Live data from Hacker News

Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

foundersatwork.com

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

#31
post #12

[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 relation…

[deleted]

Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

#35
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relation…

[deleted]

The point I was trying to make is that they take other people's work, and present it to the world in a different form.

Compare 'Founders', to something like Walter Isaacson "Jobs" - both of them had lots of interviews, with transcribing, and edits - but I got a lot more out of 'Founders' (as did everyone I know) than Issacon's book. Issacson supposedly had 100% access with his relationship to Steve Jobs, but I don't know if Issacson didn't know what questions to ask, how to ask them, how to make his subject comfortable, what the important parts were to capture, or (my opinion) - just didn't really care about his subject that much. It was a huge disappointment for me.

Founders is a delight, and I attribute that pretty much 60% to the author, 40% to the interview subjects, and 0% to Paul Graham.

If Livingston had been assigned to write Jobs's Biography it would have blown our minds. And, of course, you would have said it was good because she was related to Paul Graham.

Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

#36
post #26

I 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?

Fixed - thanks!

Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

#37

I 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.

Talking about "luck" in a presentation like this is like talking about the life benefits of physical attractiveness. Precious little of it is in your control, so what's the point? Address what you can control, and hope for the best.

Actually you control luck with determination.

By increasing determination, you decrease the effect luck has on anything you do.

Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

#38
In order to make something people want, being brilliant and determined is not enough. You have to be able to talk to your users and adjust your idea accordingly. Ordinarily you have to change your idea quite a lot even if you start out with a reasonably good one.

-- This is a great point. Even outside of startups.

Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

#39
I love this! It's one of the best pieces of startup advice I've read in a long while; I've sent it to my startup friends. New fave quote: "Determination is really two separate things: resilience and drive. Resilience keeps you from being pushed backwards. Drive moves you forwards".

Re: Jessica Livingston: What Goes Wrong

#40

I 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.

Talking about "luck" in a presentation like this is like talking about the life benefits of physical attractiveness. Precious little of it is in your control, so what's the point? Address what you can control, and hope for the best.

This is an interesting point, at least the initial first premise. The conclusion seems off though. In order to leverage your own assets, you need to be able to size up not only your own strengths and weakenesses, but also those of others. PA, like social status, and others of the same ilk is a real (if not always 'earned' asset). As such, you should never ignore it or be oblivious too it. It falls in a spectrum of intermediary assets -- like connections -- that you just cannot be aloof to. Understanding the odds matters -- This is just "Luck" considered as an proxy for stochastic variation. Understanding the odds is critical to strategy/rational decisionmaking under uncertainty (such as making an NPV>0 wager). There are few examples where the ability to make rational decisions under pervasive uncertainty is more important than in a startup. This (just throwing it out there) might be one reason startups fail. Or it might be one reason that contrubutes to something that was in fact mentioned (founder breakups, having a deal blow up, etc).
Post reply on HN