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

Hanging up my spurs

lowercasecapital.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 195 posts

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#101

Post by jacquesm »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #92
jacquesm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark Cuban got rich of one deal that probably shouldn't have happened in the first place. He got very lucky.

Didn't Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich off of one deal? As far as "probably shouldn't have happened", what does that even mean, not in the literal sense but there are how many people that have ended up either penniless or rich as hell due to things that "probably shouldn't have happened"?

No, Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich of making an incredible contribution to the world of knowledge organization and then continued to build on that. That's why Google is still around so many years later, and that's why they still own a good chunk of it.

What is the last time you went to 'broadcast.com'?

That deal shouldn't have happened because there was no substance to what was sold (ok, fault of the buyer, a certain company whose name starts with Y).

For some more background:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast.com

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#102

Post by ghaff »

s73ver wrote: post #81
staunch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. You don't get the output of a big Apple or Google without them existing initially as startups. Mark Markkula funded Apple. Andy Bechtolsheim funded Google. These didn't happen by accident. They weren't inevitable.

The vast majority of the products we'd associate with those companies were made long after they could be considered startups.

Which was the main point I was trying to make. Furthermore, if you use the strict designed-for-rapid-growth definition for startups, a number of those companies were probably never startups. I don't think Apple, for example, fits today's classic startup mold.

(I'm not saying I completely buy this definition but some people insist on using it.)

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#103

Post by e40 »

aswanson wrote: post #47
dmitri1981 wrote: post #20

Chris Sacca's background story is little known and he talks about it at length with Jason Calacanis. The part about him losing millions while still at university is as shocking as his recovery from the setback is amazing. Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VOQnK7O2To

I think his story is funnier on this one, and he drops some foreshadowing hints here as to why Trump won, even before Obama's second electoral win: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqUG2_cmZ6I

I'm not going to watch a nearly 3 hour video to find that part. Please tell me the h/m index into the foreshadowing. Thanks.

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#104

Post by [deleted] »

dmix wrote: post #98
dmitri1981 wrote: post #20

Chris Sacca's background story is little known and he talks about it at length with Jason Calacanis. The part about him losing millions while still at university is as shocking as his recovery from the setback is amazing. Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VOQnK7O2To

[sploiler] For those who want a TLDR of this story, here it is from his Wikipedia: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Chris_Sacca > During law school, Sacca used his student loans to start a company which was unsuccessful and used what was left to start trading on the stock market. By leveraging trades for significant amounts (discovering a flaw in the software of online trading brokers)[15] he managed to turn 10–20 thousan…

[deleted]

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#105

Post by kohanz »

s73ver wrote: post #86
kohanz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He's in the extremely privileged position... When you achieve a position by working very hard and risking nearly everything you have, I wouldn't consider that a "privilege". He earned the right to do whatever he wants.

I can easily find a dozen or so people who work just as hard, and are nowhere near as successful. While I won't discount what he achieved, privilege is definitely the right word.

I think "fortunate" is a more appropriate description. Of course part of his journey was luck and those other people have not been as fortunate. "Privelege" is generally something that is granted to you by another entity.

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#106

Post by Domenic_S »

JabavuAdams wrote: post #100
sremani wrote: post #87

A very nice write up ruined by very partisan ramblings in the end. There is nothing wrong in believing in liberal cause, but to consider the other side as devil incarnate is a bit disturbing.

It's a personal post, why shouldn't he have an opinion? Also, how do you get to "devil incarnate"? The most negative thing he said was that the current administration are oppressive zealots. Note that he didn't specifically call out Republicans. The current administration has flouted norms, both Democratic and Republican.

"I think the institutions, principles, norms, and traditions that make the United States of America genuinely exceptional are at serious risk. It has been hard to think about anything else."

"These oppressive zealots in the White House"

"fighting a despotic regime"

Of course he can have an opinion, and it seems like everyone's got one. It's less clear why the reader should care. And statements like this:

"My career would not have progressed without the leadership and contributions of immigrants of virtually every race, ethnicity, and faith. Period."

I mean, there are a lot of races, ethnicities, and faiths in the world, and not all of them care to immigrate. The hyperbole just smacks of virtue signaling, which some people enjoy and others don't. Depends on how you react to the signal, I suppose.

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#107

Post by jbigelow76 »

jacquesm wrote: post #101
jbigelow76 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich off of one deal? As far as "probably shouldn't have happened", what does that even mean, not in the literal sense but there are how many people that have ended up either penniless or rich as hell due to things that "probably shouldn't have happened"?

No, Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich of making an incredible contribution to the world of knowledge organization and then continued to build on that. That's why Google is still around so many years later, and that's why they still own a good chunk of it. What is the last time you went to 'broadcast.com'? That deal shouldn't have happened because there was no substance to what was sold (ok, fault of the buyer, a ce…

Ok, so you're saying there is no substance to "radio on the internet" (I assume that since nothing weird or shady jumped out at me from the wiki article). So by that same token there should be be no substance to "TV on the internet", a la Netflix but I don't think anyone would try and make that case.

Regardless of net contribution to the good of society, one deal is one deal. Cuban wouldn't have gotten rich if he didn't have stock to sell to Yahoo (one deal), Brin/Page wouldn't have gotten rich if they didn't have and continue to have stock in Google (one deal). Everything any of them did afterwards is leverage the success of the first deal.

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#108

Post by [deleted] »

dmitri1981 wrote: post #20

Chris Sacca's background story is little known and he talks about it at length with Jason Calacanis. The part about him losing millions while still at university is as shocking as his recovery from the setback is amazing. Check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VOQnK7O2To

[deleted]

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#109

Post by harryh »

jbigelow76 wrote: post #107
jacquesm wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Larry Page and Sergey Brin got rich of making an incredible contribution to the world of knowledge organization and then continued to build on that. That's why Google is still around so many years later, and that's why they still own a good chunk of it. What is the last time you went to 'broadcast.com'? That deal shouldn't have happened because there was no substance to what was sold (ok, fault of the buyer, a ce…

Ok, so you're saying there is no substance to "radio on the internet" (I assume that since nothing weird or shady jumped out at me from the wiki article). So by that same token there should be be no substance to "TV on the internet", a la Netflix but I don't think anyone would try and make that case. Regardless of net contribution to the good of society, one deal is one deal. Cuban wouldn't have gotten rich if he did…

Google is a hugely profitable company used by 100s of millions of people.

Broadcast.com was an unprofitable sham with around half a million users. It only got bought because it was 1999 and people were acting crazy. It was shut down completely within 3 years.

Comparing the two is silly.

Re: Hanging up my spurs

#110

Post by mindingdata »

melbourne7 wrote: post #83
canistr wrote: post #29

Has anyone else noticed that a bunch of people leaving the investing scene/liquidizing in the past year are part of the same circle? Specifically Sacca, Tim Ferriss, and Richard Branson? I'm certain there might be more people.

Well, perhaps. But Sacca is great at it. Ferriss pulled out because he's no good at it. (Easier to be a charlatan in books rather than investing).

I don't know too many of Ferris' investments, but the few I did know seemed like he would have to change the world almost to make them work. Whereas other investors might have a couple of moonshots like that, but they also have a bunch of investments that solve problems that people face right now, not ones they might face in the future.

I remember he was talking about those protein bars made out of crickets. And there is valid concerns about the future of food with synthetic meats etc. But cricket bars... I mean we are so far off from that being a mass selling product.

Post reply on HN