Live data from Hacker News

Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

gsb.stanford.edu

161–170 of 252 posts

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#161
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only came to HN somewhat recently, around 2 years ago, but I've started to notice a very major change in the culture of this forum lately. There is so much vitriol and blanket insults being levied at anyone and everyone. The linked article is almost always a sideshow, and simply acts as a prelude for the battle in the comments section. A battle which has little to do with what the article itself says, and is simply…

This effect always seems to come with popularity. Once upon a time, Slashdot had some amazingly insightful discussions, leading to a growth in popularity, which led to increased noise. That noise led to increased cynicism and eventually burnout. The same thing has sadly happened to every popular tech news site I know of. The secret is to keep searching for a new place to have high quality discussions. You never know…

I would disagree with HN having "quality discussion". I've honestly never seen dang come down on someone where I agreed with it.

I've seen him moderate people because they're posting too much "anti-this or anti-that". Not because of their behavior, but because he didn't like what they were posting.

And this community is aware that dang will do that, so you watch them flag ideas that absolutely have no reason for being moderated.

To be quite frank, I don't really like HN's community, I mostly lurk for the interesting things that get posted, rather than the discussion that comes afterwards.

HN is about backrubbing discussion, I don't know that I'd call it good or quality discussion. That's not to say you don't see good discussion here or there, but in general? no, absolutely not.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#162
post #26

"Take the ego out of ideas" is sound advice for investors , not entrepreneurs . Ego is a loaded word, but if you define it, in this context, as an irrational belief that you are right and the world will catch up, then it's essential for every entrepreneur. "New ideas" get no support. You're the only support. You have to strongly believe that the world will get there, do whatever it takes to convince them to get there…

You still need to be sharply realistic about your own ideas, though. Blindly charging ahead with the first idea that occurs to you, as an entrepreneur, is probably not going to work no matter how strongly you believe the world will get there. Neither will not charging ahead at all, assuming that because the last 10 ideas failed the next one will too. Many years ago on HN, I think before he even became part of YC, Pau…

Yeah. Entrepreneurs need to know that the average response they get in the stage seed is all about social proof. When you look like a struggling guy saying something crazy, the public is going to treat you that way. You're going to get that all the way up until you look like a rich guy, and then they'll be begging to know what you did to get there and trying to copy it.

This means that public response to the bare idea is never a good barometer, and you have to look to other things for data about whether it's going to be successful enough. This requires rigorous study and brutally honest introspection.

Don't get bent out of shape if people don't understand or respect what you're doing, but don't assume you're invincible or automatically right. Some wanna-be entrepreneurs waste their entire adult lives starting failing business after failing business, assuming that starting a business is the key to success, and that any idea they have is intrinsically valuable. Don't do this.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#163
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emotions are flying high in the comments, because the world (including the virtual one) is changing fast(er) and not in the best direction. There is also great disconnect between the tech billionaires and the real problems in the world. The numbers they base their worldview on are carefully curated and the story is of course that 'things are greater than ever', but the rest of the people (especially outside the US) a…

well, the world is better than it ever has been, but it feels worse. objectively, we all have a higher standard of living, longer life expectancy, and more opportunities for education than generation in (known) human history. what we (as a whole) don't know how to deal with is having access to the internet.

[deleted]

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people would puke of they did a hour of reading email in their car.

Just turn off the windows. Click Voila, no car sickness. ;)

Motion you feel but don't see is the problem. Maybe a translucent display?

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#165
Re: tech creates jobs, Tyler Cowen's Average is Over has an interesting passage about automation:

"Keeping an unmanned Predator drone in the air for twenty-four hours requires about 168 workers laboring in the background. A larger drone, such as the Global Hawk surveillance drone, needs about 300 people...an F-16 fighter aircraft requires fewer than 100 people for a single mission."

It's well known that the industrial revolution created countless new jobs that were unimaginable at the time, a sentiment echoed in The Second Machine Age by Brynjolfsson. But how do you pick the winners that will bring the most jobs? Some say disruptive innovation, but it still seems like an open question.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#166
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because in the United States, we should be working even while we are getting to work, because we don't work enough? No, because if you work-day was originally 8hrs of work + 2hrs of commute, it's now just 6hrs of work + 2hrs of work.

A lot of people would puke of they did a hour of reading email in their car.

You're describing a longstanding fantasy of many heavy Outlook users ...

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a formula for success because "success" doesn't have a firm definition. I would argue that a person that has a happy home life and feels comfortable and sufficiently compensated in their work is a success. There are hundreds of millions such people. This doesn't seem overly complex at all.

>>There isn't a formula for success because "success" doesn't have a firm definition. Yeah, but when someone says "Marc Andreessen is successful" most people are able to deduce the criteria that was used to make that judgment. So while "success" as a whole may not have a firm definition, "be successful like Marc Andreessen" may.

There is no formula for becoming super rich like Marc Andreessen. There is only happenstance. Work plays a role in success and in the attainment of riches, but the only thing that can make another Marc Andreessen is being in the right place at the right time.

It is critical to understand that the super rich are not superhuman, though some may believe they are. They are just lucky. That doesn't mean they aren't entitled to their belongings, but it's bad for everyone to believe that such wealth translates to superiority or to some type of hidden knowledge.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#168
> "Self-driving cars, for example, could potentially put 5 million people involved in transportation jobs out of work....."

On a work day, NYC subway provides 6 million trips. Think of all of the car drivers it is displacing. And then there are the buses! And that is in NYC alone. Just think of all of the drivers mass transit has already displaced throughout the nation!

Then there is intercity transit: think of all of the drivers displaced by planes, trains, and buses!

Self-driving trucks? Trucks have been displaced by trains, barges, container ships, ....

Cars, even electric ones, create air pollution which impacts health as well as greenhouse gas. Electric cars are charged from electric power plants -- most of the US electricity is generated by carbon-based fuels -- coal and gas.

Using Via which transports multiple passengers [part of Manhattan, part of Brooklyn, Chicago, Washington DC] (or Uber pool for example) at least helps to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas compared with single passenger vehicles that at least helps to reduce air pollution / greenhouse gas.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If "most people are simply not going to be economically useful" for what reason, besides an appeal to utopianism, is it a good idea to strain the country's resources in chase of an ideal? Two very practical reasons. A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"? B) For the larger economy to function, there has to be bottom…

> A) People need to buy groceries. What will you do when they're at your door with pitchforks, pissed because you told them to "go eat cake"? It's a good thing I have the police and military under my thumb to quell all uprisings. If I were smart, I would elevate them to the upper class and remove their current class loyalties. But a more practical answer: What's stopping those with (economic resources) from continuin…

> It's a good thing I have the police and military under my thumb to quell all uprisings.

Famous last words!

> If I were smart, I would elevate them to the upper class and remove their current class loyalties.

Until they realize they don't need you, kill you, and take control. See history of the Praetorian Guard. Or KGB.

> Basic income is assumed to mean "just enough income to buy vital products, services, and utilities."

It means a lot of things. Notice I said "expand welfare" because that's a lot easier and clearer than "introduce basic income". Basically financial security is high and will continue to increase, so the question is about solutions to that.

> Commodities don't drive the economy and innovation.

Actually, they kind of do because you have to look at b2b startups and how they really represent most of the interesting companies (and value) being generated by startups these days; if you're innovative and an entrepreneur and all that, odds are high that you might find yourself starting something in the b2b space. You'll be trying to sell to large enterprises that sell stuff like electricity, cell phones, food, etc. Commodities. The commodities that drive the economy.

You know who the biggest ad buyers in the US are? Procter and Gamble. AT&T. Comcast. Verizon. Commodities. And every ad agency is a b2b startup. Not to mention "ad tech".

Enterprise margins/profits are up now because of gains from automation, and they're driving the startup boom (plus an unhealthy amount of free money pumped into the top--instead of bottom which is what I'm proposing). Eventually, that will run out because bottom up consumer demand will drop (and free money will stop). That will cause a crash. Unless measures are introduced to give people money to spend so they can jumpstart the economy from the bottom up.

> Which then, why work? The average joe doesn't care about the same things most HN users do. They'll simply stop producing the labor that serves as the foundation for so many "innovative" and "cool" companies.

You can still get rich with a cool innovative company. But yeah, if you're not doing something interesting, why work? My answer to that is, "You shouldn't, and the cheapest solution to your resulting financial insecurity is for the government to give you money to go buy things."

> Similarly here, crack down on the most obvious, and less intelligent, of the pack and you're just strengthening the sociopath's genome.

Yeah, people have been doing that for generations and are starting to see the problem, therefore looking to the top.

Re: Marc Andreessen: “Take the Ego Out of Ideas”

#170
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These 5 million transportation jobs will not disappear on the same day. It will probably take a decade or so. This has happened many, many times over the 250 years since the Industrial Revolution. Each time, the old jobs have been replaced by newer and better jobs, and each time people have worried about mass unemployment and misery that did not happen.

> Each time, the old jobs have been replaced by newer and better jobs lol This statement is likely to be disputed by residents of huge swaths of the country from Flint Michigan to upstate New York.

There is regional variance, presumably for regional reasons, but on a global scale the last few years have seen more - not less - of new better jobs than ever before.
Post reply on HN