> One thing that always frustrates me a bit whenever Mozilla comes up on HN or elsewhere is that we are always held to impossibly high standards. Yes, as a non-profit, we should be held to higher standards, but not impossible standards.
People talk as if Mozilla and others could exist in their magic bubble outside of a world where all comes down to money.
Being a non-profit means they still have to pay rent, loans etc. so there has to be enough money to do that. While many use Mozilla products without donating it is strange for me that the same people wonder about Mozilla not having enough money to keep all their employees and infrastructure.
Focusing on other actions that promise an increase in revenue is necessary if people just take without giving back.
This is some serious and good advice for doing business and also managing personal relationships.
Do not fear to say 'No!' and do not try to be everyone's darling.
I had to learn this the hard way because of exactly the same eagerness to do business and take up on all opportunities.
My advice is to regularly reflect on your (business) relationships and evaluate them (good, ok, bad) and sort out everyone who just gives you more pain than value.
Of course 'value' in business is not only profit but also a good relationship to your customer and wanting to do the job rather than wanting to do another one.
In personal life 'value' can be that someone accepts you as you are and/or tells you their honest opinion even if you do not like what you hear.
You will have to define your own meaning of 'value' to evaluate these relationships.
I agree with the underlying conclusion but there is one thing you said but did not properly reason about:
> On the other hand, van life and tiny houses are logistically prohibitive to having children.
This is just not true. Only here in the wealthy west people think they need a big house to have children. In the rest of the world you will see whole families living in one tiny room together.
Also there is a lot of valid reasons not to put children into this world without being part of some lifestyle romance.
In the rest of the world, you see whole families living in one room together because they are poor. Virtually no-one chooses to live like this. Case in point, as soon as such people get money, they upgrade to larger houses.
I don't mean that entirely, but understand the position from which you negotiate. I'm sure someone who abstains can do well, but I will say that many business relationships are formed from having some drinks and feeling friendly/chatting/etc.
1. I managed to do business without taking drugs as long as I can think.
2. I am used to people coming to me for advice and my services. I never needed to advertise etc. so THEY will have to do business else where just as I said.
3. Just because in your opinion (data please) "many business relationships are formed from having some drinks" does not lead to "ALL business relationships are formed from having some drinks". This is a flaw in your logic.
4. If "feeling friendly/chatting/etc." is the reason for you to take drugs then I advice you to do therapy or something else to learn to be friendly, chatty etc. without the need to take drugs. If you need drugs to achieve this all the time this is a clear indicator that you have serious issues.
I don't doubt 1 and 2, 3 is putting words in my mouth, and 4 may be valid but misses the point. The very idea that "drinking lowers inhibitions" is the point of the article: That the inherent social guards and barriers begin to lower when people feel others in the room are willing to drink and bond with them.
I didn't say it was a requirement, but you have an air of hubris about you regarding your abstinence, and it's worth pointing out that many people drink with respect to their health and well being, and that it is indeed a part of many business relationships. It is also NOT a part of many.
It depends on your role entirely. Management level or engineer you don't need to be a drinker only on certain social company events. If you are on the Sales team you likely need to be in order to close deals and be part of the team. However I am curious if that is changing within the new Covid ERA. Hopefully this is vestiges of the past and we will move past an alcohol based era. It can be a catalyst for problems in the workplace. To be fair it does have some positive attributes as well. edit: typos
There are markets where a B2B sales representative who does not drink would be utterly ineffective as many potential customers won't even listen to their pitches without an alcohol-filled setting, and would not take them seriously if they would organize such a setting but don't participate themselves. The same applies for existing customers, they would refuse meetings/pitches/deals if they don't "have contact" with the assigned representative, so being a non-drinker makes someone unemployable in such roles.
It's not about markets for some niche products, it's about geographical markets where you can't negotiate a wholesale distribution deal for a line of shampoo or a refrigerator brand if you're not willing to drink with your partners.
In most states in the US business transactions negotiated in the presence of alcohol (any alcohol) renders a contract void due to legally provable diminished capacity. It sounds like you are taking unnecessary risks without approval from your corporate legal advisors.
I do not need a sales department because my services and products speak for themselves and people want to have them. They come because of reputation and part of this is being sober, punctual, efficient and professional.
I am sad for you when you need to do this and I am happy for myself not to be in this position where one would force me to take drugs to do my job.
Caffeine and sugar are drugs with similar strength to alcohol in different mental state directions. You come off as judgmental and full of yourself with that kind of rhetoric. If this is how you talk to partners and customers, you must have really amazing products and services.
While its true that sugar is more addictive than cocaine neither sugar nor caffeine induce people to commit sexual assault or impair the ability to operate machines. Could you produce a single instance where somebody was arrested for DUI where the intoxicant was sugar or caffeine?
Perhaps I am judgemental too, but your argument is hilariously absurd and decidedly without evidence.
This is true and important. But I also have to admit that I like the interface of GH more and I am just used to searching on GH - it always has been like google search for code for me.
It does not make any sense for me to buy new macs anymore - especially when I have to run the new macos, which will take SECONDS to open apps that open in MILLISECONDS when you switch off wifi or just use a good OS.
Also I do not like their beta product experiments they tend to run on customers since years - I will wait for years before I trust their hard- and software to be useful for work or even personal things.
If they want me to beta test they should give me money for it.
How about some generic "how to not buy into a single ecosystem that will maybe screw you one day".
Most important is a personality that prevents you from doing things just like everyone else or this urge to always use the newest tech because it is sexy.
Also important is to be able to feel more pain and to have to work more to achieve a solution that follows this rule and to accept this.
Using Google etc. products is easiest and only people who are strong willed enough and maybe have more skills in IT (pro user instead of average user) can really be free.
Then separate it into personal and work because in the first sector you have an own choice whereas in the second one you will have to comply most of the times.
Also: Storing stuff in proprietary systems which does not provide an export capability (using an open format) is a bad idea - always.
Because one method does not come to the same conclusion others do does not automatically prove that it really is that way.