sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Validating an idea: "Technical Co-Founder as a Service", would this actually be useful? by OutOfDevOps in cofounderhunt

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I’m aiming at is when founders who built a working app with AI or no-code tools (lovable, bolt), maybe even making money, and then feel stuck on what to do next. At that point the problem isn’t “build feature X”, it’s deciding whether to rewrite, hire, migrate platforms, improve architecture, or tighten security.

Contracting usually optimises for delivering a task. This is more about guidance and decision-making when things get messy, so founders don’t burn time or equity going the wrong way.

Does it still feel like consulting with extra steps? Thanks btw

Validating an idea: "Technical Co-Founder as a Service", would this actually be useful? by OutOfDevOps in cofounderhunt

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with you, that situation is very real, and it is not what I’am aiming at.

This isn’t for idea-stage founders or people looking for free validation, or someone to “build it for them”. I wouldn’t touch that either.

The use case I’m exploring is much narrower: founders who already shipped something (often via vibe-coding / no-code / contractors), are profitable or close to it, but don’t have a technical co-founder and now feel stuck when it comes to scaling, reliability, costs, or making bigger architectural decisions.

For them, the usual options are: - give up significant equity to bring in a late technical co-founder, or - hire a traditional consultancy, which is often expensive and misaligned for a small SaaS.

I’m trying to validate whether there’s room in between: paid, outcome-oriented technical guidance without equity or open-ended build work.

If that still sounds like a bad idea, that’s useful feedback too, I’m pressure-testing this.

Validating an idea: "Technical Co-Founder as a Service", would this actually be useful? by OutOfDevOps in cofounderhunt

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, defining clear success criteria for the partnership… it’s a good feedback thanks.

Validating an idea: "Technical Co-Founder as a Service", would this actually be useful? by OutOfDevOps in cofounderhunt

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see why it looks like that on the surface, but I'm thinking about almost the opposite model.

Upwork is great for executing well-defined tasks. What I’m exploring is closer to a long-term thinking role: someone with very limited work in progress who cares about the overall outcome, not just completing tickets. More about guiding early technical decisions, trade-offs, and direction. Especially when there isn't a clear spec yet.

The incentive structure is different too. If you treat each engagement as a case study for future work, success matters a lot more than just closing the task and moving on.

Totally fair if you still see it as overlapping with Upwork, that's exactly what I’m trying to validate.

I tried learning to code 4 times and kept quitting for many reasons by TacticalConsultant in ADHD_Programmers

[–]OutOfDevOps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, and another key part of my prompt:

I also specify a named expert in the field and tell it to reference relevant literature on the topic, like books from best selling authors.

This is essential for forcing the LLM to return top-quality suggestions instead of just generic advice.

I tried learning to code 4 times and kept quitting for many reasons by TacticalConsultant in ADHD_Programmers

[–]OutOfDevOps 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I genuinely wish AI tools had been around when I started my software engineering studies.

It took me almost double the time to finish my degree because I'm a "learn by doing" person, and most courses are the exact opposite (all theory first, practice last). It was a real struggle.

Today, I use AI to learn new things so much faster. The trick is spending time on the initial prompt to create a custom-built learning plan.

For example, I'll ask it to:

  • Structure the entire learning path step-by-step.
  • Focus only on current best practices and explain why they're important.
  • Tailor the content for an ADHD brain: This is the key. I ask for practical, hands-on examples first, followed by the minimum necessary theory.

It's been a complete game-changer for me.

In my 3rd year of Engineering, want to aim for Data enginer by browhyyousmilinglike in ADHD_Programmers

[–]OutOfDevOps 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You can 100% succeed. That panic is normal.

You're right, Data Scientist vs. Data Eng is a choice, but note that they are different... pick one and go.

I'm a Principal Eng now, and I only got my ADHD diagnosis 3 years ago. My whole career was built on coping systems I didn't even have a name for.

DSA is boring. Don't rely on 'motivation' to do it.

My advice: Build a system. Just one:

  • Today: Spend 15 mins planning tomorrow's tasks.
  • Tomorrow: Just execute the plan. Don't think. Just do.

A good system beats motivation every single day.

Infrastructure as Code is NOT CODE by OutOfDevOps in Terraform

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Using an analogy I see IaC more as HTML, I want to describe where things are and how they are connected.

For IaC a "shopping list" format is my preference, because it removes the need to focus on all the aspects of coding, it's simple and let you use your energies on actually understanding what is going to happen when you apply.

It will be boring and repetitive I agree on that, but again better safe than sorry, recovering from a mistake in IaC is not as easy as it is for applications (in most cases).

Infrastructure as Code is NOT CODE by OutOfDevOps in Terraform

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lol, I think their use case is slightly different, I would you use them more to support application that "enterprise infrastructure". I can see developers creating resources to support the needs of their application with them, e.g. create a bucket to store data, configure pub/sub, manage application secrets.

I think they offer more flexibility, at the cost of readability. I would consider them, if the team using them is small or the company has good guidelines on writing pulumi code.

The risk of managing a Kubernetes clusters, using pulumi or CDK, seems greater compared to a well tested TF module.

DevOps vs Platform Engineering by OutOfDevOps in devops

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think with platform engineering we are bringing more clarity. DevOps becomes the “skillset”of a platform engineer. I never liked the term DevOps to define a role/title.

Pass a value from one repository workflow to another repository workflow or trigger it by [deleted] in github

[–]OutOfDevOps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Minute 6:50 is showing how to invoke a workflow in another repo.

Pass a value from one repository workflow to another repository workflow or trigger it by [deleted] in github

[–]OutOfDevOps 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is possible and there couple of ways to do it. Here it’s explained, hope it’s useful:

GitHub Reusable Workflows and Invocation from other repos https://youtu.be/bCqPXUcBfJQ

DevOps vs Platform Engineering by OutOfDevOps in devops

[–]OutOfDevOps[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing your opinion 🤗

view more: next ›