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

A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

tonykulesa.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 131 posts

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#81

Post by sonicshadow »

xigency wrote: post #58
sonicshadow wrote: post #7

> If Bell Labs’ scientists invented the transistor, the laser, Unix, information theory, etc, then YC’s “economic research scientists” invented OpenAI, Stripe, AirBnB, Instacart, Doordash, Dropbox, Reddit, and many more. Interesting, comparing core scientific research and output by Bell Labs to just techi-ifying existing industries and not really adding much new value (other than OpenAI).

Actually seems like a prescient comparison to me. Relevant here is ‘economic research’ which is developing new methods in business, not technology. If YC isn’t a function which transforms startups, then at least it’s a transistor which amplifies VC capital.

Economists do ecomomic research. The founders of Stripe, Airbnb, etc are not researchers, just unrepentant opportunists.

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#82

Post by gonzo41 »

tehsauce wrote: post #69

> If Bell Labs’ scientists invented the transistor, the laser, Unix, information theory, etc, then YC’s “economic research scientists” invented Stripe, AirBnB, Instacart, Doordash, Dropbox, Reddit… This comparison made me chuckle. It seems to highlight how yc is different from an organization focused on scientific research rather than how it is similar.

It's important to learn the history of Jack Welch at GE. His choices echo through most modern society at the moment.

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#83

Post by disqard »

mattlondon wrote: post #37
fragmede wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But by that argument, we'd no doubt still have transistors if the transistor hadn't been invented. The traitorous eight, Julius Blank, Victor Grinich, Jean Hoerni, Eugene Kleiner, Jay Last, Gordon Moore, Robert Noyce, and Sheldon Roberts shaped our world in a way that no one else could. Same with Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. We'd no doubt still have computers, and smartphones, but the landscape would be much different…

The point I was trying to make is that just ordering take out food on a computer or storing files on a computer on the network or sharing URLs and comments on a public website are not ground breaking ideas - these are trivial ideas that I am sure anyone here could have come up with. But the transistor? Or the laser? Are these things that were thought up by the layman independently on a regular basis? (i.e. like the i…

Thank you for calling this out!

I think the cult of pg is strong on this website, but it's important to strive for a bigger perspective.

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#84

Post by projektfu »

raincole wrote: post #61
sonicshadow wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until I joined HN I wasn't aware that all these tech companies deserve the same rareified air as core scientific research. The real world barely thinks about Airbnb and how it's "revolutionized the world for a narrow slice of remote tech workers that want to rent a house in Mexico for a month".

If anything "the real world" (read: average people) don't care about core scientific research either. Maybe when they or their parents get ill they care about medical research, but that's all. Try to pick any Nobel physics nominees in past 50 years and explain why their work is important to average people.

It's an easy task because many of the prizes are given well after the discovery and so many are for things everyone recognizes.

For example, Bohr was recognized in 1975.

Some prizes for more recent discoveries:

2014: Blue LED 2009: fiber optics and they blue lcd.

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#85

Post by adrianN »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #80
boondoggle16 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone has 100k to drop on a startup annually, I'm sorry, but they are totally out of touch with normal people. That is not normal.

That depends on what you mean by "having it to drop" . That's less than a median income in San Francisco. If you put 100% of your income into a startup, are you out of touch or do you just have skin in the game? I don't think it's particularly in touch to dismiss someone who works 50 hours a week to make an income and then Works another 50 hours a week on a startup that spends that income

Nobody works 100 hours a week.

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#86

Post by anileated »

adrianN wrote: post #85
s1artibartfast wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on what you mean by "having it to drop" . That's less than a median income in San Francisco. If you put 100% of your income into a startup, are you out of touch or do you just have skin in the game? I don't think it's particularly in touch to dismiss someone who works 50 hours a week to make an income and then Works another 50 hours a week on a startup that spends that income

Nobody works 100 hours a week.

Probably not for long anyway, or they are in a tiny minority…

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#87

Post by anileated »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #80
boondoggle16 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone has 100k to drop on a startup annually, I'm sorry, but they are totally out of touch with normal people. That is not normal.

That depends on what you mean by "having it to drop" . That's less than a median income in San Francisco. If you put 100% of your income into a startup, are you out of touch or do you just have skin in the game? I don't think it's particularly in touch to dismiss someone who works 50 hours a week to make an income and then Works another 50 hours a week on a startup that spends that income

If you put 100% of income—remaining after paying life costs (how much is that? I hope you do not rent!)—into work, it means you: do not travel, do not go to any events that cost money, do not dine out much, do not have any other hobbies that cost money (sports? music? photography? LEGO? DIY?), do not date, do not need to support a family, do not have emergencies for which you pay out of pocket, etc.

Are there people who just do not need any of those things? Maybe, but I would question it. (Too often what you think you need could be different from what you actually need.) Personally, even as someone who enjoys software engineering and would do it as a hobby, I think I would be quite miserable.

Here is what I think is reasonable: Someone would have an idea that is attractive for YC et al., raise money, and be able to comfortably afford all those things while working on a company. That is, I think, the promise of the leading quote in TFA. Unfortunately, the quote is phrased as if they are out there to help people start companies, while in reality it is about starting businesses with specific potential for explosive growth that are attractive to VC.

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#88

Post by s1artibartfast »

adrianN wrote: post #85
s1artibartfast wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on what you mean by "having it to drop" . That's less than a median income in San Francisco. If you put 100% of your income into a startup, are you out of touch or do you just have skin in the game? I don't think it's particularly in touch to dismiss someone who works 50 hours a week to make an income and then Works another 50 hours a week on a startup that spends that income

Nobody works 100 hours a week.

I agree it's not very sustainable, at least for your typical person in Western Society, but it's not unheard of either.

I've worked hundred hour weeks and also supervised crews of Hispanic Americans that will work 100 hour weeks.

On the other end of the spectrum, I've known m&a lawyers that do the same to close deals at the end of the fiscal year.

100 hour week is roughly 14 hour days with no weekend break. 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. is pretty common for agricultural work during harvest season for big cash crops. You start while it's dark and you end while it's dark.

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#89

Post by anileated »

timewasterthrow wrote: post #63
anileated wrote: post #5

I want to start a company, but will not. The main reason why the existence of YC does not change this is because I know my idea, even if I go all in, does not promise explosive growth on par with Airbnbs of this world, and therefore is not attractive to investment. It does have the potential to eventually become a lifestyle business, though, which would be good enough for me. Unfortunately, I guess it will have to wa…

I have used this excuse in one way or another for 15 years, over several iterations. I made great money in sales, so was able to step away every few years to tackle the great startup lifestyle businesses I have. The #1 rule I have now, and advice I have for you is, if your idea does not pull at you so strongly to work on it on whatever 'spare time' you have (aka, time you make for it by ignoring other non main job re…

I think it is a fair point. Imagine quitting your job, assuming it is an OK job, and finding you have to do something you dislike in order to survive…

Re: A relatively small amount of force applied at just the right place

#90

Post by s1artibartfast »

anileated wrote: post #87
s1artibartfast wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on what you mean by "having it to drop" . That's less than a median income in San Francisco. If you put 100% of your income into a startup, are you out of touch or do you just have skin in the game? I don't think it's particularly in touch to dismiss someone who works 50 hours a week to make an income and then Works another 50 hours a week on a startup that spends that income

If you put 100% of income—remaining after paying life costs (how much is that? I hope you do not rent!)—into work, it means you: do not travel, do not go to any events that cost money, do not dine out much, do not have any other hobbies that cost money (sports? music? photography? LEGO? DIY?), do not date, do not need to support a family, do not have emergencies for which you pay out of pocket, etc. Are there people…

I agree that there is a market for both, your do or die founder and your comfort focused founder with a good idea. the markets are just different and unequal.

They are out there to help people start companies, just not all people and ideas in equal measure.

Post reply on HN