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

If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

99d.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#91

Post by ncmncm »

diplodocus1 wrote: post #79
ncmncm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Letting them start over on something completely different is indulging sunk-cost fallacy. People were hired on the strength of being able to build X. If they are not who you would have picked to build Y, then getting them building Y anyway means you start out with a broken leg.

that's not really sunk cost fallacy? sunk cost fallacy in that case would be not pivoting when it's the best move looking forward, because you already spent so much time building and hiring for x (i.e. the sunk cost, which if not falling into the fallacy you should be ignoring for that decision)

You spent a potful of money, and got nothing. You can give the same people another potful of money, or give it to somebody else who demonstrates actually delivering something of value. Only sunk-cost fallacy says to give the former, exactly, another potful. They should get back in line with everybody else.

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#93

Post by colordrops »

I've got 1/3 stake in a company I left over ten years ago. The co-founder still hasn't given up, even though the company still hasn't turned a profit. I think he might be from a wealthy family and is just keeping it going to feel good about himself. Or he's a member of a three letter agency and using the company for intelligence gathering (it's based in a country at odds with the US). Very strange.

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#94

Post by SiempreViernes »

ineedasername wrote: post #56
anonymouse008 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you do differently? How do you know now that you were wasting your time? These moments make you more powerful than ever to be able to articulate why those precious (auto corrected but worked) times were not the myths you heard.

I think a lot more people persevere past the point of salvation than persevere against long odds and succeed. There's no clear cut answer to determining 100% of the time, in the moment, if failure is a foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean you should stick it out until the bitter end. Since most startups fail anyway, if you're already near failure mode then the bias should be in needing an extremely compelling r…

> I think a lot more people persevere past the point of salvation than persevere against long odds and succeed

One would hope so, that's the definition of long odds!

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#95

Post by fragbait65 »

nlh wrote: post #32

A great quote sticks in my mind, shared with me by a founder who was going through hard times with his startup. The company was going through a bad spot, and one of his investors suggested just giving up and returning the existing capital to the investors. An advisor then said: "It's not their money anymore. Don't you dare give up." He didn't, he persevered, and the company had a fine outcome years later. I would not…

I've been a technical advisor for several startups, I'd say that overall this advice is wrong.

Most startups stay in it way longer than they should.

I'm happy that things worked out in your example, but they generally don't. Mostly because founders reason with their feelings instead of applying logic, statistics and probabilities of success.

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#96

Post by ncmncm »

hinkley wrote: post #58
ncmncm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not weird. He is the world's biggest grifter. Precisely, a great deal more of what he says is a lie than is true, and he has profited more from his grift than anybody except (maybe!) Putin. Pedo Guy. Hyperloop. Full Self-driving. Electric truck-tractor. Cybertruck. Sub-orbital passenger service. Sub-orbital freight. One-day turnaround. Mars Colonization. (To be clear: Starship, even 1000 of them, is totally ina…

I used to work with an ex paypal employee who carried around a block of salt for Elon Musk. I never did get the full story. You could see the hate-lines coming off of the guy any time you accidentally mentioned the two in the same sentence. On the Starship front, I don't doubt that he's moved the needle, but I think people are also glossing over that whole, "Send up multiple ships, have them all transfer fuel to anot…

More than 3. I am seeing 10.

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#97

Post by zivkovicp »

onion2k wrote: post #84
user3939382 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I burnt years of my life following advice like this when I was young and didn’t know better. If your formula is sufficiently wrong, which is the rule not the exception, you can’t make up for it with perseverance. There’s a selection bias in these stories you hear. Stories about people who gave it their all and failed aren’t popular.

If your formula is sufficiently wrong, which is the rule not the exception, you can’t make up for it with perseverance. You can make up for it by examining your formula and experimenting with changes to it though, even when something is hugely wrong. Persevering with the same thing when it doesn't work is stupid; understanding that and trying to fix it is not. It's what startups call pivoting. You might still fail if…

This is good life advice also, the key is self-examination and having the open mindedness to see and act on errors.

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#98

Post by nc »

This has to be the worst advice I've seen on HN since 2008.

It assumes if idea #1 doesn't work out quitting is the best way to go. The reality is once you have even a small team of co-founders or a slightly larger one together you have a group of people who have _hopefully_ learned to work with each other well and can move unencumbered to explore and test a variety of ideas, develop insights and ultimately increase their odds of success. Sure, it's not guaranteed to work, but it's probably better than the next best alternative.

And oh, good luck just shutting down and re-rolling into a new company with investors and employees.

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#99

Post by ncmncm »

skybrian wrote: post #35
ncmncm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Letting them start over on something completely different is indulging sunk-cost fallacy. People were hired on the strength of being able to build X. If they are not who you would have picked to build Y, then getting them building Y anyway means you start out with a broken leg.

On the other hand, if the team works well together, maybe they would actually be good at building something different? It seems like this will vary significantly depending on the team and the new plan. How valuable is it, really, to keep this team together?

As investors, we have no more knowledge of how well the team works together than that they failed to build what the market wanted. That is their only track record as a team.

Re: If it isn't going to work, just shut it down

#100

Post by ncmncm »

brazzy wrote: post #42
ncmncm wrote: post #24

Yes: e.g., Energy Vault (NRGV, $2B+) absolutely cannot work, and should be shut down immediately. Maybe give back whatever of the pigeons^Winvestors' money is left? Somebody should sue the founders for fraud. The crane thing was actively stupid, and very obviously could not ever have worked. An investor who bothered to consult literally any mechanical engineer would have run a mile. Lots did, of course. But somebody…

Can you give a quick rundown why "the crane thing" could not ever have worked, and what exactly it was, separate from the "condominium for concrete blocks", which seems to be what is described in the Wikipedia article, but also uses cranes? As a non-mechanical engineer, it's not obvious to me.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGGOjD_OtAM
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIhCuzxNvv0
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxGQgAr4OCo
Softbank invested. What else do you need to know?

By contrast, this is not stupid:

  https://gravitricity.com/going-underground-why-gravitricity-energy-storage-makes-sense/
They might still not execute well, but the idea is sound. What is different? They use a single weight, up to thousands of tons. It is suspended in a disused mineshaft, up to a kilometer deep, protected from weather. The one weight just goes up and down, i.e. it has just two moving parts, the weight and the winch. Winches are extra-mature technology.

They are talking about sealing the shaft and compressing hydrogen into it. And, maybe storing heat there, besides. Both ideas are also simple, but they don't have to work for the product to be viable; if they do work, they add value. My impression is they added those so their solution could seem more "innovative": the weight in the shaft, by itself, is a sure thing, so probably missed out on some long-shot seed subsidies. Funding in the energy sector is not well aligned.

They will probably need to figure ways to get their cost lower. Batteries are approaching $200/MWh, with people expecting that to hit $100. Certain chemistries ("Form") are quoting $20, but are probably over-optimistic. 50 years operation with no degradation could beat a nominally cheaper system that needs the expensive part replaced regularly.

Post reply on HN