Why You Should Leave Your FAANG Job
发布时间 2022-06-22 21:08:00 来源
摘要
Dalton Caldwell and Michael Seibel discuss the struggles of working at FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google) and how to strategize leaving a big tech job to become a founder at a startup.
Apply to Y Combinator: https://www.ycombinator.com/apply/
Work at a startup: https://www.ycombinator.com/jobs
GPT-4正在为你翻译摘要中......
中英文字稿 
We all know these people that want to just like tell you their darkest secret, which is they wake up every day and they like dream of quitting. Like the fantasies of quitting every day. Those are people that probably should quit.
我们都知道有些人非常想告诉你他们最黑暗的秘密，就是他们每天醒来后都会幻想辞职。这些人可能真的应该辞职。
This is Michael Seibel with Dalton Caldwell and today we're talking about how to break out of fame. I think almost inadvertently because we talk to so many young technical people, young technical founders and potential founders, we've become experts at career advice. And specifically big tech career advice, which I don't know about you Dalton. It's not an expertise I ever wanted to develop at all.
嗨，我是迈克尔·西伯尔，今天和道尔顿·考维尔一起谈论如何突围出名。我们与许多年轻的技术人员、创始人和潜在的创始人交流了很多，意外地成为了职业建议方面的专家。对于大型科技领域的职业建议，我不知道你有什么看法，但这不是我想要发展的专业知识。
Yeah, I mean, I've never worked at a fame. Like this is probably the last thing I'd be interested in talking about with people. But man, we get exposed to lots of this stuff. And I think what's interesting is that technical founders often misunderstand the value they can get out of fame. And misunderstand is an understatement. They grossly misunderstand.
是啊，我的意思是，我从来没有在名声方面工作过。像这种事情，可能是我最不想与人谈论的事情。但是，我们确实接触到了很多这样的东西。我认为有趣的是，技术创始人经常误解他们可以从名声中获得的价值。误解并不足以描述他们的误解。他们极度误解了。
What value they can extract from a fang job and what value they can't extract. I think mostly because a lot of founders are mixed in with other people with different motivations, right? Most people want to be managers or employees. I think a lot of founders have friends who want to be managers and employees and they kind of like see those people attracted to fang and then they assume all those things apply to them as well. Whereas, you know, as we both know, the founder path is quite different than the employee path.
他们能从一份fang工作中获得什么价值，以及他们无法获得什么价值。我认为这主要是因为很多创始人和其他有不同动机的人混在一起，对吗？大多数人想成为经理或员工。我觉得很多创始人有朋友想成为经理或员工，他们有点像看到这些人被fang吸引，然后假设所有这些东西也适用于他们自己。而我们都知道，创始人之路与员工之路相当不同。
Yeah, it's funny. I remember what I was in undergrad. A lot of the recruiters, the people that had the most recruiters and the best recruiters, try to create cash. I remember when I was in school, it was all around management consulting. It was the high status, cool jobs to get. And it was a certain kind of person that would fall for that, like working at McKinsey or Accenture or something was like the cool thing to do. And what's funny is at the time, Google was like an 80 person startup and they were trying to recruit on campus. But it was like, I would have cared.
是啊，很有趣。我还记得我在本科时的情况。很多招聘人员，尤其是拥有最多招聘人员和最好的招聘人员的人，试图创造现金。我记得当我还在学校时，一切都围绕着管理咨询展开。那是得到高地位、酷炫的工作。而且只有某种类型的人才会为此痴迷，比如在麦肯锡或安永工作就像是一件酷炫的事情。有趣的是，那时谷歌只是一家拥有80人的初创企业，他们还在学校尝试招聘。但那时的我根本不在乎。
Do you want to be different? It was exactly the opposite brand of what Google is now because there was just kind of a grubby little startup. But the point is, it's easy to look at folks that employ the most recruiters and use that as your basis. Whoever has the best booth at the career fair, whoever gives out the coolest stuff and make your selection that way. If that's the criteria you used to select what college should go to, which is like, oh, whatever has the best rankings, you look at the best career rankings for where to work after college. And that's going to drive you towards, you know, Google, Facebook, whatever, right? It's not crazy. I get why this happens.
你想与众不同吗？当时谷歌创业公司还不是现在这个品牌，有点像一家有点肮脏的小公司。但关键是，很容易看到那些雇用最多招聘员工并以此为基础选择。谁在就业博览会上有最好的展台，谁赠送最酷的物品，你就选择那个。如果你用这个标准来选择上哪所大学，就像选择最好排名的一样，你会查看工作后最好的职业排名。这将驱使你朝向谷歌、Facebook或其他公司，不是吗？这并不疯狂。我理解为什么会这样。
And if you want to be an employee or a manager in a large tech company, that's correct. In fact, I'd argue all those guides are written for you. And it makes sense to write guides for you because you're the vast majority of people. The problem is what should the founders do? What should the potential founders do? What should the future founders do? People that are curious, founder, curious people. The people that might want to maybe, they're like, oh, start. I think that'd be cool. What's their move?
如果你想成为大型科技公司的雇员或经理，那么这是正确的。事实上，我会说所有这些指南都是为你们写的，这是有意义的，因为你们是绝大多数人。问题是，创始人应该做什么？潜在的创始人应该做什么？未来的创始人应该做什么？那些好奇、有创业精神的人。那些可能想象着，“噢，创业会很酷。”这些人该怎么办？
Exactly. So let's start with some of the assumptions that we hear from these potential slash future founders about why working at Fang right out of college or soon thereafter makes sense. Why it's and it never, it's never presented us to us as like, it's a pretty good opportunity. It's always presented to me at least is like, oh, of course, it's essential. It's an essential part of the state of fact. They're stating facts. We must work.
所以我们先从一些有可能成为未来创始人的人们的看法假设开始谈起，他们为什么要在大学刚毕业或之后尽快在Fang工作。这样做的好处从未被呈现成一种很好的机会，而是被呈现为一件理所当然的事情。他们正在表述事实，我们必须工作。
So here's the first one here a lot. Before a car, a sort of company, I want to get experience working in the hardest technical problems at the largest scale. And Fang is the only place in the world to do this. What do you think, Dalton?
这是第一个很重要的问题。在开车之前，我想要在最大规模的最难的技术问题上获得工作经验。而且方正是全世界唯一可以做到这一点的地方。你觉得怎么样，道尔顿？
That is that's just quoting the recruiter. You're like reading the you're reading what the recruiter's line is. I mean, look, most people that get most jobs at Fang's, when you talk to them, have to have the job, if they're, you know, get a couple of beers in them, they're working on some bullshit ad server. They're working on like one pixel on one corner of one thing. They're working on some project that's going to get killed. Like, again, if you're someone that's like a good enough programmer to get hired to work on some deep technical infrastructure, Google, then this line is true. But most folks that I talk to at least kind of have what is like a shitty job, but that's been presented in brand to them.
这只是引用招聘人员的话。你在阅读招聘人员的语句。我是说，看看，大多数在Fang公司得到工作的人，当你与他们交谈时，如果他们在喝几杯啤酒，他们就会在某些废话广告服务器上工作。他们只是在某个方框角落的一个像素上工作。他们正在开展一些即将被抛弃的项目。如果你是那种足够优秀的程序员，能够被聘用到Google等公司工作在某些深层技术基础设施方面，那么这句话是正确的。但是，至少我所接触到的大多数人会有一份像品牌工作一样的烂工作。
Brand to them is a very cool thing. And again, this is marketing. Like they want you to take the job. They want you to keep the job.
And someone's got to do all the crappy ad server work, right? Someone's got to. And so if you actually look at the numbers way more folks that you meet that work at a thing job have the equivalent of like some shitty ad server, like buttons or translating it to foreign languages or something, just like the worst job. And then the people.
对他们来说，品牌很酷。这又是营销策略。他们想让你接受这份工作。他们想让你一直保持这份工作。
还有，总有人得去做那些糟糕的广告服务器工作，对吧？就得有人去做。如果你看一下数字，就会发现很多人在那种苦逼的工作里干活，比如做按钮或翻译成外语之类的琐碎工作，就是最糟糕的工作。然后，人们……
Then the people that are working on the core search infrastructure at Google, which again, that actually sounds really cool. And that is working on hard technical problems, the larger scale, you know. So I think you just want to be honest about what the job actually is and not just quote the recruiter.
那么，谷歌核心搜索基础设施的工作人员，听起来真的很酷。他们正在解决艰难的技术难题，而且规模很大。所以我认为你应该诚实地说明这份工作实际上是什么，而不仅仅引用招聘人员的话。
Well, and let's be clear, the way that you actually learn what the job is is you talk to someone doing it. You don't talk to the recruiter. Like I think maybe people don't quite understand how the entire job of the recruiter and the number one they get way they get paid promoted. Everything is convincing you to sign up. Yeah, they get copped per person. It's just it's like a car salesman. They don't make money if they don't sell a car. If they don't, if you don't sign on the dotted line, they're not getting paid.
好的，让我们明确一点，实际上了解工作内容的方法就是与从事该工作的人交谈，而不是与招聘人员交谈。我认为可能有些人并不完全理解招聘人员的工作职责和他们获得报酬的方式。他们的一切都是为了说服你报名，是的，他们可以按人头获得佣金。就像汽车销售员一样，如果他们没有销售汽车，他们就不会赚钱。如果你没有签署合同，他们就不会得到报酬。
The next one is Dalton. And this is a little a little more vague. Like it's going to be easier for me to be successful at my startup. I'm going to learn important lessons I can apply to my startup if I work for a while at thing, right? Because the lessons I learned in a big company can directly apply to my early stage startup, right? Isn't that how it works? Look, I think in some situations, folks that are really green can learn a lot about working on a team and having a manager learn about how corporations work, learning about politics. It's a great way to learn about politics.
下一个是达尔顿。这个有点含糊不清。如果我在这里工作一段时间，我在开创公司时将更容易取得成功，我将学到重要的经验教训并能够直接应用到我创业初期的岁月中，是这样吗？因为我在大公司中所学到的教训可以直接应用到我的初创公司中，这不是工作的方式吗？看，我认为在某些情况下，那些工作经验不够丰富的人可以通过在团队中工作以及与经理学习公司运营和政治手腕来学到很多东西，这是一个很好的政治学习方式。
But you'd be surprised at how many founders that we talked to will tell you that nothing they did in their job translates it all to their startup. Like could not be less relevant versus their college coursework was more relevant. Isn't that weird? And it's because in a lot of things, we have so much tooling. Again, I'm talking about programmers here, but you have so much infrastructure inside of Google or Facebook to do your job and they have their own way of doing code reviews. Like there's just all this stuff.
你会惊讶地发现，我们跟很多创业者交流后发现，他们告诉你他们在工作中所做的事情，对于他们的创业项目毫无帮助。相反，他们在大学里修的课程更加相关。这不奇怪吗？这是因为在很多事情上，我们有很多工具。我在讲程序员，但在谷歌或者 Facebook，你会获得很多的基础设施来完成你的工作，他们也有自己的编码审核方式。就是有这么多东西。
So when you start a startup and you have none of it and you're starting from scratch, you're like, wait, what happened to all those tools I was used to using in big table and big query and whatever you have. And you're dependent on those tools. And so it's a lot more like doing a college project again where you kind of have, there's no tooling, there's no infrastructure, you have to create everything scratch. And so again, what's funny is like, you learn a lot of stuff, but a lot of what you learn is how to use the tools of the fame, which you don't get to use when you don't work there anymore. Give it up saying again, this is a very programmer centric point, but like yes, I've seen founders run into this problem a lot.
当你开始创业的时候，你可能什么也没有，你从头开始，你会说：“等等，我曾经在大型数据库和大型查询中使用过的那些工具都去哪了？”你会依赖那些工具。这更像是重新做一个大学项目，没有工具，没有基础设施，你必须从零开始创建一切。所以，有趣的是，你学到了很多东西，但你学的大部分是如何使用那些你已经不在那里工作时不能使用的工具。我想说的是，这是一个非常程序员中心的观点，但我确实看到创始人们经常遇到这个问题。
The way that I would say this slightly differently is that I think when you work on FANG founders find that there's more they have to unlearn, whereas like college wasn't actually set up to help them get products out in the wild, but it didn't give them a whole process that they can't use with their startup. Whereas like in many ways, the big companies give them a whole process that is just completely irrelevant for when you're doing a company. And so you have to unlearn, I've worked with so many Google engineers who were just like, their standard for getting a product into even beta at Google is 10x, what an MVP in the startup is, and they just have to unlearn. It's like, can anyone find this useful launch? And I've had to fight with founders on that where it's like, oh, well, this would never, this would never see the light of day at Google. And it's like, yeah, that's not, that's not the standard.
我觉得，当FANG创始人开始创业时，他们需要学会更多东西，因为大公司的流程并不能完全适用于创业。相反，学院的课程虽然不是为了帮助他们在市场上推广产品，但却教授了一套完整的流程。这些大公司的员工需要“抛弃”的东西更多，我曾经和很多Google工程师合作，他们在Google的标准通常是一个产品要达到的最佳状态，而在创业初期的MVP则远远不够。他们需要重新学习这一点，比如，一个简单而实用的产品推出是否有用？有时我还需要跟创始人争论这一点，他们认为“这样的产品在Google永远无法推出”，但这并不是我们的标准。
Okay, here's another one, right? Well, VCs, they care, right? Like a VCs, like we all know that Google engineers can just raise a series A, can raise five to 10 million dollars, like with almost nothing, right? Like this is my path to getting funding. I mean, it depends on, I mean, certainly depending on your resume, it could, it could be helpful, right? It's a good brand name to have. So I, I don't think that's false, but I think at some point, the more time you spend there, what was once a good positive signal could turn into a negative one.
好的，又有一个问题对吧？VC很在意，对吧？就像VC，我们都知道Google的工程师可以仅仅靠一轮A轮融资就能筹集5到10百万美元，几乎没有什么条件限制，对吧？这就是我获得资金的路径。我是指，这取决于，当然是根据你的简历，这可能有所帮助，对吧？这是一个好的品牌名称。但我认为，在那里呆的时间越长，一开始的好积极信号可能会变成负面信号。
Again, I can't speak for all investors, but at some point you lose the shininess of getting that validation, as well as what team you're on and all those other good stuff. And so, you know, I think there's some truth to that is what I'm saying.
再说一遍，我不能代表所有投资者讲话，但在某些时候，你会失去得到那种认可的焕然一新的感觉，也会失去你所在的团队和其他好东西。所以，你知道，我认为这是有一定道理的。
But like, if you stay there for eight years, that doesn't apply anymore. You kind of have to get out to get the benefit of it.
但是，如果你在那里呆了八年，那就不再适用了。你必须出去才能获得它的好处。
I also think there's this weird feeling. I think people will re-tech crunch and see, oh, these Google people are getting funded. And then the kind of assume VCs are like walking the halls, like being like engineer, here's term sheet. The flow that you walk through to work to like go to MIT and be a CS major and then get employed at Facebook is nothing like the flow you'd work you'd walk through to go from a Facebook engineer to raising money.
我也觉得有这种奇怪的感觉。我觉得人们会重新看待科技媒体，看看哦，这些谷歌的人正在得到资助。然后他们就会默认风险投资家就像走在走廊里，像工程师一样，给你这个术语表。从去MIT成为一个计算机科学专业的人，然后在Facebook找到工作的路径，根本不像从一个Facebook工程师到筹集资金所走的路径。
Like, these are not the same flow. And I think people really mistake those. This is one of my big talking points to founders in the batch, which is you don't read about the unsuccessful fundraisers.
就像这些不是同一条路。我认为人们真的会混淆这些。这是我对该批创始人的重要谈话点之一，即你不会读到那些不成功筹资的新闻。
And so, if all you read is the successful fundraisers, it looks like everyone is raising and every Google engineer is raising and every, because we just never hear about the ones that didn't happen. And so, it don't fall for that. It's not that easy. You can't just wave a magic wand and they're not just handing out, you know, we say this, they won't believe this, Michael. But like, I think people actually think they just hand out party favors or something, you know.
如果你所看的都是成功的筹款活动，就会觉得每个人都在筹款，Google的每个工程师都在筹款，因为我们从来没有听说那些未成功的筹款活动。所以，不要轻易相信这些。这并不容易。你不能只挥一挥魔杖，它们不会自己出现。你知道吗，有些人好像认为他们只是像派对礼物一样发放筹款。
Yeah, we're Google, like, yeah, isn't there a special door at A16? You just walk in that door, present your Google credentials and money, maybe not.
啊，我们是谷歌，对啊，A16门口有一个特殊的门吧？你只需要走进那扇门，提供你的谷歌凭证和钱，或许不用钱也可以。
Well, that's the thing is, there's a lot of Google employees and ex-goolers now do the math. It doesn't pencil out. Let's talk about the trap, right?
嗯，问题是，现在有很多谷歌员工和前谷歌员工在计算。这不划算。让我们谈谈这个陷阱，好吗？
So, so these are a lot of assumptions that future founders have. Let's talk about the other side. What's the company trying to do, right? And I think this is something that I hear a lot where the company is trying to retain you. And trying is not the right word. The company has engineered and iterated a system over oftentimes a decade plus to retain you.
所以，这些都是未来创业者的许多假设。让我们谈谈另一方面。公司想做什么，对吧？我听到很多公司想留住你这个说法，但“想”这个词不是很准确。公司经过十年甚至更长时间的工程和演变，已经建立了一套系统来留住你。
And when you sign that piece of paper, you have to understand, you're going into the same retention flow or retention flow built by a company that often is trying to retain users on its product. Like, it's really good. Yeah, it's highly gamified.
当你签下那张纸时，你必须明白，你将进入由一家旨在留住用户的公司建立的相同保留流或保留流。就像，它真的很好。是的，它高度游戏化。
Oh, I can get my next level, Michael. I want to get the my next level upgrade. And then I unlock my booster pack, founder, blah blah blah, share reward. And then I get level 14, like, yeah.
哦，迈克尔，我可以升级到下一级了。我想要升级到下一个等级。然后我可以解锁我的自带加速装置、创始人勋章等等，分享奖励。接着我就能达到14级，是的，是这样。
And one of the things that I see that founders don't realize is how the fangs would do this around equity. So here's a story that founders will tell me, right? I'm going to get in, in some kind of signing bonus. I'm going to feel good. Some kind of sound. I'm going to feel good. Some kind of equity package. I'm going to feel good. I'm well compensated. This is great.
我看到创始人们不明白大型科技公司如何处理股权这件事。这里有一个创始人常告诉我的故事，说我会得到一个签字奖金，会感觉很好，会得到一份股权计划，会感觉很好，我得到了好的报酬，这太美好了。
And then I'm going to get out, but of course, that equity is vesting over four years, right? Like, you know, you're in that equity a little bit of time over four years.
然后我要离开了，但当然，那些权益是分四年归属的，对吧？就是说你要在四年里一点点获得那些权益。
So that's the first part of the trap, right? It's like, if you leave, you say goodbye to that money. The second part of the trap is that if you're good six months in, you get another chunk of equity, but it's vesting over four years.
那么这就是陷阱的第一部分是吧？如果你离开的话，就得和那笔钱说再见了。陷阱的第二部分是，如果你干得好六个月，就会得到另一笔股权，但是这是要在四年内分期解禁的。
So think about it. You've been there for six months, but there's disproportionately more money that you have invested yet, which incentivize you to stay a little bit longer. This is a dark pattern.
所以你想想看。你在那里已经六个月了，但是你投资的钱相对更多，这激励你再呆一段时间。这是一种阴暗模式。
It's a loss of version, which is people do a rash. If you give someone something and then threaten to take it away, they will irrationally value it to avoid a loss versus they never had to begin with. They won't do it. Again, you know, Google this, loss a version is a thing.
这是一个版本损失的问题，人们会做出草率决定。如果你给某人东西，然后威胁要拿走，他们会出于避免损失而非理性地珍惜它，而不会像从一开始就没有一样。他们不会这样做。再次强调，你知道的，谷歌这个，损失厌恶是一种现象。
So yes, there's a lot of stacks, lockover loss a version around vesting, especially because founders will think of it as their savings. And this is the second part of the trap, right? You're around a lot of people who want to be employees and managers not founders.
所以，有很多股份，锁仓损失版本在股权分配中出现，尤其是因为创始人会将其视为自己的储蓄。这就是陷阱的第二部分，对吧？你周围有很多想成为员工和经理而不是创始人的人。
Oftentimes they're up styling. They're upscaling their lifestyle. Nice department, car, nice evocation, because they want to be in this world. They're not looking to save money to start their company, right? And so the people around you start spending money, especially because they see that vesting equity as almost savings.
很多时候，他们会提升他们的生活方式。他们会提高他们的生活水平，购买漂亮的家具、汽车、漂亮房子，因为他们想要融入这个世界。他们并不是为了省钱来创办公司的，对吧？所以，身边的人开始花钱，特别是因为他们把公平持股视为储蓄。
So bam, you're not saving money because you're going on Instagram vacations. Bam, you continue to get these little equity bonuses that vest over four years. If they can keep you spending your entire salary and if they can keep the money that you have invested yet larger than the amount of money that you have in your savings by like two to three X, you never leave.
所以，你就是因为要去 Instagram 假期而没有存钱。你继续获得那些分四年归属的小权益奖金。如果他们能让你花完整个薪水，并且让你已经投资的资金比你储蓄的钱多个两到三倍，你就不会离开了。
Like your brain tell a rational human says, don't leave. Yeah. And again, where's this coming from? We talk to these people and they're like, yeah, I hate my life, but this is the setup. Like they explain this to us is like the reason they can't do the thing they want to do.
就像你的大脑告诉一个理智的人那样，不要离开。是的。再次问，这是从哪里来的？我们跟这些人交谈，他们说，是的，我讨厌我的生活，但这就是现状。他们向我们解释，这就是他们不能做自己想做的事情的原因。
It's kind of sad to talk to someone who's like, they lay all this stuff out for us and they're like, and therefore, you know, I can never do a startup. Like, they're like 25 and this is like, and this is how the math works out. I can't, I can't, I can't, I'm not free. I can't do it. In many ways, this is a defensive tactic to warehouse talent out of the fear that maybe someone else can use you in a way that can hurt the company.
有时和这样的人交谈还是挺伤心的。他们把很多事情摆出来，说自己不能创业，比如他们才25岁，按照算法就那样走，无法自由行动。其实这是一种自卫策略，公司害怕他们的才华被别人利用而伤害公司。
Whereas if they wear house you on the Android set of steam. Yeah. Think about it. It's like speculative science projects that get axed and that never shipped. Like I saw that Facebook built some kind of silicon. They built a chip and then they were like, never mind. And like they never shipped the thing that probably people, dozens of people spent years of their life on.
要是他们在Android蒸汽集上让你当房子的话，那就别想了。想一想，就像那些被取消且从未推出的投机科学项目一样。比如，我看到Facebook建造了某种硅片，然后他们说算了吧。就像他们从未推出那件事情，那可能有成百上千的人花费了几年的时间去研究。
I saw that PayPal had some kind of research lab. They just laid everyone off this week. Like basically, if you're not on the core thing, you have no promises that your work will ever turn anything. And how bad does it feel to spend five or six years and just, oh, yeah, we were in the moonshots group. They decided not to do our thing. They shut down our group. That sucks. And oftentimes that's the thing that got you to sign.
我听说PayPal有一个研究实验室。他们这周只是开掉了所有人。如果你不是核心的一份子，你的工作可能就无法有任何任何保证会有成就。而如果你付出了五到六年的心血，结果只是被告知：“哦，我们其实在一个远大的目标小组里。但是我们这个组的事情，他们决定不做了。他们关闭了我们的小组。这太难受了。而且很多时候，也正是这个目标才是让你签约的原因。
Right? That was the thing. Oh, like I would have never worked on the normal thing. It was the moonshots. So if you're getting, if you're technical and you feel like you're getting trapped here, Dalton, like, how do you know it's time to get out? Like how do you know? Like, okay, like or even if you see a friend in this situation, how do you know it's time to tell him, like, hey, think about breaking up.
对吧？那就是重点。哦，我从不会去做普通的事情。我只做那些大胆的尝试。如果你是个技术人员，感觉自己被困住了，那么你怎么知道是时候离开了？就像，你怎么知道？比如，如果你看到一个朋友处于这种情况，你怎么知道是时候告诉他：“嗨，考虑一下分手。”
I think for the people that I talk to, which again, it's probably not a representative set of the average. It's probably the people that are more disgruntled. But um, to the extent that you have conversations where it's like talking to someone that's like an alcoholic and it's like, I got to stop drinking. Like I can't do this anymore. Again, I'm having tried to be funny.
我觉得我谈话的对象可能并不代表一般人的典型。他们可能更不满意。但是，如果你跟那些像酗酒者一样的人谈话，他们会说"我必须戒酒，我不能再这样了。"再次强调，我没有试图搞笑。
But it's like when someone's just like, I don't know why I'm doing this, but I'm still doing it and I can't stop. I hate my life. Like, like, if that sounds like you are your friend talking about your job at Facebook, that's probably a good sign. You maybe shouldn't do it anymore.
就像当有人说：“我不知道为什么我在做这件事，但我还继续着，并且无法停止。我讨厌我的生活。” 如果这听起来像你或你的朋友在谈论你在Facebook的工作，那可能是一个好迹象。也许你不应该再做这份工作了。
And the actual tactical thing you do is keep your personal burn low so that you can do it and not get hooked on the money with all this gamification we talked about. And realize you can always come back. If you're a good programmer, if you're a good programmer and you leave and you leave in a nice way, no matter what happens to you, you can come back. There's actually not that much loss you have to take.
实际上你需要做的战术性事情是保持低开支，这样你才可以在不被所有的游戏化资金所吸引时继续前进。而且你需要意识到你总是可以回头的。如果你是个好程序员，如果你以好的方式离开了，不管发生了什么事情，你都可以回来。其实你不需要承受太大的损失。
And so first is the people that are like, no, this is cool. I like my life. Yeah, stay there, right? This message is not for you. But we all know these people that want to just like tell you their darkest secret, which is they wake up every day and they like dream of quitting. Like they have fantasies of quitting every day. Those are people that probably should quit.
首先，有些人可能会说，“这很酷，我喜欢我的生活，呆在那里没问题。”这条信息不是针对你的。但我们都知道有些人想要告诉你他们最深的秘密，他们每天醒来都梦想着辞职。那些人可能应该辞职。
And it's interesting because we're probably talking to like 1% of the developers at FAN companies. Like 1% for like 99% of developers at FAN companies are relevant. This is not relevant. Yeah, this is not for you. We're not trying to argue with you. We're just saying that if you know someone that's deeply unhappy because of decisions they're making, they can just make different decisions. You can tell them that. You can break the spell. You can break the spell.
有趣的是，我们可能只与FAN企业开发人员中的1％进行交流。 对于99％的开发人员而言，这并不相关。 所以，如果你认识某个因为自己的决定而感到不满意的人，我们不是在与你争论。我们只是在告诉你，他们可以做出不同的决定。 你可以告诉他们这个。你可以打破这个魔咒。
So to wrap up, right? Like the FAN optimization, I think there's a couple kind of takeaways here. Like I think the first one is like, if you're technical and you want to be a founder, and you decide that FAN is the right part for you, the right path for you, at least to start, a couple things should be thinking about.
那么总的来说，对吧？就像风扇优化一样，我认为这里有几个要点。我认为第一个是，如果你有技术背景，想要成为一名创始人，而且你认为FAN是适合你的，至少是从开始的时候，你应该思考几件事情。
One is how long you're going to stay, right? Like how can you stay for long enough to get the value without getting trapped? So if you get trapped, your plan goes to shit.
其中一个问题是你会待多久，对吧？比如说，你要怎么待够足够长的时间来获得价值但不会被困住？如果被困住了，你的计划就会失败。
It sounds like the second one and you were touching on this, like don't work on projects that will make you hate your life, make you hate tech, like cause you to decide to just become like a nomad who roams like, you know, weird beaches in Southeast Asia, like we know these people like, yeah, like I know a lot of X Facebook people who kind of like feel that they did evil and they made money doing it and they seem pretty unhappy about it.
听起来像第二个，你也提到了这点，就是不要做那些让你讨厌生活、讨厌科技的项目，会让你决定成为像游荡在东南亚怪异海滩上的游牧民族一样的人。我们知道这些人，我认识很多前 Facebook 员工感觉自己做了恶事却赚了钱，他们似乎对此很不满意。
They're not happy about the work that they did in the universe. And so yeah, don't, don't do that. Like the psychic scars of doing that stuff is expensive. Well, and it'll prevent you from being optimistic about tech, which you need to be if you're going to be a startup founder, like you need to be optimistic.
他们对自己在宇宙中的工作感到不满意。所以，别，别这样做。就像做那些事情留下的心理创伤很昂贵一样。而且会阻止你对技术保持乐观，而如果你要成为初创公司创始人，那么你需要保持乐观。
I say the last one is have a plan at the start. Like know what you're trying to accomplish. You're trying to get a visa. You're trying to save money and you're trying to get this on your resume. Have a plan for what you're trying to accomplish by taking one of these jobs and a plan for when you want to leave.
我认为最后一条建议是在开始时制定计划，就像知道自己想要实现什么一样。你想获得签证，你想省钱，你还想在简历上添加这项经历。拥有一个关于通过这些工作实现目标的计划，以及何时你想离开的计划。
It's a lot easier to have a plan when you're not looking at bonus in the eye. Right? If you come in with the plan, when the bonus thing happens, you'll see it coming. If you're fighting the bonus head to head with no plan, bonus wins most of the time.
有个计划的话，就算没有直接面对奖金，也会轻松很多吧。对吧？如果你提前有个计划，当奖金的事情发生时，你会预见到它。如果你没有计划就直接和奖金硬拼，大部分时间奖金会胜出。
All right, with that, that's how to break out of thing. Thanks, Dalton. Thanks.
好的，这就是如何摆脱困境了。谢谢，道尔顿。谢谢。