This starts going into a pretty fuzzy territory here. Yes, you're exploiting software (Claude and its Auto Mode) but also this same technique could just as easily exploit a regular human doing this, no?
I think it is very easy for the average person to forget or not realize how incredibly easy it is to get calories into the body and how little food is necessary to do so. Most people in the world (I know, this is not everywhere and everyone), live in an era of food abundance. It's cheap enough, extremely accessible, often easy to eat or ready to eat, and that has simply made it very convenient to get calories in, often while barely thinking about it. Mindless eating, not thinking about what you should eat, etc. All of these factors have played into why obesity is such a problem (at least in the USA).
One of the biggest weaknesses of a non-technical founder looking for a technical founder are basically the following:
* Not really having 'much' to bring to the table other than the idea and self-proclaimed knowledge of the problem and domain. As the article mentions, having some capital already, having some sort of following or verifiable reputation or whatever would help a long way.
* Not really having any kind of story around "What have you tried so far?". The least sexy conversation is one where the non-technical founder is telling you about this "new" thing to work on and build and the reality is they've only been thinking about it for like 2 months and haven't really "done" anything other than some cursory research. Like, for example, if they don't have capital at all yet, have they tried before they came to you?
This is pretty well said. I tend to agree and as a founder of multiple companies, as a well an engineering-background co-founder myself, I have definitely had interactions with "non-technical" founders looking for people (like me) and totally got the vibe of the needing a "technical co-founder" because they just need some "coder" as if that's the missing key to success (or whatever).
That said, there are plenty of very smart, driven, people who are not software engineers who don't think of a technical co-founder that way. So it'd be wrong to paint with a super wide brush on this.
>> That said, there are plenty of very smart, driven, people who are not software engineers who don't think of a technical co-founder that way. So it'd be wrong to paint with a super wide brush on this.
Agree, I think business co-founders can add tremendous value. But that value needs to be shown -- upfront. Otherwise, why would any technologist sink hundreds of hours on a mere promise? Business co-founders should have already drawn out solutions, spoken to customers, perhaps gotten conditional sales POs from friends/contacts, raised funding, set up VC meetings, etc.
But a Business co-founder who hasnt done any of these, and just wants the upside after a bunch of technical work is done, isnt the type of Business co-founder you want.
This is true except FoxPro really was more of a 'normal' relational database model. It just had this 'tabular' view for its Database Viewer client front-end. FoxPro was certainly not a 'spreadsheet' product in the sense that Excel is.
Remember when a T-1 line was considered to be like the god-level status of internet connections? Whoa.... 1.5Mbps!? Later, more affordable DSL speeds would reach single-digit Mbps and it felt like being on another planet.
Now all of those speeds feel like they're dial-up modems.
This rationale doesn't make a ton of sense. Say they had paid you more. You'd still have these back issues. You wouldn't say, "I have these back issues every day of my life now but at least they paid me $2X instead of $X" ...
