient. I've been advocating them to go back to one person to do html/css/js/php.

I can see the above work for large orgs. But with a 3-4 person tech team, super specialization has not worked at all

<comment><USER34> What's inefficient about it? Usually this doesn't work if your process sucks. The way I've seen it work well is:

Designer starts on the project a week ahead of programmer. Gathers requirements (with the programmer tagging along). Does paper sketches which get a general a-ok from everyone.

Does html prototype, ideally already in rails.

Hands off to developer, developer wires up. Over time they iterate together on the same codebase.

<comment><USER33> So in your model there is only a designer and a developer? At my work, we have someone for each specialty: 1. design 2. html 3. backend like php 4. js.

Your designer seems to do both (1) and (2) which is more manageable and something I've had work well. Likewise, your programmer seems to do both (3) and (4).

The problems arise when you need to tweak a small feature. You end up needing four-five people(if you count product manager) to touch it to make the change happen. It's not efficient at least for a web start-up(I can see it work for larger enterprises).

<comment><USER35> Just being nitpicky, but I think you misread the OP. He said one person does design _and_ HTML, which is exactly what you're saying.

<comment> brown9-2 Pretty sure badclient said that the company has one person each for HTML, CSS, JS and PHP.

That does sound pretty nuts - seems like almost every layout/front-end/design change you'd ever need to make would touch both HTML and CSS, requiring two people to handle it separately.

<comment><USER36> He didn't say CSS, he said design. That could just as easily be Photoshop mockups, with CSS lumped into the HTML job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I suppose it's a bit of a lost battle in the web space, but I find it weird when the jobs are broken into "programmer/engineer", who does implementation, and "designer", who does UI/frontend stuff. In other areas of engineering, a lot of things other than the final aesthetics, or even just the UI, are called "design"; when you "design" a power plant, that's not purely implementation, but is heavily tied to the engineering. Surely any nontrivial webapp also has that kind of design as well, something more like product design? And it seems like you _do_ want engineers who are also able to do that.

</comment><comment><USER38> Anyone that talented is probably starting their own startup.

<comment><USER39> You might think that, but not everyone is interested in the business side of things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I might be considered a larval Designineer. I started off as a visual designer, then learned HTML and CSS, then Javascript, then out of necessity began maintaining an old ASP Classic codebase. As soon as I started to understand the code I was reading, things got easier. Then I built a small data-backed web app and I was totally hooked. In the last two years, I've learned to build nontrivial web apps from the ground up. SQL, MVC, Backbone, UI, design. I'm pretty proficient at each level of the stack, but only insofar as it's related to the web. Eg. I know C#, but I wouldn't have the first clue about how to write a native Windows application. So I end up feeling like my knowledge is the proverbial mile wide and inch deep.

I'm looking for jobs right now, and it's been an exercise in frustration. The coding jobs require CS degrees, 5 years of experience, tech interviews with big-O notation and data structures (trying to teach myself basic CS theory, but need a job now). The UI and design jobs require a smidge of front-end knowledge, but are mostly mocking and wireframing. I want to be able to employ all of my tools, but I feel like the hiring market makes me pick between being a front-end or a back-end guy, and I don't currently have enough specialization at either to get a reasonably good job.

How can I find companies that could use someone like me, when their job descriptions are specialized? Any thoughts or advice?

</comment><comment><USER40> Anyone on here have any insights on HOW to get there?

IME, you need certain attitudes towards life to get good at both.

You need to be a visionary AND an engineer. Usually people are one or the other and prefer it because they suck less at it. Hence, they eventually get great at it. But this means the other suffers. To be in the designer+engineer category, you first need to figure out what you are good at (essentially what you spend a large chunk of your time on - dreaming or coding) and then what you are weak at.

Then practice doing the weak thing for a couple of years.

Pretty soon, you are a designeer.

Problem is, in the startup world, I still can't figure out WHY you should be both when you can hire people to complement your weakness. Steve Jobs was obviously only a visionary and he, through practice, became great at it. Dennis Ritchie, an engineer.

Unless, of course, startup is not your endgame. Unless your goal is self- improvement powered by a zesty thirst for knowledge. In my limited knowledge, though Learnado Da Vinci fell into the designeer category, he was still very much an idea person (visionary) than an engineer - mainly because he procrastinated like crazy with his projects (for years, at times). This shows that he preferred conceptualizing the project and loved cultivating the vision rather than actually implement it.

Thoughts? Please give me some feedback, this stuff is important.

<comment><USER41> Jobs was not "only" a visionary. Before Apple, Jobs worked at Atari as a technician. He would get assigned tasks like designing circuit boards. If you consider the early days, Jobs only looks like a business guy if you stand him next to Woz.

Anyway, I think I can say without exaggeration that I'm better than average in both engineering and design. At least for me, I think you have to be born that way -- you get pleasure both from aesthetics, and from solving problems. And when left alone by a world that sees both as separate, you just do your thing.

I started got a computer when I was 11. Other people played games. It seemed completely natural to me to spend almost all my time programming pretty graphics demos.

But how do you get any better? I think you have to be the kind of person who seeks challenges, who seeks a ladder to climb.

For computing, I think we all know that drill. Open source has made it so that you can start anywhere and go all the way to OS development, if that's what you want. You can also get work (even if you have little experience) and use other people's resources to educate yourself.

For design, it's a bit harder. Perhaps I was lucky in that I continually wavered between science and engineering, and design and journalism.

In my teens and early 20s, I was the production/layout guy at student newspapers. So I could educate myself, with thousands of dollars of other people's money, in a way that was almost ridiculously unsupervised. That sharpened my appreciation for typography, photography, design, etc., as well as gave me some experience managing people, budgets and deadlines. But I guess that other people in that role might not have gone as crazy as I did for the design aspect. Especially for the entertainment sections (where design was allowed to be more fun) I was trying to top myself with every single issue that I did. You know that you're doing it right when (a) the bloody thing actually makes printing deadline, week after week (b) you walk around the university and you see people putting your layouts up as a poster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I would guess this has become a trend based on the following...

1) Entrance of lower quality, inexperienced founders who want an end product and only know about the buzzwords that supposedly go into building that product. They don't have an expert grasp on the development process so they naively think the process is to collect a group of people with all skills.

2) The advances in work process efficiencies make it easier to do different jobs in tech. Consequently, this makes it much more possible for 1 person to wear many hats somewhat more effectively. 10 to 20 years ago, these sort of job descriptions would be 100% insane because it took so much more out of the different disciplines to put software together. It would be like a hospital posting a job opening for a doctor who can also drive the ambulance.

On the 2nd point it makes me wonder if eventually at some point in the future the startup team along with the need for venture capital will be obsolete. If we follow the current trajectory, I could see building tech startups being more and more the domain of one to a couple people with slim to none capital requirements.

<comment><USER42> I think it's possible for most of the web-mobile projects today that aren't too ambitious in their scale, with one caveat: servers cost a ton on money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Honestly, being a desingineer sucks at times.

The advantages of the "desingineer" is that you cut out a lot of red tape and inefficiencies in the early stages. You can implement things much much faster if you know both front/back and how they come together. IMO, this is crucially important in the MVP/early stages of a startup where you don't have a lot of resources and need to move quickly.

The downside to this (and what I'm slowly figuring out), is that there are limits. It involves a lot of context switching. Someone else mentioned it but it's true... you only have so many hours a day and it's insanely hard trying to become proficient at design, ui/ux, and programming.

What ends up happening is that you "feel" like you're mediocre at everything, and when your startup is growing that feeling SUCKS. I would much rather have a small team where we each specialize (with some overlap of course) in what we can be excellent at.

</comment><comment><USER44> As a desingineer I'm always looking for the mythical startup that has cool technology, awesome people and a good chance to rocket to the moon. Probably as hard to find as desingineers.

<comment><USER45> That's awesome. Of course, if we just want money, prestige, and success, then that is what we want. But if we want opportunities to grow, then the startup should be a challenge demanding our best to achieve success --- it should not be an easy ride on others' abilities. And the same goes for finding the desingineer --- if a founder wants to address a prime responsibility of running a company, and control their culture, then part of their legacy is the people that they help grow and to flourish into the desingineer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> As a designer, I personally prefer taking any design straight to code (mainly because making iterations to Photoshop designs is a nightmare and frankly a waste of time). I think the thing that helped me most was that I started learning design by coding (i.e. I started writing XHTML/CSS alongside learning design principles). Being about four years in now, it's great to be able to get a project and say "yeah, I can code that." It really just takes time and patience. While my coding experience is mainly focused around front-end development, what I've learned from the front-end has helped me to feel comfortable with Wordpress and PHP. I think the best way to become a "Desingineer" is to constantly have some project that challenges you, whether paid or not (preferably not as there is less pressure to get things right).

</comment><comment><USER47> I would think that the type of person that is a designgineer is likely to be informally trained, usually starting as a design person and becoming increasingly more technical over time.

Because of this, I reckon they would do poorly at a lot of the types of technical interviews that are in fashion today, such as puzzle interviews and data structure/algorithm questions that you'd probably only do well with if you had a computer science background.

"Tell me how you would go about building an efficient maze generator" is the wrong kind of question for these people. "How would you go about building token-field interface from scratch in javascript" would be a better question.

Sites like InterviewStreet and CodeSprint don't optimize for hiring this kind of person.

<comment><USER48> I think you are right, I suspect that is a drive to invent things and a passion for technology, that is at least how it works for me:

web design as a kid + DT at school + always inventing things -> Industrial Design at uni -> interest in developing product from both the user facing side and technology behind it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I read these unicorn articles and at first think, hey, I'm one of those guys, meaning it can't be that hard. I am no genius, just a decently hard working individual that tends that likes to do things right. I feel comfortable in both worlds, I lead a design team and also lead the direction of _some_ of the engineering efforts of a decent size team (20+).

That being said, it's hard to do both at scale or really well. One is going to suffer as soon as the project gets to a decent size, I notice this every time I try and do it myself. So, props to people who can produce extremely high quality code and designs, that takes a serious focus.

</comment><comment><USER50> And be wary of people who _say_ they are great coders and designers. In most cases, it's more _half_ designer and _half_ engineer; meaning you'll have an ugly design and a messy code.

</comment><comment><USER51> Ok, first of all--if you're a designer and your primary area of design is for the web--you damn well better be able to hand-code HTML and CSS. If not, you push pixels in Photoshop--and that's not design.

Designing for the web requires that you understand the limitations of HTML and CSS and not push our crap from Photoshop that would be a nightmare to implement.

When we're talking about "desingeers" are we talking about designers that can write markup and style or designers that can code out a great Rails backend?

</comment><comment><USER52> The real issue is that mastering something takes an awful long time - 10.000 hours or 10 years from what I have read (Malcolm Gladwell, Peter Norvig, various research). Most people aren't willing to put in this effort and most people aren't willing to suck at something for years, therefore they focus on the thing they are good at.

Maybe we could become awesome at multiple things if we are willing to invest 10 years into learning something instead of investing a few weeks.

</comment><comment><USER53> I think the mistake is in structuring the company so that people have to be awesome on _both_ axes. Either that, or so they're _forbidden_ to become good at both.

Every developer is a designer. (You can't make something without thinking about it at least a little.) Every designer can be a developer if they want. Both skills take plenty of practice.

Nobody is likely to be 100% amazing at both, but that doesn't matter: a lot of day-to-day work is pretty mundane, so nobody has to be amazing all the time. As long as you have somebody great that you collaborate with frequently, you can still get a great product, and everybody gets to up their game over time.

Skill-based division of labor is fine for assembly-line products, but for iterative, creative work (which is what all startups are), I think you need intense collaboration, which requires broad skills. That's why IDEO, a design powerhouse, looks for what they call t-shaped people: [http://chiefexecutive.net/ideo-ceo-tim-brown-t-shaped- stars-...](http://chiefexecutive.net/ideo-ceo-tim-brown-t-shaped-stars-the- backbone-of-ideoae%E2%84%A2s-collaborative-culture)

It's a cheesy name, but I think the idea's spot on.

</comment><comment><USER48> I think I must fit into some super set of this somewhere.

My day job is as a physical product design engineer for a consultancy and have a degree in Industrial Design. So I would do the mechanical and aesthetic design of a product including Injection Moulding, Sheet metal, machining ect. which is not to dissimilar to someone doing the user interface and back-end of the software/web product.

What makes me a little different is that I spend my evenings doing web development and although I have never done it "professionally" I think I am probably allot better than most at the front end development using html, css and javascript (I do like a dash of coffee script). I also have a fair bit of experience with Python on the back end mostly using Django but have also more recently been experimenting with Gevent and web-sockets to do some interesting live updating stuff.

So I suppose I'm a bit of an odd ball, I can't work out how to get both the physical product design and all my interest in web development (front and back end) into one job. I think I will just have to invent a job for myself that does...

EDIT: I guess I'm a web-mech-prod-desingineer...

</comment><comment><USER54> Reasonable article, this is fairly well known as an issue, but definitely does good to bring it up again since a lot of places just don't get it.

Also goes without saying that the companies looking for this person also will typically be requiring mastery of cross-platform application design simultaneously targeting most every known desktop and mobile operating system; a long, specific list of diverse technologies at very particular version numbers; they should be willing to relocate at their own cost, with remote work and telecommuting unacceptable; and of course they should be willing to work for less than market rate for a practitioner of even one of the skills they are supposed to be masters of, which should be no problem since there is a low cost of living in the obscure one horse town they will be moving to but which features lots of outdoor activities and family values as long as you don't mind the rampant small town corruption, house break ins, ATV, copper wire and catalytic converter theft, weekly stabbings over a girl, and pandemic meth addiction.

</comment><comment><USER55> I was discussing this issue with a friend the other day. I think the real 'why' is there is no motivator to become good at both design and development. Both skills take people who are passionate about what they do, usually to the point where they hone their skills in their free time. I actually think most (good) devs and designers have slight inclinations towards each others work, but it is a serious effort to go from "that does look cool/useful" to professional proficiency. The few people who are currently 'designineers' are mostly likely completely passionate about both (which is their motivator). However for the rest why put in the effort? My understanding is that the pay isn't much different (in fact this sounds a lot like, "wouldn't it be great if I could get 2 for the price of 1"). Easier to find a job? Perhaps, but right now I think good designers and developers are having no trouble finding work. Additionally your skill set is now the target of tons of people looking to get something for nothing, or have one person doing 10 jobs

</comment><comment><USER56> It's funny that this is a thing now. In the early days of the web, being a Designineer was a necessity to get anything done in most web-type companies.

Some will say, "well, you probably aren't on level with a rockstar coder." This is probably true, although my clients are very happy. I can wireframe, design and code a large-scale web app without having to consult a single person (other than the client, of course).

I am starting my own web company now and I am finding that the Designineer badge helps me in great ways. For example, I wanted to quickly create a prototype to show a potential client a better way to go with their website. Normally, in a web company of 5-10 people, this would require consulting a coder, designer and whomever else is involved in the drafting of a project. This could potentially tie up 2/3rds of the company for the possibility of landing a new client. For me, this was all handled inside of a few hours and it makes the company appear more staffed than it actually is.

</comment><comment><USER57> Something not mentioned, people who are desingineers often gravitate to a comfort zone with regards to money and ability. Let's face it, design is subject to the whims of opinion and can take a really, really long time, code on the other hand usually just works or doesn't.

Dealing with clients on design projects compared to code is like night and day.

</comment><comment><USER58> Engineering and designing are much more similar than they are different.

I recently completed a four-year graduate design degree (architecture) after a lifetime of math, physics and not a whip of art or design experience. Here's my take on this issue.

Engineering and design are both fundamentally processes of creation. While both creations must meet one or more objectives, the types of those objectives often differ. Engineers tend to optimize for quantitative objectives and criteria; designers tend to optimize for qualitative objectives and criteria.

I think this difference has two significant consequences:

1\. The solution space for designers (or anything with qualitative criteria) is much larger than for engineers. 2\. There are many more opportunities for mediocre design than there are for mediocre engineering.

By point 2., I mean that not only is the solution space of design much larger, but there are also many more "attractors" of solutions. In engineering, the attractors have a strong pull and are more recognizable as such. And, because the solution space is more quantifiable, the relations between those solutions are more well understood and comparable.

In design, the attractors are more fuzzy and their locations in the solution space are often unknown. This allows anyone who can find a mediocre design solution (especially those who find "pretty" visual ones) to become a "designer". But good designers must do much more. They must understand the design space enough so that, from any starting point, they can justifiably navigate towards that same design solution.

This involves crossing certain thresholds -- bifurcations -- in which the nature of the design solution changes. Recognizing when to cross these thresholds is, in my opinion, a task perfectly suited for analytical thinkers. You don't need to be able to create visually pleasing designs to find the best design solutions. Visual aesthetics are simply one component of optimizing the already discovered design solution.

So my advice to engineers is this: forget about visuals. Design analytically, question the existence of design components and their relationships. If you cannot justify their existences and relationships, you need to somehow change their nature (bifurcate the design) until you can justify it. Often starting from the bottom-up is the best way to accomplish this.

Once a design solution is in sight, optimizing its visual aesthetics is much easier -- you've already framed its problem so well!

Finally, I must note the three tasks which are essential to the design process: research, experimentation and documentation. Surely these tasks are also vital to engineers, or anyone else involved in processes of creation.

\---

(PS If anyone would like to talk about how many of the concepts of dynamical systems theory can be used in the design process (and the design itself!), I'd love to hear form you!)

<comment><USER25> I'd love to read your thoughts on this as a blog post - do you have one?

<comment><USER58> Thanks for the encouragement. I'm in the process of two related posts, but they're not quite finished.

One is on my master's thesis and how a design can actually be the result of a complex dynamical system. The other is on the process of navigated a design state space during the web design process.

I'll be sure to post both here when they're completed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Amazing how many people are tooting their own horns in here. IMO, if you are one, you don't claim it, people know by looking at your work. But anyway...

This has been my problem breaking into the industry. A few years ago I didn't understand a lick of HTML/CSS and changed that by digging in and learning it. Now I can build WP themes from scratch (not the most semantic, but I can still do it), and write functions/code in PHP. Now I'm working on js and jQuery, while also trying to learn the rest of the LAMP stack.

Still, it seems like every time I teach myself something new, a new skill is added to the startup rockstar job requirement list. I get that startups want to fill big holes, and that many pay accordingly, but this is why so many junior level people decide to build their own companies instead of asking permission to learn a little on the job.

<comment><USER60> > IMO, if you are one, you don't claim it, people know by looking at your > work. But anyway...

Except this is a discussion in text. Sure, yes, walking and talking are two different things, but how else are you going to know what point of view someone is speaking form unless then tell you in their comment? No reason to assume people are just tooting their own horns for 'hn-cred'. Does your comment mean so little you'd ruin it by belittling people?

As for the rest of your comment: to be fair, from the sounds of things, your still very much new to all of this. You are a junior developer, and that's nothing to be ashamed of. The problem is you are looking at these startup rockstar job requirements and deciding for them. That doesn't mean you are ready, but _you_ shouldn't be the one to decide that. After all, good companies are always looking for good people. And while that position they have posted might not be right for you, they might have another place for you.

> this is why so many junior level people decide to build their own companies

Maybe. I don't know, personally. That being said, though, is that starting your own company requires another "rockstar" requirement list all it's own. Don't fool yourself.

If you're put off by "startup rockstar job requirements," starting a company won't be any easier.

<comment><USER59> All I'm saying is that the proof is in the pudding, and I find it odd that 25% of the people that had posted upon first read felt they could claim this status. I believe it can be achieved, but the numbers seem very skewed here.

Anyway, I'm not ashamed of it at all. I went through a job search and had a lot of bad luck. I'm not actually expecting to be given a rockstar job, but even the local small-time shops have the same requirements. Every single company I've seen is looking for the mysterious rockstar unicorn programmer.

So, after eventually finding a job, I decided to build a bunch of projects on the side, and we're getting a lot of traction. If I were to claim rockstar status at anything, it would be persistence. I guess you probably didn't look at my bio.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Just find a former technical founder that was by necessity forced to learn all these skills.

That's how I became solid (but not expert-level) in distributed systems, machine learning, web development, UX/UI design, and app dev.

Even for large teams, having people who have a deep understanding of all areas of work is underrated.

<comment><USER62> Bingo. As soon as possible after building a product that starts getting traction I build teams of people who are far better than me in every relevant discipline who can sprinkle true awesomeness on their respective areas. From that point my "deep understanding of all areas" (as you put it) gives me the judgment to lead the team as we relentless prioritize efforts in the individual aspects of the whole product. That skill set was valuable at least through the IPO, twice.

Even before I started my own companies I was a product manager at a large company, and groking the hardware, software, UX, manufacturing, and marketing aspects of the product gave me uncommon influence with the real experts in each of those domains -- because I had and could communicate that end-to-end vision of what was possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Tip: don't read Web Design for Developers from the Pragmatic Programmers. It was a good read, with a lot of basic stuff about color theory and typography, but that's the final project: <http://www.yourfoodbox.com/>

I think websites in 1994 looked better.

</comment><comment><USER63> There are some out there that can do both but I find it to be very rare (and thus should be highly paid). I have worked with some very artistic people in the past who couldn't code to save their life. I always tell them "you make it look good and I will make it work."

</comment><comment><USER64> I suppose one could break this issue down into one of breadth vs depth. You probably _can_ find someone who can do both designing and engineering, but unless you find one of those mythic geniuses, you're not going to get someone who goes very deep in either one. I suppose this might be preferable to certain businesses that just don't have that many deep, involved problems. Of course, as a business grows more complex, you _need_ some specialization. You just can't beat having someone who knows a problem inside and out.

Regardless, I think most startups who hire this way are trying to have their cake and eat it too. It's probably part of the reason why some startups find recruiting so difficult.

</comment><comment><USER65> Mythical and wanted as may be, it is also one of the most misunderstood kind of roles. Bigger companies are simply not used to combine design and engineering in one role and try to push you into one (oh, you can code?). As a jack of all trades, master of none, you are often not taken seriously by either side and have to work twice as hard to prove yourself.

Once you do make it into the right places though, it is an incredibly fun and diverse job. I take most of my satisfaction from the notion that I can go from concept to (prototype) implementation on my own if I have to. It is one of the most empowering feelings in the world.

</comment><comment><USER66> I don't think startups want a desingineer, but rather an expert at one skill (product UI/UX, engineering, marketing) with a pretty decent understanding of a secondary skill area.

For example, I do a fair amount of design work in photoshop etc. I can implement simple front-end stuff. But my co-founder can get complex front-end engineering stuff done 5-10x faster if I just help him pair program it. If I didn't understand code, we'd be unable to do that. Something similar probably to be said about his sense of design since he often ends up giving me really good feedback in the middle of building the page out.

</comment><comment><USER67> I think a lot of this depends on what you mean by "backend". Personally, I need a designer who can write the frontend. That means HTML/CSS, but it also means JS (because what is a web app without JS these days). More importantly, it means being able to work directly on the app without hand-holding - <USER3> example, knowing where the CSS goes in a Rails project and being able to work on it directly.

I wouldn't expect my designer to write a sorting algorithm, or a web crawler, or anything that's more code-y, but HTML/CSS/JS and the frameworks which hold them are part of the toolset.

</comment><comment><USER68> I've been working for startups a long time (over ten years) and I have only met one person that I would consider a great designer and developer. I don't think it is because others aren't capable but rather aren't interested or forced to. This type of person is definitely a rare breed which is good. I think a lot of people say they would like to fall into this position but in reality probably not so much.

Please keep in mind that I have met quite a few people that dabble in everything but a true professional at both is quite rare.

</comment><comment><USER69> I have 15,000+ hours on each. My opinion is that good taste and intuition play great value on code, best practices and testing do the same to UI/UX and so on.

The funny drawbacks are usually that you can hardly win a discussion with people that don't know you well since they will usually corner you on your other 'personality' such as "says the interior decorator" when talking about CQRS or REST etc.

I currently work on 'Evil Enterprise Contractor' building web-based products but I too get to switch context all the time, from conception to live.

</comment><comment><USER70> I'd say the closest anyone has come to this was Steve Wozniak. He of course built the first two Apples but also wrote the BASIC for ][ that would be used for its thriving game ecosystem...and he wrote a few games himself.

I know the article in question is talking about front-end/back-end design...but I'd argue that software and hardware engineering are just as peripherally-related-yet-substantially-differentiated enough.

So, just find yourself another Steve Woz...

</comment><comment><USER71> My cofounder at <http://bagcheck.com> had the perfect mix of skills. He is a designer that also deeply understands HTML and CSS. He has some experience in coding, but knows that he shouldn't focus on it and uses those tools only as much as it helps him understand his medium. If you have have the chance to work with @lukew, I highly recommend him.

</comment><comment><USER72> i'm a designer/engineer and trust me there isn't anything mythical or special about it.

i've been a web/graphics designer for 9-10 years and coder for 3.5 (python at first, but this year i started ruby/rails)

from personal experience i can say almost all creative/visual people are scared of logical/geekish computer stuff ... i was scared and lost at first too but then i realized i'm quite good at architecture and once i put my focus on becoming a better at it things weren't scary any more. my designs improved, my love of internet expanded and i can't imagine doing anything else!

the most important mistake designer make is that they think they need to become REAL "software engineers" like building compilers or even worse thinking they have to master java or C++! (nothing against java, it's just that designer shouldn't start with java or similar programming languages)

for all you designers first learn html5, css3, a bit of javascript and then start with python/ruby (django/rails) and go from there. it's not a 1 night journey, it will take couple of years but it's worth it!

</comment><comment><USER73> Finding designers who can do front-end stuff (CSS, HTML, jQuery/JS) itself is hard. And add the complexity of backend coding. These type of people are rare. Quora had an interesting discussion on the topic of designers implementing their own designs where lot of top guys in design have voiced their opinions - <http://qr.ae/7vD>

</comment><comment><USER74> Don't see a problem with becoming a generalizing specialist that sees the whole picture from many facets - from marketing, business, coding, design (product, pixel...). A startup needs people being willing to fill these roles and if a said venture is successful (and becomes a business), you can afford specialists, until then, I would expect people to have many roles.

</comment><comment><USER75> They exist, but engineering pays so much more, while still filling the need to create so 'Desingineers' choose development over design.

<comment><USER74> You mean pixel-pushing design or product design? And aren't majority of Engineers really not just programmers?

I know what you mean and it is easy to pick issues, just wanted to state these differences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> My role is exactly this. I find it more the case because I like to be a "jack of all trades" and understand the entire spectrum.

My true expertise lands in the front-end development side of things but I can do it all. I prefer not to though. It's a job for multiple people. However, having the ability to understand all the layers is a big plus when managing/leading a team.

</comment><comment><USER77> It's often a good idea to have all these specialties be different people for the same reason that writer, editor, and proofreader are optimally different people. Now it doesn't hurt for all involved to have abilities and training in all the above, but responsibility and focus can be enhanced by some creative segregation.

</comment><comment><USER78> "Most people make the mistake of thinking design is what it looks like. People think it's this veneer – that the designers are handed this box and told, 'Make it look good!' That's not what we think design is. It's not just what it looks like and feels like. Design is how it works." – Steve Jobs

</comment><comment><USER79> Yay, i'm a designineer. :D But.. i've been in the closet. I don't talk about it much. In fact i've actually hidden the fact from others, masking my role by making up imaginary coworkers to beef up the credibility of my one man shop.

No, I'm serious. That is not a joke. And it works.

</comment><comment><USER80> i am proficient in html/html5, css/css2/css3, javascript, jquery, python, mysql, nosql, but design is a whole different ball game. i know what looks good, but i can't be bothered to create icons, banners, logos, color palletes, and such in photoshop (?), provide guidance on margins, padding, font, layout, etc. given a set of wireframes, colors, images, icons, font family, i can go to town on a website, so i still believe in the need for a pure designer.

as for being able to add input into simplifying user experience, reducing clicks, using certain jquery widgets over html elements, etc, i can provide ample input. so it's really the visual piece that i lack. maybe it's time i picked up a phtoshop or illustrator book for myself :)

anyone hiring?

</comment><comment><USER81> I don't think generalist's are as rare as this article makes out; I think most people are born like this. However I'm certain that when we go to work we are incentivised into becoming specialists. My assumption is that at scale businesses will consider any variance in employees more trouble than it is worth. As a result of this, if somebody wishes to market themselves to the majority of the employment market they are more successful if they find a niche to excel in. (Presumably once you've done this you start to think of yourself as a specialist and forget your underlying potential to learn multiple ways of thinking.)

Startups almost certainly would do well by hiring generalists but I doubt it's often that they seek them. The demand for specialists will have altered the supply of generalists in a way that probably makes searching for them costly.

I am a generalist although not a "Desingineer" as I haven't picked up very many design-related skills. I personally disagree with many people in this thread on what being a generalist means. Being a generalist does not mean you have several discrete skills, and it does not mean you are a good a programmer as a "programmer" or as good a marketer as a "marketer", etc. I think this separation is a projection of a formal education. Instead I would describe generalism as about having one big formless ability accrued from every discipline you have studied. This is a potent skill as it gives you a broader understanding of how things work and sometimes the cross-pollination of ideas allows you to make much better decisions, and act in a way that others consider wildly creative.

Of course, that's not to say that being a generalist is somehow better than being a specialist. Unless you're a genius [1], specialists will often outperform you in their area of expertise. It can also be a little depressing. Sometimes it feels like you've taken 100 steps in a 100 directions and ended up very close to where you started. However, it definitely has its pros -- for me, it satisfies a thirst for all kinds of knowledge.

Ultimately the rigid distinction between specialist and generalist is artificial. Few are pure generalists and few are pure specialists. I don't worry that I will be held back by other's difficulty in fitting me into a role. I might have multiple abilities but like most of you I have some which I am slightly better at. I doubt that even the most fervent self-proclaimed generalists can avoid becoming a little specialist at something. ;)

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath>

</comment><comment><USER82> I wonder how a progsysadmin would compare to the desingineer. I'd imagine it's easier to find a progsysadmin just from my own experience. I've had a few jobs where I was responsible for both the programming and system administration, in small companies of course.

<comment><USER83> That's more complicated due to the history of programming and sysadmin being more closely intertwined, as you discovered. The first 20 years of Unix were the "systems programmer" domain, having followed the "sales engineer" era of the 60s (speaking roughly here) after the burgeoning computer industry's customer relations functions started getting specialized and split off from nerds. There were many, many more of you 30 years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> In my case I'm a designeer because of the circumstances of my interests at diverse times and the way I learned such interests. I started to get acquainted with linux when I was 7 or 8. I was coding C when I was 13 and then at 15 I was really interested in everything design. I ended up doing Web Design at 17. At 19 I opened a company making web applications. I then moved on to corporate software where I was in charge of coding commerce and enterprise applications. At 23 I was doing full sys admin work. I'm now 28 and I'm working doing UX, Design, Web Dev, Backend Dev, and little Sys Admin stuff. I'm rusty in the Sys Admin area, but I'm definitely more productive than the average CompSci graduate with a few years experience.

I'm pretty sure there MUST be a person better than me in all those areas, but not because I'm not a master of my skills, but because there is just always someone better. Becoming a Designeer happens only if you have the time (a decade?), and the inclination (interests in the right fields and skill sets at the right intervals in time) to learn the things you need to learn to do the job. Of course, there's also the fact that you need to be lucky enough to have people to hire you to do those things so as to get enough quality experience performing the tasks you need to perform.

Interestingly enough, I'm in the office right now... and this is the list of stuff I've done today: 1) Finished coding a Windows service that acts as a data bridge between an two applications and three types of databases. 2) Worked a UX prototype for an IPad app (made in Keynote) that integrates with an in house product. 3) Finished a redesign for another in house app (this one is a ERP type WebApp). 4) Modified a series of E-cards the in house designers made because they where not optimized for email and had some alignment, whitespace, and typography mishaps. 5) Worked on integration of commerce hardware with 'special printers'. 6) I'm currently designing the visual aspect of an interface for yet another of our in house products.

BONUS: Yesterday I spent 3 hours securing the web servers for our website and a ticketing tool that our customers use.

I am by no means the best programmer, sys admin, designer, or UX architect, but I find all those roles are second nature for me and I have no problem getting a job (I literally get a call every couple of days by recruiters or companies offering me positions), and I only work in places I know I'll be having loads of fun and interesting challenging work. Designeers are not hard to get because they don't exist. They're hard to get because they want to make their own rules and work in things they actually want to work in. Offer them this and you'll invariably be able to score someone that will fill this often looked for but generally not realistic position.

</comment><comment><USER12> Come on, they don't exist. If so, who are some well known designineers?

<comment><USER75> <http://www.joshuadavis.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> But I have seen a few persons with multiple skills in my career. Sharing the portfolio of such a guy <http://idiode.in> . Its really awesome.

<comment><USER86> Quite honestly I wouldn't call that great design.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> What salary should a desingineer expect in one of the big cities?

</comment><comment><USER88> I don't see anyone explaining why it's such a big win to combine both skills in a single person, which is what I'm curious about. Can anyone explain this to me?

</comment><comment><USER84> Shit this means that I should be asking for raise then?

</comment><comment><USER89> I thought the word was "devigner".

What are some good books/resources for a code dude to learn som design and UX? I feel lost with this stuff....

<comment><USER90> Best way to learn is to try to replicate an existing website's design/UX.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> What is the most evolved form of this Pokemon?

</comment><comment><USER92> I dunno, we're looking for that guy who will send 200 emails a day promoting the damn thing.

</comment><comment><USER93> I've got 2. They exist. They make great co-founder and founding team members

</comment><comment><USER94> Given a scale of 1-10 for design skills and programming skills, it's my experience that individuals significantly over 10 are rare indeed. In fact, If you find one of Spinal Taps' mythical 11s, hire him or her now.

I myself am an 8 + 4, at least in my mind.

</comment><comment><USER95> but I'm no myth! <http://tomcarnell.com> And as it happens, I'm looking for a new project for 2012... :-)

<comment><USER95> (and no, I am not expecting and up-votes for that comment! - but just maybe something interesting will come my way...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> i don't think designers, per se, are that valuable.

this line of thought just stems from the conflation of graphic design and interface design. the skill in demand is the latter. to be good at it one needs to be able to be proficient in html, css, javascript, and have basic abilities in whatever server-side technologies are in use.

so, yes, these folks will be hard to find. just like any other good engineer, they'll either have a job, be kicking ass, or doing their own thing. c'est la vie. try offering a wage they can't refuse.

<comment><USER97> _interface design. the skill in demand is the latter. to be good at it one needs to be able to be proficient in html, css, javascript, and have basic abilities in whatever server-side technologies are in use._

I really don't follow. A kick-ass interface designer can know nothing more than Photoshop. A front-end guru can be terrible at interface design. There's very little connection between interface _design_ and the technologies used to implement it.

<comment><USER34> That's old school thinking right there. I'd never hire a designer who doesn't know front end tech as well or better than they know photoshop.

The best designers will know HTML+CSS+Javascript pretty intimately for a variety of reasons.

<comment><USER98> I'd never hire a designer that valued Photoshop skills above problem solving, design thinking and usability. Photoshop should be just a tool for a designer. I think as that is where the end product usually comes from, it's seen as the skill that you're buying as an employer. Anyone can learn Photoshop, it's extremely simple, it's design thinking that separates the men from the boys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> since when does a designer do html/css/js? or am i confusing a designer with a front-end dev?

</comment><comment><USER100> every Startups are haz more desingineer?

</comment><comment><USER101> the key to this post is here:

"They're doing something on their own, are already kicking ass and are not available."

It's not that they can't use an extra $10k per month. They most certainly are available.

They're not available at 'speculative, "startup" wages' with unknown prospects _even if_ you get them on board with a token amount of equity and _even if_ you get funding.

They can do it all, and are doing it successfully. They don't need you.

So what? I don't need Google, I don't need Microsoft, I don't need IBM. These companies would hire me by putting some money on the table.

The key to the 'desingineer' is that, you know, they don't really need you. One of your skills (the person looking for a desingineer) is putting the pieces together, finding the people and getting them on board, none of whom can singly do everything. So, they need you.

THe desingineer doesn't need you. If you want them on board, you're going to have to actually open your pocketbook. Imagine that.

</comment><comment><USER102> The HN comments have way more substance than the original post. But I'll echo others: it doesn't take a genius to be both. On the other hand, a skill for spotting and studying and applying underlying patterns is a must.

There are just as many patterns and underlying systems in design as codecraft, and vice versa. And they're not that dissimilar.

Design isn't "art" -- it's a type of making things fit for purpose. You can have purely functional design that meets the purpose without soul. You can have purely functional code that meets the purpose without soul.

The best design is crafted with soul. But so is the best code.

As somebody who does both, I speak from experience - they're just not that different. Superficially yes, but not at heart.

</comment><comment><USER103> I am a `desingineer` I guess. I'm working on a startup that is taking on big web analytics. A lot of the reusable code is being released as free and open source so that I can focus on the UI. I built the initial front and backend application (now leading a team), the UI, the product plan, and the marketing plan.

<https://github.com/analytics-machine>

Contact me: firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER104> having worked with engineers who claims to not 'get' visual stuff...

...and designers who, when pointed out why he forgot something obvious like logoff links, just claims they do not fit the design...

...all i can say is that both are slackers and lazy.

the Engineer is just avoiding painful tedious work.

the Designer is just avoiding painful tedious work.

I not even a good coder nor a good designer. But heck i can identify slackers using only common sense.

</comment><comment><USER105> I am proficient in: Photoshop, Illustrator, Expression Blend, Sencha, HTML/CSS/Java, WPF, ExtJS.

I possess: Taste, attention to detail and aesthetics, an understanding of human factors as they relate to computer interaction.

What does that make me? :)

<comment><USER106> HTML/CSS/Java <\-- the lumping together of these three is either wrong (you meant Javascript) or bizarre, too.

<comment><USER105> I was referring to javascript, I think in that regard it would fit the others as front-end development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER107> I think it's a good point that

</comment><comment><USER108> I consider myself a Designineer.

<comment><USER90> Congratulations.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Interesting video learning resources - <AUTHOR>

I often like to put something on tv while I am eating a meal, but I really don't care much for the types of things Netflix/Hulu/etc offers (i.e. popular tv shows and movies).
I like the concept of MIT OpenCourseWare video lectures, but those are real college classes that take significant active learning outside watching some videos to get much out of them.
I like to learn things, and my interests are vast. What other things are out there that you like to watch? <comment><USER2> Ted talks are great: <http://ted.com></comment>


Bank of England chief cashier says 'cash is not in decline' - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/cashless-society-bank-of-england-chief-cashier-cash-not-decline-2017-10 <comment><USER2> > "It was fairly clear in our survey that people note cash carries more degree > of privacy over non-cash items. And that was one of the key reasons people > said they will continue to use cash in their transactions."

WORKSFORME

Though I am generally happy with electronic transactions, and was founder and CTO of an e-money firm, I do not want my _every_ move and activity tracked directly/indirectly via banks. The data will leak from time to time and the results will be messy. Cash allows the insertion of data firewalls into activities.

One of the motivators for the previous company was to provide some anonymity for transactions, eg buying a present for your other half that would not show up on shared accounts, or, equally, buying sex toys or whatever. That motivation is still good. (No, just for the record, neither of those use cases applies to me right now!)</comment>


Awesome new (relatively inexpensive) Brain-Computer Interface - <AUTHOR> http://emotivepoc.com/index.php <comment><USER2> _Please note that the developer headset and the EPOC consumer headsets are a separate line of hardware products and are not interchangeable. The developer headset supports development whereas the consumer headsets ($299) will only work with approved applications._

Or: "Please pay us an additional $200 for the chance to create anything that would create a demand for our product." No mention of the cost of "approval".

<comment><USER3> I guess I should have read the fine print. I ordered the $300 device after they sent an email a couple months ago.

It supposedly has shipped and will arrive any moment - I didn't realize it would be cripple-ware

<comment><USER4> From the description, these are still the full headsets you get with the other editions, you just don't get the SDK. You might not have that much trouble hacking it. Once it's in your hands, you can start sniffing the USB traffic. They say it doesn't require a driver, so it's probably a USB HID device which is even better and easier to work with.

You might still get pretty far even without the SDK. Once it arrives, you could post here on Hackernews for some help. I have a bit of experience reverse-engineering USB devices, but I'm sure there are others here that could help even more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like you can achieve near 100% accuracy with one caveat - the electrodes have to be inside your skull, not on top of it: [http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/12/23/1511251/Typing-W...](http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/12/23/1511251/Typing- With-Your-Brain)

>>...an experiment involving two patients with epilepsy. Both patients were already being monitored for seizure activity using electrocorticography (ECoG), in which a sheet of electrodes is laid directly on the surface of the brain. This procedure requires a craniotomy, a surgical incision into the skull. Dr. Shih and colleagues hypothesized that feedback from electrodes placed directly on the brain would be much more specific than data collected with EEG (electroencephalography) alone, in which electrodes are placed on the scalp. Most studies of mind-machine interaction have occurred with EEG. "There is a big difference in the quality of information you get from ECoG compared to EEG. The scalp and bony skull diffuses and distorts the signal, rather like how the Earth's atmosphere blurs the light from stars," says Dr. Shih. "That's why progress to date on developing these kinds of mind interfaces has been slow."<<

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't know, it seems an awful lot like listening to a conference hall for one user's voice commands in an unknown language. Brain-wave activity is largely unknown, not understood, and noisy as hell. There isn't even any concrete evidence that distinct portions of the brain are singularly or wholly responsible for specific tasks. Anything we do related to the brain in this period of human development is not much more than witch doctoring.

<comment><USER7> I'm only theorizing here, but I don't think its trying to look at a specific part of the brain, then determine what you're thinking. It seems to me like there are common actions people can perform that render similar results across everyone (for example it seems like smiling is one) if that is true then you simply need to train the computer what your particular brain looks like after performing this action. Once you have that, you simply map that action to your desired output. The concept is simple (though i'm sure the implementation is wildly complex)

<comment><USER2> _it seems like smiling is one_

Smiling is perhaps a bad example, since it contracts a muscle near the sensors. When someone is smiling, it's probably hard to detect anything else.

<comment><USER8>
      > Smiling is perhaps a bad example, since it contracts a
      > muscle near the sensors.

This is no doubt intentional.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's exciting to think where this could take us in 10 years.

Remember the first mp3 players? <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Rio_pmp300.jpg>

Now we have stuff like this: <http://i50.tinypic.com/30cn1va.jpg>

Computer assisted telepathy, here we come.

<comment><USER10> you are comparing a mp3 player with a tiny computer, would make much more sense to compare it to a large computer

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> i'm dubious these things can accurately interpret anything more than face muscle tensions, eye-movement if that. which are common noise sources in EEG recordings

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography#Artifact...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography#Artifacts)

anyone have some anecdotes otherwise? the demos on youtube are not really satisfying.

<comment><USER12> You can eliminate noise/artifact like that by subtracting it from a reference point.

<comment><USER11> but they don't seem to be doing that since "expressive" is one of the detection aspects they mention.

<comment><USER12> I think that's just "eyebrows went up, smiling muscles contracted, blinked", etc. for the look-my-emoticon-changed marketing effect. They also claim there's a gyroscope in the device.

The more advanced EEG tech is quite real. It's a stretch to say that it's interacting with your "thoughts" ... making something like PacMan move forward/backward is a similar sensation to when you first figured out how to wiggle your nose (the mental exercise, not the muscle movement).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Looks nice, and I've seen the Marvin Minsky demo, but the fact that there is no Linux version means it would probably be useless to me. I'm not sure how practical these interfaces will turn out to be, other than for entertainment purposes.

<comment><USER14> The fact that there is no linux version is no impediment to determined hackers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've taken various classes in Neurofeedback interaction design. The biggest obstacle to getting work done was the frustration of hooking electrodes up to your own scalp. Also, circa 2005 the lowest barrier of entry for interactivity was through a Flash gateway in the BioExplorer IDE (<http://www.cyberevolution.com>) ... whereas now I think with Air you could send event messages to something like processing.js, flot, jQuery, HTML5 <audio/video>, sparklines, etc.

<comment><USER15> I'm an EEG technician, with a background in electronics and programming. I use BioExplorer for neurofeedback routinely.

I suspect that the emotiv system relies on conditioning (eg. if i do action "A" - the computer moves the pointer up on the screen), not real EEG pattern recognition.

For the record, BioEra (www.bioera.net) does have support OCZ NIA system - cheaper, and no developer road-blocks.

BTW Your 100% on the mark about reducing artifacts. There is no substitute for a good connection to the scalp.

Edit: www.bioera.net for details

<comment><USER12> @neurotech1 : Thanks for the BioEra link. Hadn't heard of it.

Have you run into any development tools that will allow you to send threshold triggers quickly enough to a web browser rendering engine?? (like BioExplorer does with their Flash gateway)

<comment><USER15> You could probably hack Javascript function to work with the BioEra XMLServer. Something vaguely similar to AJAX but I wouldn't consider it "standard" AJAX programming.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Help HN - <AUTHOR> Hi HN, I have a request, I know it's not stackoverflow, I checked but I haven't found a solution to our problem yet. :/ Basically we are a startup, started from scratch, and built a platform for tourism. We chose to work with xamarin (yeah I know bad choice). Here is how the app works : You see a map, with points to discover, and when you get near the point, there is a range setup to unlock a notification that gives you some information on the point of interest. Kind of a cultural and historic treasure hunt. Now we are hitting a wall as notifications on Ios get unlocked when you are very far from the point of interest. On android it works very well. If anyone has experience with this please help :) <comment><USER2> Hi there, i might be able to help. What APIs are you using to calculate the distance from the POI?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Mike, sorry for the late reply, I'm in exam's rush :P

here is what we are using de determine the range: [https://github.com/domaven/xamarin- plugins/tree/master/Geofe...](https://github.com/domaven/xamarin- plugins/tree/master/Geofence)

Thanks for reaching out.</comment></comment>


A simple Chrome extension that replaces your New Tab page with a to-do list - <AUTHOR> http://benhiller.github.com/chrome-todo/ <comment><USER2> It's awesome...except the new page tab is great too. There should be a way to combine them. Perhaps two columns?

<comment><USER3> Maybe it's just me, but I can't stand the "New Page" tab. After a while, or if I have a bunch of tabs already open, the New Page tab can take up to a minute to load. I would rather just have a blank tab so I can start typing the URL immediately. Hmm, maybe I should stop whining and write my own extension...

<comment><USER4> You can always try to clear out the cache. This was causing me lots of trouble with firefox and opening up a new window. I seem to remember there is a faq entry on the chrome site that prescribes this solution for your exact problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use <https://mail.google.com/tasks/ig?pli=1> instead so that it's network hosted.

edit: extension to redirect new tab page, if you want: [https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bokbgdhblfolpfan...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/bokbgdhblfolpfanocjafjhpjkebhlfk)

<comment><USER6> Try this out too... <https://mail.google.com/tasks/canvas>

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Apart from the minimalism I feel that the extension doubles up to hinder procrastination since the list is visible every time you fire up the browser or open a new tab.

</comment><comment><USER7> You can use this in all browsers, Download the project and set the newtab.html as your homepage. In safari you can also set it to open for new tabs.

</comment><comment><USER8> 7.5 mb download for this app. Looks rather heavy to me for a simple app.

<comment><USER9> I know. I wanted to use it but it's just huge. Does the file size have an impact on Chrome's speed even if you are not using the extension?

<comment><USER10> > Does the file size have an impact on Chrome's speed even if you are not > using the extension?

No. Unlike Firefox, all extensions and tabs has their own processes. Go to about:memory on chrome too see the processes running

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> <http://www.newtabking.com/> seems to do this for FireFox. Are there any other similar extensions for Firefox?

</comment><comment><USER12> You could as well set your home page to a to-do list page (cookie-stored pwd protected.) I think under the hood, that is approximately what this add-on does.

<comment><USER5> The new tab page is not the home page.

In Chrome you have to explicitly turn on the "Home page" button, and it has a separate URL.

So, you basically never see your home page in Chrome, just the new tab page, which you can only customize via extension.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Maybe I'll actually get things done now. _Installed_

<comment><USER13> I take that back... tasks are erased when you clear cookies/temp files since it uses the HTML 5 web storage.

Could they not have made a permanent file elsewhere to store the data?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Using this for some time now <http://www.stickyscreen.org/> clean and simple.

<comment><USER15> does this use html 5 offline storage or cookies and its stored online?

<comment><USER14> Sorry, I do not know how that works, I am not familiar with web programming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Alternative: Set your "New page" as <http://teuxdeux.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Teuxdeux looks neat too. However one drawback would be that it wouldn't work without internet access, but the extension would since it stores data locally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's really awesome, a bit heavy but, haven't noticed any troubles with Chrome so far.

</comment><comment><USER15> Good find, I love how simple and minimalist it is

</comment><comment><USER18> so you guys are all windows users? Can't install extensions on my Mac Chrome. :(

<comment><USER19> Linux chromium builds work well too ;)

<comment><USER20> right

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That's so simple - I like it</comment>


Karl Ove Knausgaard's 'My Struggle: Book 4' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/books/review/jeffrey-eugenides-reviews-my-struggle-by-karl-ove-knausgaard.html

<comment><USER2> Is it just me, or does other also find it strange that he chose to name his book the same as Hitler's manifesto ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Struggle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Struggle) )?

I don't know if one in English normally refer to Hitler's book as "My Struggle" or its original German name "Mein Kampf", but at least in Mr. Knausgårds original Norwegian book name "Min Kamp" the reference is very clear.

<comment><USER3> There are many ways to interpret the title. The books deals with the author's problematic relationship to his father. He has said that Hitler inspires the same horror as his father did to him when he was a child.

<comment><USER4> Expanding on this, in book 6 he actually has made room for quite a lot of pages dedicated to Hitler, Mein Kampf and Hitlers life. To avoid spoilers, I would say that this also gives context to the choice of the title.

So to answers OPs question. Yes, I find the title strange (it is pretty controversial). But also, the title is descriptive and relevant (my opinion).

Full disclosure: I am huge fan of Knausgård :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His last name is wrong; it's "Knausgård".

<comment><USER6> It's acceptable (or at least "not wrong") to use "aa" for å (and "oe" for ø/ö, "ae" for æ/ä).

While 'å' was made an official letter in Norwegian in 1917, it's still common to see "aa" spellings of names, and "aa" and "å" spellings are considered equivalent (fun when sorting, since 'å' is the last letter of the Norwegian alphabet).

<comment><USER5> I guess you're right about their use in words in general. I'm not sure you're right about their use in names in particular.

Firstly, people and places are still named with "aa" rather than "å". They aren't simply spelled alternatively depending on the mood or the keyboard of the writer. So it seems that, since they deliberately choose one over the other, they care whether it is spelled in a certain way.

Secondly, we make a distinction between whether someone is named "Christian" or "Kristian", for example. According to your logic, it wouldn't matter since there is no difference except spelling between these two names. But it does.

Do you have any authoritive source (linguistic, or etiquette) that says that such names can be spelled however the writer feels like?

<comment><USER7> This is just stupid. If you start reading English language texts and sites a bit more you will find it is common for them to substitute our Nordic characters with various combinations depending on what style they have chosen to follow.

Usage is authority. Write the way you feel it should be written, read with the intent of comprehension, nothing more. Relax and move on to more worthwhile causes.

<comment><USER8> > This is just stupid.

Please follow the HN guidelines:

 _When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."_

<comment><USER7> We are humans communicating not robots. I think the policy i stupid (see previous sentence for argument.)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Y Combinator Hosts a Job Fair for Startups Tomorrow - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/start/2010/06/y-combinator-hosts-a-job-fair.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+readwriteweb+%28ReadWriteWeb%29&utm_content=Twitter <comment><USER2> ahh yes, the job fair I was rejected from. sigh..

<comment><USER3> Why don't you post your application/resume to get feedback from the community, and make lemonade out of lemons?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds eerily reminiscent of interviewing at Idealab in 2000.</comment>