This is one of the best articles I have read in a while. Obviously you see a lot over 7 years/ 500 startups.
Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
21–30 of 98 posts
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#22This is excellent -- and very much in the spirit of Charlie Munger's often-repeated saying: "All I want to know is where I'm going to die, so I'll never go there."[1]
--
[1] http://www.pbs.org/wsw/news/fortunearticle_20031026_03.html
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#23[deleted]
It's true, verifiable, basically uninteresting, and unusually rude.
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#24I saw this talk at Startup School. Honestly, as someone working in industry who tried doing a startup during school, there's a huge thing missing. CMD+F for "luck" = 0 results. Luck is a huge factor and sometimes you just need to move on to either something new, or working for a company to fill in the gaps, and trying again soon.
"Luck" is showing up consistently so that you're present whenever opportunity decides to show up. Thus, you make your luck. And I believe this is where the resilience mentioned in the essay comes in; to ensure you always show up.
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#25[deleted]
From the grandparent post:
> Her book is truly excellent. And in previous articles I've seen Paul say that the #1 thing that they want in a founder is determination, and the person that they rely on to spot it during the interview is Jessica.
So which part of that are you trying to contradict?
The way I read it, your description of her book supports the grandparent's claim. If you are able to create a collection of wonderful interviews, what's the common denominator there?
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#26I know this is a minor issue. But when I publish something I want people to inform me of problems. Please note that I don't mean to be disrespectful and just want to help. So here goes:
3rd sentence: "There's a talk I've always want to give at the beginning of each batch...". I think this should be either "I've always wanted to..." or "I always want to..." right?
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#27[deleted]
"Let's be serious here - Founders at Work was a list of wonderful interviews with startup founders and its creation was tied directly to her personal relationship with pg.
Sigh To all downvoters - indicate why this is a) demonstrably wrong or b) demonstrably unfair. It is both true and verifiable - don't just downvote me because this disagrees with your world view."
It is ridiculously rude because it implies that she could not possibly be a YC cofounder based on her professional skills and that her book was not a product of any work/insight, just a side benefit of her personal relationship with PG.
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#28[deleted]
"Let's be serious here - Founders at Work was a list of wonderful interviews with startup founders and its creation was tied directly to her personal relationship with pg. Sigh To all downvoters - indicate why this is a) demonstrably wrong or b) demonstrably unfair. It is both true and verifiable - don't just downvote me because this disagrees with your world view." It is ridiculously rude because it implies that she…
[deleted]
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#29[deleted]
I don't mean to be impolite, but do you honestly not know that "Founders" is one of (if not THE) seminal work on the culture of startups and their founders?
I guarantee you cannot name three books that have done a better job capturing this topic, because they don't exist.
Claiming that Livingston's relationship with YCombinator/Graham is the reason why the book is so wonderful, is like claiming David Pogues relationship with the NYT is why he's such a popular tech reviewer, or Manohla Dargis is such an amazing movie reviewer
It misses the point of both their contribution, and talent and is frankly, quite rude.
Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong
#30[deleted]
"Let's be serious here - Founders at Work was a list of wonderful interviews with startup founders and its creation was tied directly to her personal relationship with pg. Sigh To all downvoters - indicate why this is a) demonstrably wrong or b) demonstrably unfair. It is both true and verifiable - don't just downvote me because this disagrees with your world view." It is ridiculously rude because it implies that she…
I don't think he implies that. Those two things are not contradictory. She could be an outstanding professional AND be there because of her connection. There is nothing wrong with that. It happens all the time, everywhere.