As a naive person, I have a simple question - why would they even fly to an airport where there's 100mph winds? Wouldn't ATC know this and tell the flight way in advance to fly to a different destination?
Because the weather is very changeable. You may get a lull in the wind for a couple of mins, enough to land.
I've been on a couple of flights like that. Once where we did two attempts and landed on the 2nd, the other where we did 3 but the had to divert. Other planes were just managing to land in the winds before and after our attempts.
The other problem is (as I found out on that flight) that mass diversions are not good. The airport I diverted to in the UK had dozens of unexpected arrivals, late at night. There wasn't the ground staff to manage this so it took forever to get people off. It then was too full to accept any more landings, so further flights had to get diverted further and further away.
So, if you did a blanket must divert you'd end up with all the diversion airports full (even to flights that could have landed at their original airport) and a much more dangerous situation as your diversions are now in different countries.
At least in my personal experience of doing this, you're often many years of living on savings and are in a bunch of debt and being able to get some cash from a funding event really helps with relieving the stress of barely making ends meet. Investors expect you to stay hungry for as long as possible, so even your salary is complete garbage, and the funding secondary is an absolute life saver that lets you sleep a little bit better at night after many years of dipping into the piggy bank.
Founder liquidity is wrong -- and not because employees don't get the same deal.
It's wrong because it is NOT uncommon for a founder to take chips off the table sometimes enriching themselves to the tune of millions only for the startup to then "fail" -- either go bankrupt, sell for peanuts, or sell for only a modest multiple.
You're not done until you're done. But founder liquidity has now become a path to getting rich when the outcome of the company is still unknown and up in the air. If venture backed founders don't want that risk, they should start bootstrapped companies.
At a minimum, there should be a cap on it (not % but $), and yes, it should be extended to early employees too.
Thanks for the feedback! You currently cannot target individual users, but adding a way to upload a list of user ids to any alert, so the alert only gets shown to them, is on the roadmap.
Looking for something a little different here: I'd like to help an early stage startup hire remote overseas talent and build a stellar dev team.
I'm an experienced engineering leader/early stage CTO who has led software teams of up to 10. I've built a number of products from the ground up. I've hired at least 35-40 engineers in my career thus far, and a number of them from outside the US in the past few years.
Here's how I see myself helping:
- help non technical founders source, vet, and interview developers
- help non technical founders as initial/interim CTO helping the hired team hit their stride and get productive shipping (by setting the right processes and culture)
- act as deputy VP of eng helping the VP of eng with interviews, resume screening, and anything else that helps them with hiring
I previously led a team of 10 at a notable company to re-build its platform entirely. More recently, I've been leading a small team at a Series B startup in a fractional eng lead capacity. I have worked with engineers from diverse cultures and countries (I'm an immigrant myself) and know how to relate to and vet them.
React out if this interests you. I'm open to other interesting freelance consulting opportunities as well.
I just hate the sales/marketing grind. Like if I probably have enough bandwidth to support 3-5 clients at any one time. I can’t source that much work though my network, so I end up with 0-2 at any given time.
If my sales/marketing game was stronger, I could probably be doing $750k/yr as one guy. Unsure if this is just the market- things definitely tightened up over the past 3-4 months.
There are fractional sales people with skill in this game who would get you absurd deal flow. It’s a win-win on incentive alignment. Feel free to email me if you need help finding one.
I feel like I'm in the same boat as you. I'd love to chat and exchange notes or just discuss challenges. My email is in my bio. Would love to hear from you if you're open to it. It's hard to meet agency owners who run small/solo agencies.
fyi - i'm based in the bay area.
Q for engineers on this thread: would you be more open to a "recruiter reach-out" if that person _is_ an engineer themselves but independently also helps startups build teams as a recruiter?
The more you differentiate yourself, the more likely I am to listen. My priority is:
1. Internal recruiters. They have real pull.
2. External recruiters that give me real information and give me quality information before I get on a call and why I might be interested.
3. External recruiters that are working with a company that I have prior interest in.
Below this, I usually don't respond.
4. Recruiters that ask if I can "get on a call" to get me details.
5. Recruiters from big name firms. (Robert Half et. al)
6. Low quality recruiters that have no connection to what I do.
I'd rather talk to another eng, but the problem with recruiters isn't that they're recruiters, it's that their email wastes people's time; cf. the article, and the canned response the article recommends writing: what if… what if the recruiter just told us those things up front? Then I'd instantly know this is worth responding to! Instead, we have to waste a mostly-automated round trip asking for what ought to have been done up front.
Of course — the offer would need to be actually palatable.
