1. Download the Crucial System Scanner.
2. Mount the drive and run the scanner.
3. Order the memory from Crucial. The scanner will take you directly to the correct webpage. The price as of August 28th, 2009 is $40 for a 2GB stick.
4. Buy a Phillips size 00 screwdriver at the hardware store if you don’t have one. This will cost you $5. I used a size 0 and it worked fine on my aluminum MacBook. A normal toolset may or may not have such a small screwdriver.
5. Follow the installation instructions here.

My late 2008 MacBook came with two sticks of 1GB, one in each of the two slots, so I upgraded to a total of 3GB. If you want to increase to 4GB, you’ll have to buy 2 2GB sticks and replace both your 1GB sticks.

Total cost:

$45.44 for a total of 3GB
$85.44 for a total of 4GB

Joel: Low cost of living. For a tech startup, Ramen and split-rent costs about the same everywhere. A low cost of living generally means that the people around you are used to paying less for things. Silicon Valley is nice because the population has money and is ready to spend it and founders can get by for dirt cheap just as they would anywhere else.

Q: I don’t understand. It sounds like you’re saying rent costs the same everywhere. It manifestly does not.

Joel: If I’m going to quit my job for a full-time startup the difference between $500 on rent in Omaha and $1000 rent in SF is not large enough to optimize for.

Those numbers are probably exaggerated as well. If you really wanted to live cheap you could do $300 and $600 I’m sure. The point is that the difference between the costs of living decreases in an absolute sense when you are living cheap.

Paying double for Ramen is not a big deal if it means you are living in an area where there are investors.

I’m not going to state how the ecosystem pushes you forward in the competitive landscape, or cite the endless success stories, or elegize the world-class university system. I just want to keep a permanent record of this for reference.

Revised Goals for 2009

1. Blog an average of once a week.
2. Read one book every two weeks.
3. Lift weights two times a week.
4. Become well-versed in machine learning.
5. Volunteer with students in science-related activities.
6. Ramen profitability for WatchUWant!

Long-Term

1. Speak four languages by the age of 30 (english, spanish, french, kanji)
2. Learn to box
3. Become a millionaire by 35
4. Rewrite book 7 of the Harry Potter series

Reflecting On What Went Wrong

My original goals didn’t exactly pan out. Stop reading here if you don’t want to be bored.

My first book of the year was Zen The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, a philosophical narrative about how motorcycle maintenance parallels fundamental values. It has three or four solid themes that the author hammers home for nearly 500 pages. I eventually dreaded picking it up and it stalled my progress for months. I concluded that I don’t need to finish everything I start and so I moved on.

Lifting weights takes up too much energy to do three times a week, especially leg work outs. I compromised by doing two days a week of upper body and legs when I feel like it.

I was salsa dancing up to four times a week earlier this year, and improving quite rapidly. But then I stopped. This is a sisyphean skill, and as soon as you let the boulder roll down the mountain lifting it back up is a magnitude of effort harder than maintaining it.

I stopped working on iFlex and Wordisms to devote my time to WatchUWant. I would like to polish and release iFlex, time permitting.

I am looking forward to helping at the National Hispanic University in August, which is an organization designed to help Hispanics get degrees. This includes running after-school and summer programs for high-school students to obtain important college prep skills. I hope my volunteer work provides a basis for more community involvement later.

Funemployed

Those enjoying unemployment.

Kimi Yoshino reported for The L.A. Times:

While millions of Americans struggle to find work as they face foreclosures and bankruptcy, others have found a silver lining in the economic meltdown. [The] happily jobless tend to be single and in their 20s and 30s. Some were laid off. Some quit voluntarily, lured by generous buyouts.

Buoyed by severance, savings, unemployment checks or their parents, the funemployed do not spend their days poring over job listings. They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least till the bank account dries up, they’re content living for today.

According to Yoshino:

As frivolous as it sounds, funemployment is a statement about American society. Experts say it’s both a reflection of the country’s cultural narcissism — and attitudes of entitlement and self-centeredness — and a backlash against corporate America and its “Dilbert”-like work environment.

Yoshino is wrong. The “funemployment” phenomenon is a consequence of increased productivity in the American workforce and the acknowledgement that frivolous sacrifice is highly detrimental to a modern business economy. A large percentage of corporate America still acts like it’s the 1950s and that there’s some sort of nobility associated to a corporate job. Let me share a secret with you: jobs can be fun!

Traditional corporations are obsolete. With the advent of the Internet, organizing by physical proximity and geritocracy is no longer necessary. Maximal efficiency is established with alternative methods. The paragon in this context is the success of open source software, namely Linux. A loosely organized, decentralized, unpaid conglomerate of programmers were able to produce an operating system that has grown to rival that of its proprietary competitors. That would have seemed impossible 30 years ago.

Is there a new-found sense of entitlement and self-centeredness? Of course. Our parents and their parents have sacrificed their livelihoods so we can enjoy this wonderful world. If you have any doubt to that claim, try living in an age before modern medicine and the comforts of the first-world. While I haven’t experienced those lifestyles first-hand, I’ve been brought up knowing that a great deal has been given up for my happiness. Eating from the hand that feeds an old-school, inefficient corporate system is an injustice to their sacrifice.

Conversely, the upcoming business workers of the world have a responsibility to fulfill. Adapting to new technology and embracing a culture of transparency are required of any successful future graduates. With these tools in hand, we can work toward a world in which all jobs are creative for our children and their children.

Very interesting discussion on this topic at Hacker News.

I am leaving my job at IBM (on good terms). Overall, my experience was positive and my team has been very encouraging of my decision. My excitement is physically palpable, though, and I eagerly anticipate future endeavors. Excuse me for romanticizing, but I can’t help thinking, “today is the first day of the rest of my life.”

I loved this book.

Charlies provides a voice of reason in to a generation that is inundated with more knowledge on a daily basis than previous generations thought imaginable. Discerning that knowledge — especially when it comes to career decisions — is hard. The themes are those I’ve encountered myself, struggled with, and written about: knowing when NOT to take advice, leveraging the Internet for networking, and increasing your productivity and comfort levels to remain competitive.

The motivation for this book is largely based on observing peers that are frustrated with the conventional job search. The points that really resonated with me are:

1. “Shotgun blasting  your resume.” The importance of your network is greater than ever before.  Social networking on the Internet allows us to connect to the smallest niches in the world. The people that comprise these niches are the ones you want to work with. We are no longer constrained to geographic boundaries. Not only can we connect to groups of people with which we are more strongly aligned, we can do so with less work. Better and cheaper. Win-win.

2. The misconception of “no good jobs in a recession.” The opposite of this is true. Recessions eliminate bad jobs. Recessions are simply correcting mechanisms for the market. They inevitably bounce back, and the nation grows stronger as a result (proven by United States GDP data from the last 200+ years). We are continually pushed toward greater automation, and there’s no automating challenging, creative jobs. The clearest contemporary example of this is the dearth of the Big Three U.S. automakers. They were ousted by car companies that not only paid their employees less, but had greater automation and hence could increase profit margins. I feel this example is rudimentary enough name not to cite data, so if you want to challenge it, feel free.

In short, my greatest sympathies go out to those that are affected by the recession, but these people are forced to attain higher skill levels to remain competitive in the job market. I think most people would agree with this; whether our nation will foster personal growth and education for these individuals is another issue.

3. “Grad school is stupid in 95% of all situations.“ The pursuit of a graduate degree should take place if and only if it’s 1. intrinsically-motivated or 2. absolutely necessary in your industry. Aside from that, the pursuit is illogical, economically-speaking (the only exception I might grant is an MBA from Harvard or Stanford or Wharton, simply because brands of elite schools have such a strong reputation).

This book’s weakness is that Charlie doesn’t address his audience directly. His advice reads as though it is universally applicable to all college grads, although it’s primarily suited for the business school crowd.  Doctors, lawyers, and most engineers are still part of an old-school world.  I would say those in the liberal and (non-mass-media) fine arts are in-between; they can be smart and leverage the niceties of the modern world, but can’t completely rely on it. Those in software engineering, marketing, advertising and mass media can anticipate careers in a world that’s completely been re-invented in the last 15 years.

Additionally, the latter half of the book pertains even more narrowly to Charlie’s discipline, marketing.  As a freelancing software engineer, I suspect my approach would be somewhat different, although I don’t have enough experience to determine what that difference would be.

To be fair, this book is merely a precursor to a longer, more thorough study of gen-Yers. Find out more information at Hoehn’s Musings.

I was chatting to a successful entrepreneur in a coffee shop the other day when he ran into a entreprenuer friend. Apparently, his business was seeking to solve problem X for Y by doing Z. “That’s really interesting,” I casually remarked. “I know somebody who can use this.”

There was a point in my life when this would have been an exciting moment for me — I would have been thrilled that I met somebody who is trying to solve a problem for someone I care about. There was a point in my life in which I wondered where the smart, ambitious people that sought to change the world are located.

This question tormented me throughout college when I persistently sought out entrepreneurial people and failed. There are, no doubt, amazingly talented people at my alma mater, but the entrepreneurial spirit was not what I expected. This seemed unusual to me, as Austin, Texas, is considered a “tech town.” Naturally, entrepreneurs should be attracted there.

Within days of being in Silicon Valley, it felt like home, although I wasn’t in the proximity of any family and only a few friends.

The difference between the two places is simple: in Austin, there are some people doing startups, and in Silicon Valley, there are some people NOT doing startups.  The entrepreneurial spirit permeates the culture so deeply that you’d be hardpressed to live here and avoid it. It’s subtle, but it’s everywhere; whether it’s the Yahoo! billboard on highway 80 in San Francisco, the Palo Alto Egg, or the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, these icons convey a simple message: great technology is borne here.

There are few places in the world where organizations and events like the Homebrew Computer Club, Hackers and Founders, SuperHappyDevHouse at the Rainbow Mansion, YCombinator, and endless hacker spaces and houses can co-exist.

Silicon Valley is not without its woes; dating and socializing is difficult. It is also worth noting that during my senior year in college (2007-2008), Austin (along with many other U.S. cities) began what I expect to be massive growth in the startup sector. I met many entrepreneurs (both experienced and aspiring) that will go on to do amazing things, so I don’t want to undermine them–personally, at that point, I was bittersweet about the environment, and although I intended to stay there after college, I knew my stay was short-lived.

I suggest that you watch a TED Talk by the brilliant Internet marketer, Seth Godin, on the tribes we lead. I invite you, if you possess the desire and ambition to make an impact on the world’s technology to join our tribe in Silicon Valley. I, for one, am glad to be among the world’s greatest hacker culture.

I will be leading a discussion at Bootstrapper’s Breakfast this Friday in Palo Alto to discuss the Paradox of Self-Education.  Bootstrapper’s Breakfast is an event I have found to be very valuable to attend.  They are small, personal discussions on the topic of bootstrapping startups, and the various subjects associated with it. They are led and organized by the wonderful folks at SKMurphy: Sean, Elaine and Theresa. Needless to say, I’m proud to have been asked to lead this and I’m really looking forward to it! I hope you’ll join us!

Event Website

Friday, April 3rd, 7:30 am - 9 am

Hobee’s Restaurant
4224 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(650) 856-6124

Please RSVP

A topic that has been weighing heavily on my mind for the last several months was brought up in a thread yesterday on Hacker News: where is the innovation in software?

Innovation should get easier over time. New giants continue to provide more shoulders for us on which to stand. Yet, it feels that the implementation of revolutionary ideas are lacking. Can you cite a new company that is doing something technology interesting? Everything nowadays is a copycat. Today, it’s a social network for X and tomorrow it’s an iPhone app for Y, where X and Y are equally absurd.

I believe we have reached an inflection point in the development of software (and by extension, technology). Software platforms are converging to a point of stability, where a small number of competing players emerge, and it’s a land grab to be the leader on those platforms.

Ultimately, we are at the point where the cost of failure is so low that it is rational to pursue an irrational venture. Many companies in the Web 2.0 era have been hit-based. By “hit-based,” I mean that the differences between social network platforms, for example, are so marginal, that the best ones ultimately emerge non-deterministically. One can focus on producing a quality product, or one can try releasing a ‘hit,’ and the network effect will lead to a tumult of new users to your product.

The prime example of hit-based products are the Friendster/MySpace/Facebook social network evolution.  All of these sites experienced explosive growth in spite of not necessarily doing anything better than their competitors. MySpace is the ugliest site on the Internet. Facebook started as no more than a CRUD site built on LAMP. These ‘qualities’ are not difficult to achieve and their competitors were and are just as capable in achieving them.

Another good example is iPhone application development. When iFart is taking off, then developers have the incentive to produce as much attention-grabbing filth as possible. While iPhone apps don’t all directly take advantage of the network effect, they certainly see an exponential rise in popularity once they gain traction.

The common denominator among all these is that they’re cheap to build, can be deployed to the masses, and have the potential of phenomenal growth and return on investment. The only way in which this trend can be stopped is when the market becomes so overly saturated that every nook, cranny and variation thereof has been exploited. Until then, we will continue to see social networking sites for babies and dead people.

So, why aren’t developers intrinsically motivated to build something better? One of America’s hottest topics is the lack of science education and aptitude among students. Americans simply aren’t being trained to possess the skills to develop innovative technology.  Universities are importing talent and hemorraghing it after graduation.  This doesn’t pertain specifically to computer science and related disciplines, but to all of the hard sciences, all of which software touches.

Lack of education is also a sign of the times.  The United States emerged from the Great Depression with the highest education rate ever.  We are currently, along with the rest of the world, entering economic times of similar magnitude.  People are rushing back to school to become more competitive and to skirt the job market.  We have already seen reports of increasing education in computer science.

As people are becoming more educated, they will feed their new knowledge back into the ecosystem.  Companies–who are already forced to innovate in tough economic times–will benefit from highly trained workers.  So, the United States, as the incumbent world leader in science and technology, is struggling to maintain it’s lead. Other countries are gaining momentum and doing a good job in spite of the dismal economy. As the economy picks up (whenever that may be), it’ll bring software innovation along with it in full force, both in the United States and abroad.

Lastly, a discussion about technology innovation would not be complete without a mention of the huge decrease in IPOs in 2008. While there is much controversy with respect to the relative shortage of IPOs in the era succeeding the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act,  the simple fact of the matter is that there are much fewer large fund-raising events than usual, hence reducing the capacity and flexibility of companies to invest in research and risk-taking pursuits. Moreover, M&A is becoming the standard for startup exit strategies, which is generally detrimental to growth, as acquired companies are more likely to get axed than a public company is likely to fail (anybody remember Dodgeball?).

What can we conclude? Do you feel software innovation has been sluggish? What are your examples and counterexamples?

My take is that we, as software engineers, must become more innovative. As Alan Kay once said, “the best way to predict the future is to invent it.” We must push the boundaries of computer science. We must bridge the gap between the techies and the rest of the population. However, we must be patient. The convergence of these disparite entities will likely lead to a spurt of technological growth unprecedented in history (follow-up post soon to come!).

  Please see further discussion at Hacker News.