You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Apptimize -- rationalist startup hiring engineers

68 nancyhua 12 January 2015 08:22PM

Apptimize is a 2-year old startup closely connected with the rationalist community, one of the first founded by CFAR alumni.  We make “lean” possible for mobile apps -- our software lets mobile developers update or A/B test their apps in minutes, without submitting to the App Store. Our customers include big companies such as Nook and Ebay, as well as Top 10 apps such as Flipagram. When companies evaluate our product against competitors, they’ve chosen us every time.


We work incredibly hard, and we’re striving to build the strongest engineering team in the Bay Area. If you’re a good developer, we have a lot to offer.


Team

  • Our team of 14 includes 7 MIT alumni, 3 ex-Googlers, 1 Wharton MBA, 1 CMU CS alum, 1 Stanford alum, 2 MIT Masters, 1 MIT Ph. D. candidate, and 1 “20 Under 20” Thiel Fellow. Our CEO was also just named to the Forbes “30 Under 30”

  • David Salamon, Anna Salamon’s brother, built much of our early product

  • Our CEO is Nancy Hua, while our Android lead is "20 under 20" Thiel Fellow James Koppel. They met after James spoke at the Singularity Summit

  • HP:MoR is required reading for the entire company

  • We evaluate candidates on curiosity even before evaluating them technically

  • Seriously, our team is badass. Just look

Self Improvement

  • You will have huge autonomy and ownership over your part of the product. You can set up new infrastructure and tools, expense business products and services, and even subcontract some of your tasks if you think it's a good idea

  • You will learn to be a more goal-driven agent, and understand the impact of everything you do on the rest of the business

  • Access to our library of over 50 books and audiobooks, and the freedom to purchase more

  • Everyone shares insights they’ve had every week

  • Self-improvement is so important to us that we only hire people committed to it. When we say that it’s a company value, we mean it

The Job

  • Our mobile engineers dive into the dark, undocumented corners of iOS and Android, while our backend crunches data from billions of requests per day

  • Engineers get giant monitors, a top-of-the-line MacBook pro, and we’ll pay for whatever else is needed to get the job done

  • We don’t demand prior experience, but we do demand the fearlessness to jump outside your comfort zone and job description. That said, our website uses AngularJS, jQuery, and nginx, while our backend uses AWS, Java (the good parts), and PostgreSQL

  • We don’t have gratuitous perks, but we have what counts: Free snacks and catered meals, an excellent health and dental plan, and free membership to a gym across the street

  • Seriously, working here is awesome. As one engineer puts it, “we’re like a family bent on taking over the world”


If you’re interested, send some Bayesian evidence that you’re a good match to jobs@apptimize.com

Comments (9)

Why don't more rationalists start startups?

-3 adamzerner 20 January 2014 07:29AM

My motivation behind this post stems from Aumann's agreement theorem. It seems that my opinions on startups differ from most of the rationality community, so I want to share my thoughts, and hear your thoughts, so we could reach a better conclusion.

I think that if you're smart and hard working, there's a pretty good chance that you achieve financial independence within a decade of the beginning of your journey to start a startup. And that's my conservative estimate.

"Achieve financial independence" only scratches the surface of the benefits of succeeding with a startup. If you're an altruist, you'll get to help a lot of other people too. And making millions of dollars will also allow you the leverage you need to make riskier investments with much higher expected values, allowing you to grow your money quickly so you could do more good.

A lot of this is predicated on my belief that you have a good chance at succeeding if you're smart and hardworking, so let me explain why I think this.

 

Along the lines of reductionism, "success with a startup" is an outcome (I guess we could define success as a $5-10M exit in under 10 years). And outcomes consist of their components. My argument consists of breaking the main outcome into it's components, and then arguing that the components are all likely enough for the main outcome to be likely.

I think that the 4 components are:

  1. Devise an idea for a product that creates demand.
  2. Build it.
  3. Market and sell it.
  4. Things run smoothly (some might call this luck).

The Idea

Your idea has to be for a product or service (I'll just say product to keep things simple) that creates demand, and can be met profitably. In other words, make something people want (this article spells it out pretty well).

What could go wrong?

  • Failure to think specifically about benefits. These articles explain what I mean by this better than I could.
  • Failure to understand customers. To put yourself in their minds and understand what it is that they do and don't want. This is distinct from the first bullet point. You could have a specific benefit in mind, but be wrong about whether it's something your customer really wants (or about how badly they want it).
  • Failure to research competitors. Maybe you came up with a great idea, but it turns out that it exists already.
The big issue here is the first bullet point. As spelled out by Eliezer's article, people are horrible at thinking specifically about the benefits that their idea will bring customers. They're horrible at moving down the ladder of abstraction. They think more along the lines of "we connect people" instead of "we let you talk to your friends". Even YC applicants (probably the best startup accelerator in the world) suffer from this problem immensely. I think that this problem is the single biggest cause of failure for startups. (They say that 90% of startups fail? Well >99% of people can't think concretely.) However, I think that it's something that could be avoided with willpower, reading the LessWrong sequences, and taking some time to practice your new habit.

The second bullet point shouldn't be too hard, once your thinking becomes specific. And the third one is mostly a matter of taking a few days to do some research.


Build It

What I mean by 'build it' is pretty straightforward: take that idea you had, and make it real.

What could go wrong?
  • Our society doesn't have the technological or scientific progress necessary to build the product. For example, I have an idea for a machine that teleports you from one place to another. Unfortunately, we as a society aren't at a point where someone could build that.
  • You personally don't have the skills to build it.
  • You don't work hard enough. Maybe you try, and find that you don't have the willpower. Maybe you try, find that you do have the willpower, but realize that the amount of work it take isn't worth it to you.
  • You can't find people with the skills to work on it with you (cofounders).
  • You can't raise money from investors to hire people to help you build it.
  • The people you work with/hire aren't good enough to build the product you envisioned.
There's probably other things that could go wrong that I can't think of, but I think this is enough to work with for now.

First bullet point: you really just have to avoid unfeasible ideas. Doesn't sound too hard. I guess this could be a problem for someone at the forefront of their field, trying to push the boundaries, but who makes an error in judging what's buildable. However, I think that there's plenty of ideas that don't run you this risk.

Second bullet point: if you don't have the skills, then get them. There's plenty of resources available to learn. For one, it only takes a couple months to get the skills you'll need to build a decent website. Or you could invest more time to study something like engineering or design, which will increase your options of what ideas you could build.

Third bullet point: if you don't have willpower, it'll be pretty tough to succeed. Possible, but pretty tough. I don't recommend trying.

Fourth bullet point: thats just another thing that limits the ideas you could build successfully. Some ideas you can't build without a cofounder/cofounders, and some you can. Finding a cofounder shouldn't be too difficult though.

Fifth bullet point: this is actually a tough one. A lot of ideas will require at least seed funding (tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars) to build. There are definitely a bunch of ideas that you could build without any investment, but they're the minority. So let's say you have an idea that does require investment, but you're having trouble raising money (which I think would be understandable). Basically, I'd say that you should focus on peeling away the layers of risk. By following doing that, reading up on fundraising and using Angel List, I think you'd have a pretty good shot at raising the money you need. Still though, I think not being able to find an investor is a legitimate risk.

Sixth bullet point: I've never hired anyone before, but it doesn't seem that hard. Doing a good job optimizing your hires seems like something you'd have to be skilled at, but satisficing to the point that they could do a sufficient job building the product you envision seems to be something that any reasonable person can do.


Market and Sell It

Once you think up your product and build it, you then have to sell it to your customers. This means reaching them, convincing them, and distributing to them.

What could go wrong?
  • You're unable to communicate clearly to your customers what benefits they'll be receiving if they use your product.
  • You're unable to persuade them. (There are other elements to persuasion aside from clear communication).
  • You didn't reach enough people. Maybe you didn't advertise enough. Maybe you thought word would spread, and it didn't.
  • You're having distribution problems (delivering the product to your customer).
  • PR problems. Something goes wrong and you obtain a bad reputation.
First bullet point: see The Idea.

Second bullet point: First of all, read that book (Influence by Robert Cialdini). I'm no expert on persuasion, but I think taking a little time to read a few books would make you sufficiently good at it. And it's not that hard to persuade people when you've got a product that they love.

Third bullet point: I'm no expert on this either. However, I do hear that internet ads nowadays make it pretty easy and affordable to reach a targeted and good sized audience. Also, as always for things you don't know too much about, read up on it and educate yourself. I don't know enough about this to argue it well, and I don't feel too strongly about it, but I get the sense that this is unlikely to prevent success. Doing this stuff seems like it'd be sufficient.

Fourth bullet point: I don't know much about distribution. It seems that distribution is really only a problem for certain types of businesses. For them, I guess that's something you have to take into account before you go forth with an idea. Otherwise, it doesn't seem like to big a deal.

Fifth bullet point: I guess this is something that could kill a business. To a reasonable person though, it doesn't seem like too big a risk.


Things Running Smoothly

Obviously, crazy things could happen. However, they don't seem too likely.

What could go wrong?
  • Legal issues (current). Maybe you did something illegal and didn't realize it (ex. copyright infringement), and sanctions or a lawsuit killed your startup.
  • Legal issues (future). Maybe new laws were enacted that killed your startup.
  • Something in your personal life goes wrong that requires you to quit.
  • Your competitors innovate and beat you out. Or a big company decides to enter the market, and crushes you.
  • Scientific findings lead to your product being obsolete.
  • Macroeconomic conditions change, which somehow leads to people not wanting your product.
  • Political/social conditions lead to people not wanting your product.
Most of these seem like they have pretty low probabilities of happening. Low enough where they don't influence the overall likelihood of success too much. Especially if you're doing something that genuinely helps people (if so, it's less likely that things like legal/economic/political/social changes will end up hurting you).

Regarding competitors beating you out, that's something that sounds like a big risk, but actually doesn't happen as often as you'd think. You'd think that if a startup comes across an innovative idea, that big companies that are hundreds or thousands of times the size of that startup would just copy the idea and execute it themselves, given that the big company has so many resources. Somehow that doesn't happen too often. Big companies just seem slow to adapt. By the time they react, the startup usually has momentum, which often times causes the big company to acquire the startup, or lose market share. So just based off of my understanding of what actually tends to happen, this risk seems to be something to note, but not something to really worry about (see lesson #4).


Conclusion

Given all of this, I think that if you're smart and hard working, you should have *at least* an 80-90% chance at succeeding at a startup. Again... you have to think about what specific benefits your idea provides... you have to map out how it'll be built, and work hard at doing so... and you have to read up on marketing, and work hard at it. As I argue above, the components all seem very doable, and thus the parent outcome seems very achievable.

I really mean for this article to be a starting point for discussion. I think that if we outline the components and discuss each one, we'll make a lot of progress in coming to an agreement. So let me know which components you think I omitted, and which components you think I'm mistaken about.


PS: A lot of people seem to disregard startups as something they don't know much about, and aren't too interested in. Why? Success = millions of dollars. Aren't you curious as to how likely that success is? If there's an outcome you desire, shouldn't you be interested in how achievable it is?
Comments (99)

Morale management for entrepreneurs

9 John_Maxwell_IV 30 September 2012 05:35AM

One of the odd things about the procrastination equation is that part of it resembles an expected value calculation: value * expectancy.  Why does the equation's numerator present a problem at all then, if it's just the expected value of what you're trying to do?  Shouldn't that be the main factor in your motivation anyway?

One answer: In lukeprog's post, he conflates the "value" that task presents intrinsically (how much you enjoy doing it), and possible extrinsic motivators (some reward you hope to achieve after the task is completed).  So part of the reason your motivation system is miscalibrated is because not all valuable tasks are proportionately enjoyable.

But today I thought of another answer: Your subconscious expected value calculation may be falling prey to biases that aren't affecting your conscious expected value calculation.  Thus you correctly assign the task a high value consciously, but subconsciously, a particular bias may be bringing your estimate off.

Paul Graham writes:

Morale is tremendously important to a startup—so important that morale alone is almost enough to determine success. Startups are often described as emotional roller-coasters. One minute you're going to take over the world, and the next you're doomed. The problem with feeling you're doomed is not just that it makes you unhappy, but that it makes you stop working.

Let's pretend that we were running a betting market for your startup's chance of success.  If you and your cofounders are the only people in the market, you could picture the value of a contract in this market fluctuating up and down wildly.  But if you let others play in the market, there's an obvious money-making strategy: take the average of recent fluctuations.  Whenever the price fluctuates below that average, buy.  Whenever it fluctuates above that average, sell.  You and your cofounders can expect to lose a lot of money playing this market, at least early on in your startup's life.

The point I'm trying to make here is that this "emotional roller coaster" represents a kind of irrationality on the part of entrepreneurs.  And fixing this irrationality, especially in a way that hooks in to your motivation system and changes the numerator of your internal procrastination equation, could be very valuable for them.

One idea for a bias that contributes to this effect is the availability heuristic.  This suggests that your subconscious rates very recent, "available" events related to your startup higher than earlier less "available" events.  To fix this, you might be able to try to bring to mind older, less "available" data that suggests your startup will be successful and make it more salient.

Another possible bias is simple overconfidence.  It's really very difficult to know in advance whether your startup should succeed, so if you're either very bullish or very bearish, you're probably overconfident.  A common path to startup success seems to be discovering some fact about the market you're in that lets you re-make your business as something much better.  Since it's hard to predict the discovery of such facts in advance, it's hard to say much about how you will do.

Comments (5)

Startups as a Rationality Test Bed?

6 beoShaffer 22 January 2012 08:50PM

What attributes make a task useful for rationality verification?

After thinking it over I believe I have identified three main components.  The first is that the task should be as grounded in the real world as is possible. The second is that the task should be involve a wide variety of subtasks, preferably ones that involve decision making and/or forecasting.  This will help insure that the effect is from general rationality, rather than from the rationality training helping with domain specific skills.  The third is that there should be clear measure of successes for the task.

As I am not personally involved with the field I could be missing something important, but it seems like founding a successful startup would fulfill all three components.  I propose that investigating the effect of giving startup founders rationality training would be a good basis for an experiment. Unfortunately, I do not know if it would be feasible to run such an experiment in real life.  Thus, I am turning to the LW community to see if the people reading this have any suggestions.

-addendum 

I didn't go into details about exact exprimental methods for a couple of reasons.   Partially because I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that it was obvious that any experiment for testing rationality would be conducted with the best experimental protocols that we could manage.   But mostly, because I thought that it would be good to get feed back on the basic idea of rationally verification + startups ?= good before spending time going into detail about things like control groups, random assignment ect. 

I welcome suggestions along those lines, and given the attention this has received will try to go back and add some of my own ideas when I have time, but wanted to make cleat that I wasn't intending this post as a detailed experimental design.

Also does anyone have any idea why the first part of this post has different spacing from the second?  It's not intentional on my part.

Comments (21)

Startups

7 Alexandros 24 November 2010 09:13PM

There seems to be a non-negligible deal of overlap between this community and Hacker News, both in terms of material and members. For those not aware of HN, it's a news aggregator for people interested in startups, technology, and other intellectually interesting topics, with a reputation for high-quality material and discourse.

While rationality and LessWrong gets its fair share of attention over at HN, I haven't heard of much discussion about startups over here. Off-line, I've heard a claim that in terms of contribution to existential risk prevention charities, startups are suboptimal when compared to jobs in finance, but not much else other than that. I find this odd, as many of the contributors in this site seem to be prime founder material, and rationality should really be of use when working in a high-stakes ever-changing environment.

My intention with this post is simply to kickstart a discussion around startups and gauge the attitudes of fellow LessWrongers. Does anyone (else) aspire to becoming a startup founder in the next few years? Do you believe startup founding to be a viable means of contributing to groups existential risk prevention?

Comments (14)
Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit