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

Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 98 posts

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#41

Post by enraged_camel »

ignoramous wrote: post #13

The interview is excellent, and has great nuggets of wisdom. The one that particularly stood out was-- "People always say you should live every day as though it's your last. I sort of have taken the opposite tack, where I think you should live every day as though it's going to go on forever. You should treat people like you're going to see them again in the future. You should start working on projects that may take a…

>> I find it ironic that he brings up example of Google and the monopoly it holds over the market... but wasn't Google entering the search market as a competition to multiple other internet firms before they leap-frogged them with all the talent they gobbled up from DEC?

Google was Page and Brin's research project. Search engines at the time ranked websites based on a simple method of counting how many times a search term appeared on the site. Google's method, PageRank, was technologically superior and helped them differentiate themselves from the competition in a major way.

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#42

Post by cma »

michaelochurch wrote: post #20
skrebbel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with that? IMO wanting to be an entrepreneur is one of the best reasons to start a company :)

Most of these people (not all of whom are MBAs) just want to be bosses, not entrepreneurs. Their goal is to be executives ("big picture guys") shouting orders, not worker bees, but they don't have the social resources to make it happen in an existing company so they drum up some seed funding and hire some engineers (usually, scraping the bottom) and try to kick something together. It doesn't work very often. "I want…

"linear combination of pre-existing socioeconomic resources and inflated self-image"

What do you mean here by linear combination? If you wrote the same thing and said nonlinear combination would we have come away with a different interpretation? Is this just injecting random math terms to raise the status and credibility of the speaker?

It's a problem I see in a certain non-MBA culture (and am guilty of myself all the time too).

Or maybe I'm just missing something about what you meant.

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#43

Post by formulaT »

gaius wrote: post #36
kens wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Try to hire people you could become friends with" seems like a really bad idea from the discrimination point of view, since people are most likely to view someone of the same race, age, and gender as a potential friend.

Regardless of gender or ethnicity, if everyone you hire is a 20-something graduate of the same top-10 CS programmes what you get is... Google+ (or Wave or Buzz...) Diversity means you don't get trapped in an echo chamber.

or maybe it means you get Gmail, Google Web Search, Google Apps, Android and Chrome.

Seems like you are using very selective evidence there, or selectively attributing only unsuccessful products to lack of diversity.

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#44

Post by lukasm »

jroseattle wrote: post #21

Something I found very interesting was Peter's comment: "You try to hire people you could become friends with." I contrast this with Zuckerberg's approach to only hiring people that he would work for ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2015/03... ). It's probably not fair to put these side-by-side due to context, but Peter's approach resonates with me now. Here's how I reconcile this: Peter's "frie…

If you combine those two you have PG's advice: "Learn a lot about things that matter, then work on problems that interest you with people you like and respect."

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#45

Post by ryandrake »

dataker wrote: post #12
skrebbel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with that? IMO wanting to be an entrepreneur is one of the best reasons to start a company :)

The problem comes when MBAs, generally without technical background, build companies without real value and expand an already existing bubble.

What about MBAs WITH technical backgrounds? Are they allowed to build companies?

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#46

Post by S4M »

cma wrote: post #42
michaelochurch wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these people (not all of whom are MBAs) just want to be bosses, not entrepreneurs. Their goal is to be executives ("big picture guys") shouting orders, not worker bees, but they don't have the social resources to make it happen in an existing company so they drum up some seed funding and hire some engineers (usually, scraping the bottom) and try to kick something together. It doesn't work very often. "I want…

"linear combination of pre-existing socioeconomic resources and inflated self-image" What do you mean here by linear combination? If you wrote the same thing and said nonlinear combination would we have come away with a different interpretation? Is this just injecting random math terms to raise the status and credibility of the speaker? It's a problem I see in a certain non-MBA culture (and am guilty of myself all th…

> "linear combination of pre-existing socioeconomic resources and inflated self-image"

> What do you mean here by linear combination?

I suspect that Michael means that the people who claim on leadership position without having proved themselves will justify their self entitlement x % by their pre-existing social resources and (1-x) % by what they think of themselves.

Yes, you don't have to hold an MBA to think like that, but a diploma from a prestigious institution sure helps boost your ego, and being born from wealthy parents helps as well.

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#47

Post by TheGrassyKnoll »

michaelochurch wrote: post #20
skrebbel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with that? IMO wanting to be an entrepreneur is one of the best reasons to start a company :)

Most of these people (not all of whom are MBAs) just want to be bosses, not entrepreneurs. Their goal is to be executives ("big picture guys") shouting orders, not worker bees, but they don't have the social resources to make it happen in an existing company so they drum up some seed funding and hire some engineers (usually, scraping the bottom) and try to kick something together. It doesn't work very often. "I want…

"douchebaggery"...Sweet. My new favorite word.

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#48

Post by ryanSrich »

dataker wrote: post #10

>And I think it’s interesting to explore how unusual that is relative to many other areas of technology, because there are so many innovations that were good for society but the people who came up with them ended up with very little. Okay, co-founders sometimes end up with a fair amount money. However, early employees that actually built the company are often forgotten and given a relatively small sum of money. Not s…

If you're an employee hoping to make it rich by working on someone else's startup you're doing it wrong. Work for someone else because you need steady pay. Work for someone else because you appreciate what they're doing.

If you want to make a lot of money you need to take risks. Start your own startup. Go 4+ years without a salary. The co founders might not be the ones actually building the product but they're the ones taking the risk. They're the ones not sleeping at night. Trust me. It's a far better gig to just get paid as an employee than spend years on a startup that eventually fails. If Silicon Valley has done anything it's give young people the false impression that starting a startup is a way to get rich.

Well...it is. In the same way that playing the lottery is a way to get rich. One is much easier than the other.

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#49

Post by michaelochurch »

cma wrote: post #42
michaelochurch wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these people (not all of whom are MBAs) just want to be bosses, not entrepreneurs. Their goal is to be executives ("big picture guys") shouting orders, not worker bees, but they don't have the social resources to make it happen in an existing company so they drum up some seed funding and hire some engineers (usually, scraping the bottom) and try to kick something together. It doesn't work very often. "I want…

"linear combination of pre-existing socioeconomic resources and inflated self-image" What do you mean here by linear combination? If you wrote the same thing and said nonlinear combination would we have come away with a different interpretation? Is this just injecting random math terms to raise the status and credibility of the speaker? It's a problem I see in a certain non-MBA culture (and am guilty of myself all th…

You're reading too much into it. I could have taken out the word "linear" and it would have been fine, but it wasn't exactly a random math term.

A linear model is the simplest model, which is sometimes an asset (in some cases, linear regression is the best statistical model for its simplicity) and sometimes makes it crude and underfit to the problem. I was focusing on the latter.

Re: Peter Thiel on what works at work (2014)

#50

Post by [deleted] »

cma wrote: post #42
michaelochurch wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these people (not all of whom are MBAs) just want to be bosses, not entrepreneurs. Their goal is to be executives ("big picture guys") shouting orders, not worker bees, but they don't have the social resources to make it happen in an existing company so they drum up some seed funding and hire some engineers (usually, scraping the bottom) and try to kick something together. It doesn't work very often. "I want…

"linear combination of pre-existing socioeconomic resources and inflated self-image" What do you mean here by linear combination? If you wrote the same thing and said nonlinear combination would we have come away with a different interpretation? Is this just injecting random math terms to raise the status and credibility of the speaker? It's a problem I see in a certain non-MBA culture (and am guilty of myself all th…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN