101–110 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't like Deel, but you do.
No, I hate pretty much all payroll processors. I also hate most IDEs, that doesn’t mean I don’t see value in them.
O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
O: Well! it CAN be!
M: No it can't!
M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
O: No it isn't!
It's not just AI startups. It's almost all of them. The startup world is just a massive pump and dump scheme, and so it moves from field to field finding the next hotness. Self-driving cars, VR, EVs, AI, and so on. People soon realize that you can't just take a bunch of hipster tech employees and suddenly create non-solutions that need to have problems created for them to even be solutions, much less choosing extreme…
This is simply not true. Most startup founders are genuinely trying to build something that has value to the economy, and therefore society. Most fail early, most of what's left fails later, but some go on to be real, profitable, businesses. That's how it works outside of the startup world too. Most restaurants, clothing stores, car repair shops, etc. go out of business after just a few years, while a few move on to…
imho that sort of "aim for the exit" thinking strongly incentivizes pump-and-dump behaviour and I think the bandwagoning we see with every hot new tech is exactly what one would expect as a result.
It's not just AI startups. It's almost all of them. The startup world is just a massive pump and dump scheme, and so it moves from field to field finding the next hotness. Self-driving cars, VR, EVs, AI, and so on. People soon realize that you can't just take a bunch of hipster tech employees and suddenly create non-solutions that need to have problems created for them to even be solutions, much less choosing extreme…
> startup world is just a massive pump and dump scheme, and so it moves from field to field finding the next hotness But we retain the solutions that work. A slime mold tries a bunch of useless paths in a maze before it finds the right one. Then it trims and reinforces. Most start-ups failing isn't a sure sign of wasted work.
It pretty much is, yes. Not a sure sign, but SV startups are probably the least efficient way of finding solutions that work. That's not to say that solutions to meaningful problems aren't occasionally found, of course, but the odds are very slim and the amount of money and other resources burned per success is astounding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, many business ideas I see are of the type "That would be a great idea if you could make it work, but given how much easier it is to fool people into thinking you have made it work, than to actually make it work, the odds aren't good". And if you're a rich investor willing to bet on a lot of such things hoping to make it back on of the few that work, well, you just made that ratio even more lopsided.
> but given how much easier it is to fool people into thinking you have made it work, than to actually make it work One thing that has often surprised me about HN is how people routinely upvote and boast about how they faked a demo. Idk why we refuse to call that what it is: a lie. IDK if Jobs did it, it is still a lie. It's one thing to say that this is what we imagine a technology will be like, but to call it a dem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply not true. Most startup founders are genuinely trying to build something that has value to the economy, and therefore society. Most fail early, most of what's left fails later, but some go on to be real, profitable, businesses. That's how it works outside of the startup world too. Most restaurants, clothing stores, car repair shops, etc. go out of business after just a few years, while a few move on to…
Your last paragraph paints a dual vision of the world that just isn't accurate. There are the two you mentioned: 1- small businesses that go out of business after a few years 2- ...ones that become big chains But you are forgetting #3, the one that actually makes up the largest proportion of businesses: 3- people that quietly, successfully, run their businesses in a sustainable, family and community oriented manner (…
I wasn't forgetting them, they just aren't relevant to a conversation about venture capital, at least to me. There are plenty of small bootstrapped startups out there, but their ROI isn't high enough to justify a gamble on the part of investors. Likewise with the businesses you're talking about.
Yes the make up most small businesses, but most small businesses aren't looking for private venture capital, and don't fall into the category of what OP was claiming is "pump n dump".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> startup world is just a massive pump and dump scheme, and so it moves from field to field finding the next hotness But we retain the solutions that work. A slime mold tries a bunch of useless paths in a maze before it finds the right one. Then it trims and reinforces. Most start-ups failing isn't a sure sign of wasted work.
> Most start-ups failing isn't a sure sign of wasted work. It pretty much is, yes. Not a sure sign, but SV startups are probably the least efficient way of finding solutions that work. That's not to say that solutions to meaningful problems aren't occasionally found, of course, but the odds are very slim and the amount of money and other resources burned per success is astounding.
On what metric? By any objective measure, barring the tail end of ZIRP, it’s been remarkably more efficient than many national projects.
The point is a VC ecosystem working properly should have a high failure rate. Lots of failures just tells you risk isn’t too low. To measure efficacy and efficiency you have to look at the output. And again, barring the pandemic vintages, it’s a pretty clear record of success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply not true. Most startup founders are genuinely trying to build something that has value to the economy, and therefore society. Most fail early, most of what's left fails later, but some go on to be real, profitable, businesses. That's how it works outside of the startup world too. Most restaurants, clothing stores, car repair shops, etc. go out of business after just a few years, while a few move on to…
nearly every VC and accelerator in the world is going to ask you, "what's your exit plan?" and look at you like a Martian if you say you're in it for the long haul rather than exit as soon as an exit is viable. imho that sort of "aim for the exit" thinking strongly incentivizes pump-and-dump behaviour and I think the bandwagoning we see with every hot new tech is exactly what one would expect as a result.
Also:
1) IPO is one of those exit strategies. Tons of startups are aiming to become long lived independent companies.
2) M&A makes sense for lots of businesses, as you get to take advantage of better economies of scale as part of a larger org. Saying it's your exit plan doesn't make you a scammer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply not true. Most startup founders are genuinely trying to build something that has value to the economy, and therefore society. Most fail early, most of what's left fails later, but some go on to be real, profitable, businesses. That's how it works outside of the startup world too. Most restaurants, clothing stores, car repair shops, etc. go out of business after just a few years, while a few move on to…
> Most startup founders are genuinely trying to get wealthy, and not really good 9-5 job wealthy. Properly wealthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I hate pretty much all payroll processors. I also hate most IDEs, that doesn’t mean I don’t see value in them.
M: I came here for a good argument! O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument! M: An argument isn't just contradiction. O: Well! it CAN be! M: No it can't! M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. O: No it isn't!
You then pivoted to the non sequitur that I “like Deel.” I pointed out that isn’t true, and never needed to be—this was never a discussion about which start-ups we want to put a sticker on. It’s a bit rich to complain about logical fallacies after throwing one out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is simply not true. Most startup founders are genuinely trying to build something that has value to the economy, and therefore society. Most fail early, most of what's left fails later, but some go on to be real, profitable, businesses. That's how it works outside of the startup world too. Most restaurants, clothing stores, car repair shops, etc. go out of business after just a few years, while a few move on to…
> Most startup founders are genuinely trying to build something that has value to the economy, and therefore society. there is an unlabeled selection bias missing here, and in that bias we find everything