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

Be Relentlessly Resourceful

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 169 posts

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#71

Post by qaexl »

Eliezer wrote: post #3

"Anyone who can muster their willpower for thirty seconds, can make a desperate effort to lift more weight than they usually could. But what if the weight that needs lifting is a truck? Then desperate efforts won't suffice; you'll have to do something out of the ordinary to succeed. You may have to do something that you weren't taught to do in school. Something that others aren't expecting you to do, and might not un…

Hey! Thanks for that!

I just realized, it is easy to get creative when bad stuff happens ... out of sheer desparation. That quote makes me wonder what would happen if I figured out how to do this when bad stuff isn't happening right at the moment.

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#72

Post by nemoniac »

> I think the reason the dictionaries are wrong is that the meaning of the word has shifted. No one writing a dictionary from scratch today would say that hapless meant unlucky. But a couple hundred years ago they might have.

See...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#The_.22euphemism_trea...

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#73

Post by silvershox »

"[2] There are aspects of startups where the recipe is to be actively curious. There can be times when what you're doing is almost pure discovery. Unfortunately these times are a small proportion of the whole. On the other hand, they are in research too."

Paul can you please elaborate on the last sentence in the above footnote. The wording is a bit confusing. Thanks!

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#74

Post by time_management »

I think the key is to avoid a certain set of developed traits that might be called "horsemen of the mediocralypse"-- learned laziness, learned helplessness, deference to authority, and discouraged distraction. I'm sure that many others that could be added to the list.

The world is a very dumb place-- full of social injustices and inefficiencies, and run by the wrong people since the dawn of time. But there are always some people able to succeed in spite of these problems on account of having a very high level of resilience, and thus an innate resistance against the "horsemen".

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#75

Post by Hexstream »

dfranke wrote: post #37
joechung wrote: post #10

Isn't the antonym of hapless opportunistic (without its negative connotation)?

Obviously, the opposite of hapless is hapful.

I sometimes get annoyed at English's lack of symmetry.

  The opposite of...  is not...
  worthless           worthful
  senseless           senseful
  wasteful            wasteless
  handful             handless
  moreover            lessover (moreunder?)

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#77

Post by KayEss »

Hexstream wrote: post #75
dfranke wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously, the opposite of hapless is hapful.

I sometimes get annoyed at English's lack of symmetry. The opposite of... is not... worthless worthful senseless senseful wasteful wasteless handful handless moreover lessover (moreunder?)

flammable/inflammable?

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#78

Post by brlewis »

silvershox wrote: post #73

"[2] There are aspects of startups where the recipe is to be actively curious. There can be times when what you're doing is almost pure discovery. Unfortunately these times are a small proportion of the whole. On the other hand, they are in research too." Paul can you please elaborate on the last sentence in the above footnote. The wording is a bit confusing. Thanks!

I read that as "Times of pure discovery are a small proportion of research too."

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#79

Post by indiejade »

triplefox wrote: post #28

I can bring it down to one word: MacGyver.

Precisely. Being "relentlessly resourceful" essentially boils down to a highly advanced game of Make Vs. Buy. MacGyver would almost invariably always answer "Make!"

PG's article also reminded me of a comment I posted on here awhile go regarding a question somebody asked about "skimping" on certain things:

Assuming that by "skimp on" you mean "spend sparingly on a necessity," I'll preemptively refrain from rambling about what's probably not necessary for a tech startup.

Of course, one of my new hobbies, since making the voyage out here, has been to practice the wonderfully fun and interesting "make vs buy" comparison game. You can, and probably will have many opportunities to play this game as a startup founder. This game involves simply asking yourself and/or your team numerous questions of a basic logistical nature:

A) How much does X cost to make, if I get to (or have to, depending on the day) make it myself? B) How much does X cost to buy? C) What are the costs, inclusive of shipping/assembly, for scenarios A and B? D) Do I have anything that can be improvised or are there any possible substitutes that can serve the ultimate purpose of X (i.e. using a door as a desk) in the mean-time? E) How long can I "live" with the improvised substitute or the idea of an improvised substitute? F) How much of the actual value of X is imagined; that is, how much have my perceptions been influenced by hype or advertising?

Questions E and F can get complicated, as they relate quite a bit back to the original posit about "necessities" and such. Probably I'm too tired to go into them at the moment, so perhaps in the morning.

I therefore recommend being pretty weary of anything involving hidden "lock-in" costs resultant from usurping alternatives; for example, anything involving a contract probably fits into this category.

Regarding brand loyalty. . . remember that there's a big difference between purchasing actual quality and purchasing advertised "quality." When factoring in costs associated with advertising, the make vs. buy comparison game really can take a person full circle.

Original post: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=167896

Re: Be Relentlessly Resourceful

#80

Post by time_management »

ericb wrote: post #65
mrbuwch wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you're saying that these particular founders don't have confidence in their ability to do x and are pleasantly surprised when, after a little push, they achieve it (even if it did turn out to be harder than they thought). From achieving x, they uncover the virgin territory of y. So: is gaining greater confidence in one's ability to achieve stuff part of becoming relentlessly resourceful?

Y Combinator probably makes up the 6% on the confidence boost associated with being selected, alone. Makes it hard to compare unselected/selected companies, I imagine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

Probably much higher. I'd bet that it's 50% at least. Aside from health insurance, one of the biggest hurdles to startup generation is the uncertain career effect. Being YC-funded essentially means that Paul Graham is vouching for your time.

Think about college. Aside from the independently wealthy, no one would dedicate 4 years of life to study, given what would be the career costs of doing so-- an empty resume, a younger boss-- except for the fact that a prestigious institution is willing to sign for the time, making it a career-advancing endeavor. In this case, people are actually willing to pay for it. While there are some glaring inefficiencies in the college model, most would argue that it's a good thing for people to be better educated.

The effect of Y-Combinator is similar. YC is the Harvard of angel investors, and no one who has heard of YC would discredit a founder for time at a YC startup, even if it failed. The result of it is that more people are willing to do startups due to the reduced career risk-- a very good thing.

Post reply on HN