Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What We Look for in Founders

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 188 posts

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#61

Post by noverloop »

mrchess wrote: post #4

Wish I knew about the emphasis about hacking a system question and I would have elaborated on my application.... Although it is a difficult question to put emphasis on IMO because it also makes you in a way "reveal" your bad morals... which I am sure many people don't feel comfortable doing. Why would you ever want to openly admit you beat ie. cheated a system be it government, academic, or private? Not to imply that…

'Systems' is a very broad term. Every group of people that consistently does something has a system for it. while in programming a system is denoted by strict rules, in human interaction it's based on incentives (including social incentives). So, you can get somebody to do something if it strokes with his incentive or you can try to subvert the incentives.

It's not by definition an immoral thing to do. e.g. a real-estate broker wants to sell a house as quickly as possible, so they tend to sell houses slightly below market-value and then convince you it's the best you'll get. you can rig this incentive in your favor by telling the broker you've contacted two brokers and will accept the highest bid.

I actually applied this one recently as my sister was looking for a renter and had contacted only 1 broker. I convinced her to get a second opinion and she got a way better offer.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#63

Post by Jun8 »

bobf wrote: post #47
araneae wrote: post #6

I have a pretty good friend on here that has The Best answer to the "hacked" question, and I would never, ever be co-founders with him because he's impossible. There's often a trade-off between "naughtiness" and "friendship."

I thought pg's comment on "naughtiness" was interesting, as I was tempted to use a shorter version of the story I'll relate below in response to the "hacked" question, as it was a very recent experience. I ultimately shied away from using it as my answer, as I thought it might be a little socially unacceptable ("naughty"). At Startup School, there was a line of several hundred people waiting for lunch, which consiste…

See, I think that's an example of the "bad hack" because it has the potential of damaging people, e.g. what if I was standing in that line for 15mins ahead of you and because you took that box of pizza, just when my turn comes the pizza runs out (you think it's unlikely? Then you haven't been to the wild world of college-student-after-event-pizza-eating).

My definition of a hack is to add value to the an existing system by modifying a property, not changing a zero-sum situation in your favor. for example, in your case, the number of pizzas are fixed, so it's a zero-sum situation. A better hack I usually propose in situations like this is to use both sides of the table, simple but generally people tend to pick pizza from one side only.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#64

Post by tomjen3 »

pg wrote: post #57
robg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a meaningful difference between friends who decide to do a startup together versus folks who decide to do a startup together and then become friends? The highest profile successes seem to be more an instance of the latter, but then success seems to help smooth any differences of opinion.

Yes, because in most startups there's a point where things seem hopeless. At that point the startup itself has no power to hold you together, because its expected value is (or appears to be) zero. You need a strong friendship to keep you together. E.g. I know for sure there were lots of times when Rtm thought Viaweb was never going to amount to anything, and only worked on it because I asked him to.

There would seem to be a huge hack around that - I work with a guy who gets _really_ obsessive about stuff, so much so that he forgets to eat, etc.

Maybe you should focus on getting more people who are turned on by an idea, rather than because their friends might get burned.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#65

Post by ig1 »

bradly wrote: post #14

Definitely finding a co-founder has been the hardest part for me. Not living in the valley currently, you don't have as big of a pool to find people. Also, the type of person that makes a great co-founder(smart, determined, etc.) usually have good things going on already. The people that I talked to that would have been great to work with were all doing great work currently and couldn't commit. It would be really awe…

Launch48 & StartupWeekend are good for that sort of thing.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#66

Post by davidw »

bradly wrote: post #14

Definitely finding a co-founder has been the hardest part for me. Not living in the valley currently, you don't have as big of a pool to find people. Also, the type of person that makes a great co-founder(smart, determined, etc.) usually have good things going on already. The people that I talked to that would have been great to work with were all doing great work currently and couldn't commit. It would be really awe…

> It would be really awesome if YC put on some type of match-making event for single founders to find co-founders in person. Like a speed dating event for startups.

I wish PG would write something definitive about this.

The people he talks about have often known one another for years. So if you find someone now that you do not know, and have never worked with, it will take you several years, at best to develop a more "long term" relationship. That's great if you're planning on applying to YC in a few years, but comes across in some ways as "trying to find a warm body" if you're applying now.

Granted, there are some people who get married after a few weeks of dating, and of those, it does work out for some of them, but it's a relatively small percentage.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#67

Post by slantyyz »

raganwald wrote: post #11
maxklein wrote: post #7

I bet 80% of people reading that list are thinking: This describes me perfectly.

I was about to post how this list makes me question leaving BigCo. I must be in the 20%, I don't think I have any of these qualities, and behold, my bank account tells me that none of my ventures have succeeded.

But you're pretty well known (at least in some programming circles in Canada) and you've been involved in some pretty successful ventures. That should count for something.

--edit by ventures, i mean senior roles in other people's ventures

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#68

Post by robg »

pg wrote: post #57
robg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a meaningful difference between friends who decide to do a startup together versus folks who decide to do a startup together and then become friends? The highest profile successes seem to be more an instance of the latter, but then success seems to help smooth any differences of opinion.

Yes, because in most startups there's a point where things seem hopeless. At that point the startup itself has no power to hold you together, because its expected value is (or appears to be) zero. You need a strong friendship to keep you together. E.g. I know for sure there were lots of times when Rtm thought Viaweb was never going to amount to anything, and only worked on it because I asked him to.

Were Woz and Jobs "friends"? Don't Page and Brin claim explicitly they weren't? It seems more like the shared purpose brought those pairs closer together than where they started or where they would have ended up had they never worked together.

That example of Viaweb helps clarify the distinction I'm thinking of. You guys were friends and so worked together despite differing convictions. But what of people who share a common purpose and in so doing become friends? Is there room in your model for that instance of the concept?

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#69

Post by jacoblyles »

bobf wrote: post #47
araneae wrote: post #6

I have a pretty good friend on here that has The Best answer to the "hacked" question, and I would never, ever be co-founders with him because he's impossible. There's often a trade-off between "naughtiness" and "friendship."

I thought pg's comment on "naughtiness" was interesting, as I was tempted to use a shorter version of the story I'll relate below in response to the "hacked" question, as it was a very recent experience. I ultimately shied away from using it as my answer, as I thought it might be a little socially unacceptable ("naughty"). At Startup School, there was a line of several hundred people waiting for lunch, which consiste…

Decentralized pizza distribution is definitely more efficient.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#70

Post by bradly »

portman wrote: post #38
bradly wrote: post #14

Definitely finding a co-founder has been the hardest part for me. Not living in the valley currently, you don't have as big of a pool to find people. Also, the type of person that makes a great co-founder(smart, determined, etc.) usually have good things going on already. The people that I talked to that would have been great to work with were all doing great work currently and couldn't commit. It would be really awe…

It sounds like you're trying to find a cofounder amongst people you don't currently know . I'm not aware of any examples of successful cofounders who hadn't previously worked together. What about your current colleagues? Long lost friends from university? Neighbors?

I have been talking to people I know, but maybe I need to broaden my search a bit. I think I have been afraid of choosing the wrong co-founder and maybe I have been to selective. PG talks about how important it is for the co-founders to be able to work well together, so I been careful to make sure the people I ask are going to be solid.
Post reply on HN