Live data from Hacker News

The Cult of 'Killing It'

459pm.com

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: The Cult of 'Killing It'

#11
I particularly liked the juxtaposition of these three sentences:

>Instead, I think it’s much more likely that you’ll become disconnected from your support network, burnt out from exhaustion and frustration, unable to inspire your best employees, and ultimately fail. Kinda like I did. :) Even now, when I look for company’s to invest in...

Is this the kind of failure one experiences when losing at a board game?

Re: The Cult of 'Killing It'

#12

I've stopped talking about "Work-life balance" and started speaking almost exclusively to my employees and peers in terms of "sustainability." I've found that work-life balance carries negative connotations and speaks to an end, not a means. I'm glad to see the terminology shared elsewhere. Completely agree with this article; especially on the point about a small-startup being unable to "out-work" a larger company.

Sustainability sounds better to me personally. I think we all have our own tolerance levels when it comes to how many hours we can dedicate to "work" vs. "life" and still be happy. That term seems a bit more appropriate than the common "work/life balance".

Re: The Cult of 'Killing It'

#13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In scale of awesomeness, 99.9% of silicon valley is closer to "Goldman Sachs" than "The Apollo Project" (if not below both). If a Goldman Sachs analyst spends his Christmas eve looking at charts, claiming he's furthering the wealth of mankind, you'd probably laugh.

It is not true that 99.9% of Silicon Valley is not furthering the wealth of mankind. Making products that are useful to people, in fact, does further the wealth of mankind.

Sure, just like the Goldman Sachs analyst does generate liquidity.

Ok, ok, cheap shot. But come on, here: the average product created by a Silicon Valley startup barely reaches the threshold you've set (usefulness), never mind the more widely agreed upon definition of "furthering the wealth of mankind" (contributing to a substantial improvement in the human condition or knowledge).

Re: The Cult of 'Killing It'

#14
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not true that 99.9% of Silicon Valley is not furthering the wealth of mankind. Making products that are useful to people, in fact, does further the wealth of mankind.

Sure, just like the Goldman Sachs analyst does generate liquidity. Ok, ok, cheap shot. But come on, here: the average product created by a Silicon Valley startup barely reaches the threshold you've set (usefulness), never mind the more widely agreed upon definition of "furthering the wealth of mankind" (contributing to a substantial improvement in the human condition or knowledge).

Okay, but even if 50% or more of startups don't actually succeed in being useful to people, by failing, they still aren't trying to be whatever you deem Goldman Sachs to be -- they are (many of them are) attempting to make something useful.

(I also think Goldman Sachs does useful things too, like buying commodities when they're cheap so that they can sell them when they're not cheap, an act which, if Goldman makes money off the trades, causes certain units of that commodity to be more used more efficiently.)

Post reply on HN