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

What We Look for in Founders

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 188 posts

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#121

Post by arghnoname »

mrchess wrote: post #4

Wish I knew about the emphasis about hacking a system question and I would have elaborated on my application.... Although it is a difficult question to put emphasis on IMO because it also makes you in a way "reveal" your bad morals... which I am sure many people don't feel comfortable doing. Why would you ever want to openly admit you beat ie. cheated a system be it government, academic, or private? Not to imply that…

A lot of people seem to express your sentiment. I find that surprising. I would have thought anyone who went to University has done this sort of thing many times, for instance. As large bureaucratic organizations, they are infinitely 'hackable.' Education generally has lots of opportunities. I've added classes after taking the finals for them, for instance. You know that's not what they intend.

Any system that loves its rules is ripe for this sort of thing. My wife's mother was born in Canada but came over as a child and had to renounce her citizenship at one point. They changed their rules so we were able to get her citizenship re-instated and my wife can be a Canadian citizen too. She's never even been to Canada.

I always get a little thrill out of beating rules people with their rules. These things aren't harmful (generally) to members of the system, though these kinds of loopholes only tend to exist as long as they aren't too greatly used.

Now being a welfare cheat or talking about how much you like shoplifting is probably not a good idea, but doesn't everyone commit a little harmless loophole exploitation from time to time?

EDIT: The general weakness of institutions are rules. Anyone wanted to disrupt such things needs to know how to exploit those weaknesses.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#122

Post by spenrose »

wmf wrote: post #115
spenrose wrote: post #96

My concern about Paul's vision has always been (2), flexibility. It is my humble belief that you should care what you succeed at, not just that you succeed at something. On this point Paul seems to be leading in the opposite direction from Tim O'Reilly ("work on stuff that matters"), and I wish he would do a 180.

It is my humble belief that you should care what you succeed at I know how you feel, but if that empirically produces a lower probability of success then what can you do?

You can fail, pick yourself up, and try again. You can increase your probability of doing good, and accept the tradeoff WRT business success.

I should add that I think Paul presents a very clear vision of why he thinks this is not a problem: his mantra about finding a problem a real person needs solved and solving it (substitute actual quotation here). My objection is that where this leads you is to unexploited niches in the market ecosystem -- returning to Tim's language, to focus on capturing value rather than creating it. I suspect Paul tart rejoinder would be that a happy customer is much better evidence of value created than fuzzy dreams of do-gooderism are. I believe he is partly wrong. I hope he will speak for himself on this topic.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#123

Post by bjelkeman-again »

wmf wrote: post #115
spenrose wrote: post #96

My concern about Paul's vision has always been (2), flexibility. It is my humble belief that you should care what you succeed at, not just that you succeed at something. On this point Paul seems to be leading in the opposite direction from Tim O'Reilly ("work on stuff that matters"), and I wish he would do a 180.

It is my humble belief that you should care what you succeed at I know how you feel, but if that empirically produces a lower probability of success then what can you do?

I'd rather be moderately successful doing something that matters than very successful selling sugared water.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#124

Post by ScottBurson »

This surprises me: You do not however want the kind of determination implied by phrases like "don't give up on your dreams".

I would put it diifferently. Don't give up on your dreams, but ask yourself which is more important to you: to have a successful high-growth startup, or to do something in particular? If there is a specific thing you want to do or build, then be prepared for the (likely) possibility that it won't make a good startup. It might make a great hobby or even a successful lifestyle business. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it -- it just means YC will not be able to help you.

But maybe your dream is to have a fast-growing, high-impact startup, and it doesn't matter so much exactly what it is, as long as it's somewhere in the general area you're interested in. Then perhaps YC may want to get involved. You're still pursuing your dream, I would argue, it's just a different kind of dream from a particular project that someone else might want to do.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#126

Post by varun43in »

I'm currently the only founder for my startup and have a CS/Engineering background. I find that almost everybody I talk to seem to think its crazy or impossible for a single person startup to succeed.

I wonder what the whole deal is about: - is it because they feel its too much work for one person? - they assume that one person cannot be motivated/determined enough to make a startup successful? - or is it just based on the fact that most of the successful startup were stared by 2-3 person teams..

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this guys..

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#127

Post by Mz »

I'm golden on all counts ...except for the general lack of friends. :-/

(Do grown sons who are insanely loyal make a good substitute? I'm hoping they do. :-D)

Um, not that I am applying to YC. Just hoping to escape BigCo and go do my own thing.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#128

Post by slowpoison »

pg wrote: post #45
edanm wrote: post #13

2 questions on the "friendship" issue: 1. How do you judge whether co-founders are good friends? I'm guessing a simple "how long have they been working together" test is a good indication, but anything else? 2. What level of feedback do you usually give teams that didn't make it? Especially teams that got to the interview stage but didn't make it through? I'm wondering if you've ever told a team your suspicions that…

There are a lot of ways. Many of the questions on the YC application are at least partially about this. When and how did the founders meet? What have they worked on together? Even the stock split sometimes tells us a lot. Yes, we've told groups that we weren't funding them because their friendship didn't seem strong enough to withstand a startup. You'd be surprised some of the meltdowns we've seen in interviews.

What would the ideal split be to be called the best of friends? 50-50? I can make a case for that and an uneven split too. Doesn't the split also depend on some combination of effort and potential of each founder?

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#129

Post by philwelch »

BrandonM wrote: post #74
Jun8 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See, I think that's an example of the "bad hack" because it has the potential of damaging people, e.g. what if I was standing in that line for 15mins ahead of you and because you took that box of pizza, just when my turn comes the pizza runs out (you think it's unlikely? Then you haven't been to the wild world of college-student-after-event-pizza-eating). My definition of a hack is to add value to the an existing sys…

> My definition of a hack is to add value to the an existing system by modifying a property, not changing a zero-sum situation in your favor. That seems like a nice definition of hack, but I don't think it's completely accurate. For example, if a college only accepts a certain number of people and you come up with clever way to get accepted, that's changing a zero-sum situation in your favor, and I would still call i…

For example, if a college only accepts a certain number of people and you come up with clever way to get accepted, that's changing a zero-sum situation in your favor, and I would still call it a hack.

It's not zero sum, though; if you're a genuinely better student than the student who didn't get accepted because you got his spot, it's you++, him--, university++, so still positive-sum.

Re: What We Look for in Founders

#130

Post by ammmir »

hasenj wrote: post #118
jedberg wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a cofounder is not to help alleviate load. It is to have someone tell you no, that your idea/implementation/justification sucks. They question your moves and make you justify them. Having a cofounder keeps you in check and keeps you from straying too far off the successful path.

This can be done by friends/relatives who are interested in supporting you without having the technical skills or free time to actually be co-founders with you. AFAIK, PG's argument is that it's a lot of stress doing a startup on your own.

i'm looking for a co-founder, but i don't feel it's imperative to find one at the idea or pre-prototype stages. not having a co-founder shouldn't stop anyone from pursuing their idea or working on a prototype. if it does, you're missing ingredient #1: determination.
Post reply on HN