[1]: "weird" in the sense that it turns it upside down, to make the familiar unfamiliar and give new perspective. As described better in this article: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2016/09/22/speak-weirdness-to-tru...
Maybe this one's execution isn't great, and maybe the joke doesn't work at this length - but the origin of the humor? Not to be insulting, but that's akin to a Lieutenant Commander Data question...
I'm not sure what I'm missing.
I do think the original[1] is worth a read. Even if I didn't like the style, I can appreciate the message: complexity is a cost, spend your complexity budget on things that matter, take the 80/20 Pareto win, no silver bullet, Chesterton's fence, etc. Importantly, the original is ever so slightly self-deprecating in a way that the intended audience can appreciate.
Compare this quote from the OP.
> Even when new grug shout loudly, important not to give new grug too much shiny rock. Why? First: make sure new grug really want to join tribe, make tribe strong.
Those who have read enough startup executive "thought leadership" probably recognize this idea: don't hire people who care about competitive compensation - those who work for passion will accept less. For the record, I personally think this idea is inherently toxic and exploitative - but let's put that aside for a moment. Even if one were to accept that idea as valid, this framing comes off as infantilizing. The same tone that was at least arguably acceptable for self-deprecation is entirely inappropriate for deprecating others.
I can only imagine this guy's employees are going to have a bad time.
This article, past the similar language, has very much a vibe of "this is the way to do it, trust in yourself, don't listen to haters, don't hire HR". Theres 0 mention of listening to customers or your team; the assumption is your instincts and existing skills are definitely good enough and you don't need to learn anything more?!
I'd take a freelancer / mercenary who wants to get stuff done, invoice me and afford their own house - over someone from /r/anti-work
I think the point (in the article, at least, and maybe I’m losing something in the way it’s been written) is that a freelancer who offers to do the work for a justifiable/earned amount is better than hiring the guy who wants a VP/C/staff/whatever title and thinks their salary (and their equity) is important as a matter of prestige and because they showed up, rather than output.
