Matt, literally (he turned 21 then), came of age in the 2004-2006 Silicon Valley climate of the post-Bubble "Trümmerfrauen" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C3%BCmmerfrau) movements that brought us things such as DHH and Rails, Matt and WordPress, Andreessen being himself, and others, all of which are now considered "problematic."
I don't think Matt has changed. The climate these projects operate in, has. To some it's an eggshell walk, to others a game of signaling the right virtues while acting against them in secret, and to some a chance to achieve relevancy or dominance. And for all of them, there's a day of reckoning. 2005s proclivities have no similarities to 2025 dogma, and why should they. Neither did 2005 have any with 1985. Feel old, yet?
Matt's Matt. That Matt was what was needed to kick a floundering piece of software (P2) into the kind of trajectory that helped transform it into the absolute unit of a social and communications portfolio, Automattic is today.
That kind of Matt is a dinosaur in 2025. As were 1985 coders and founders in 2005. Heck, 2005 didn't look too kindly upon 1999 Silicon Valley mindsets.
I guess Matt's "problem" is not, that he has changed. Matt's difficulty is, that he hasn't, and that 2025 is nothing like 2005. And, like DHH or Andreessen or Brendan Eich back in 2014, that can ... hurt. I'm too old to care, but I'd presume today's "golden child" will be a very problematic person in 2045, unless they learn to change or hide behind signals.
Matt, literally (he turned 21 then), came of age in the 2004-2006 Silicon Valley climate of the post-Bubble "Trümmerfrauen" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr%C3%BCmmerfrau) movements that brought us things such as DHH and Rails, Matt and WordPress, Andreessen being himself, and others, all of which are now considered "problematic."
I don't think Matt has changed. The climate these projects operate in, has. To some it's an eggshell walk, to others a game of signaling the right virtues while acting against them in secret, and to some a chance to achieve relevancy or dominance. And for all of them, there's a day of reckoning. 2005s proclivities have no similarities to 2025 dogma, and why should they. Neither did 2005 have any with 1985. Feel old, yet?
Matt's Matt. That Matt was what was needed to kick a floundering piece of software (P2) into the kind of trajectory that helped transform it into the absolute unit of a social and communications portfolio, Automattic is today.
That kind of Matt is a dinosaur in 2025. As were 1985 coders and founders in 2005. Heck, 2005 didn't look too kindly upon 1999 Silicon Valley mindsets.
I guess Matt's "problem" is not, that he has changed. Matt's difficulty is, that he hasn't, and that 2025 is nothing like 2005. And, like DHH or Andreessen or Brendan Eich back in 2014, that can ... hurt. I'm too old to care, but I'd presume today's "golden child" will be a very problematic person in 2045, unless they learn to change or hide behind signals.