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

How to Start Google

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 681 posts

Re: How to Start Google

#131

Post by tomhoward »

naniwaduni wrote: post #112
tomhoward wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're very early (and/or very lucky), you can't get "rich" (i.e., can choose never to work again and can invest in many other things) as an employee (though of course a highly-paid employee can become very well off and comfortable). Yes you need to be lucky to get super-rich as a founder too, but you have a lot more control, i.e., you make the primary decisions that determine whether the company will make goo…

How rich do you insist on being? The bar to "can choose never to work again" is surprisingly low , it just requires a high savings rate which is quite achievable in this line of work.

In the context of this article we're talking about the difference between the kind of rich you become from founding a hugely successful ("unicorn?") tech company, vs working hard for a salary for years and saving hard. It's more a qualitative thing than a specific number of dollars saved from a salary.

I'm well aware that the definition of rich can be very different in other contexts. I'm talking about the context of this article.

Re: How to Start Google

#132

Post by takinola »

verelo wrote: post #38
Scubabear68 wrote: post #23

This essay glosses over the fact that most startups die a horrible death and earn little to no money for the founders. Somewhere in this essay it needs to say “99% of you who try this will fail”.

if i had a 1 in 100 shot of becoming google I'd just do it 100 times. I'm pretty sure its more like 99.99999%

The thing is you don't start with a 1:100 shot of becoming Google. You, hopefully, level up each shot you get. Your first shot, you'll probably make something no one wants. The second time, you can't figure out how to get anyone to pay attention to you. The third time, you can't get enough people to hand over their cash for it. The fourth time...

Each time, you learn and get better, your odds go up. Now the real question is whether your odds are going from 1:1000 to 1:100 or from 1:100 to 10:100?

Re: How to Start Google

#133

Post by humbleferret »

ckozlowski wrote: post #86
humbleferret wrote: post #48

This essay isn't a step-by-step guide to building 'Google', rather, a call for young people to consider entrepreneurship as a fulfilling alternative to traditional careers. To maximise their chances of success, Paul suggests: 1. Become a builder: Gain expertise in technology or other fields you're passionate about. (Does not have to just be coding, either!) 2. Start personal projects: Build things you and your friend…

This is the best take I've read yet. I don't disagree with Paul's choice to focus on entrepreneurship and getting rich here. If you're looking to excite people, tell an exciting story. Captivate imagination. No one gets pumped up (especially at that age) at the mediocre story. What I find great about his advice is that it is by no means limited to entrepreneurship. Working on passion projects, doing well in school, a…

> "I think your choice of wording above is important to call out: The advice "maximizes" the chance of success; but it doesn't guarantee it."

This is a great observation!

I agree that Paul is framing an inspiring narrative, especially when targeting younger people. You're spot on, suggesting that this advice sets people up for success in general, whether they become entrepreneurs, standout employees, or something else entirely.

We need more narratives about those successful 'in-between' tech roles.

Paul's giving the ingredients for good outcomes, but the recipe is up to the individual.

Re: How to Start Google

#134

Post by bombcar »

brigadier132 wrote: post #84
beedeebeedee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the same janitor could save enough money to have "FU money" later in life, and only continue working as a janitor if he chose to do so. That is exceedingly doubtful

I agree, and the reason is housing. If housing in this country wasn't fucked up I think it would be possible. As of now, to do this as a janitor you would need to live with roommates or family. You would also need to avoid smoking, alcohol, gambling, and any other money sinks. Then you would need to invest all your savings for years.

Housing cost is the single defining factor in retirability now and if you're a janitor, you seriously need to consider where you are living, because moving from a VHCOL state to a lower one could be all you need.

Sure the pay is lower, but the housing costs are substantially lower.

Re: How to Start Google

#135

Post by takinola »

alismayilov wrote: post #62

I'm wondering if there is a research about which percentile of these two groups became rich: People who started a company vs People who worked for Tech companies.

My guess is that it is much easier to get rich from working at a tech company and rising through the ranks. Being a FANG middle manager for a couple of years and managing your money well should put you in a very comfortable position. However, if you want to be private island rich, you need to do your own startup.

Re: How to Start Google

#136

Post by ericd »

scarface_74 wrote: post #99
ericd wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I am blessed to have wonderful parents who would let me move back in. Fortunately, I only got to the "crashing on friends' couches and at my girlfriend/now wife's place" phase. Great way to tell if someone's worth marrying, by the way, partly moving in while appearing to have slim financial prospects. Obviously it's not right for everyone, nothing is. But it's right for more people than the number who do it, and…

So the secret of being able to fail at a startup is being able to sponge off of other people who do have jobs at the types of companies you want to avoid working for?

Well, I didn't fail in that case, the company started making money, and they were repaid handsomely. But yeah, having a familial, social, or financial safety net is pretty important. If you never want to have to depend on anyone, or can't for whatever reason, then sure, play it safe. Sounds like you'd judge yourself harshly for taking this sort of risk.

Re: How to Start Google

#137

Post by [deleted] »

sahila wrote: post #101
tomhoward wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're very early (and/or very lucky), you can't get "rich" (i.e., can choose never to work again and can invest in many other things) as an employee (though of course a highly-paid employee can become very well off and comfortable). Yes you need to be lucky to get super-rich as a founder too, but you have a lot more control, i.e., you make the primary decisions that determine whether the company will make goo…

While agreed the chances are still low, if you joined Tesla or Nvidia in the last 10 years and especially before 2020, you very well and likely are rich if you're still working at either and kept all your stock. Hell if you joined Facebook last year and got in when the stock was around 100, your initial equity grant just 5x.

[deleted]

Re: How to Start Google

#138

Post by gist »

Entirely and obviously self serving in that not only is this probably the only 'business' world that Paul has been exposed to (he started a tech company) but Paul also benefits (as do VC's and angel investors) from the entire eco system of young people taking chances with a small chance of success. The investor (and YC) wins with lots of people trying regardless of how many fail.

And note that the chances of founders and companies that have passed and been anointed with money is below (how much? I don't know) companies that haven't even made it to that round (to be potentially winnowed out). And have spent time and perhaps family money.

Will point out that I benefit from all of this (let's call it 'pick axe' for short) but I would or could never with a straight face and conscience write or give the same advice to kids in high school. Shoot for the moon? Risky. Sure if you have family money to fall back on possibly take the chance.

Especially and in particular 'how to start google' (meaning something with huge potential).

Oh yeah back in olden times I started a company right out of college and did pretty well and sold it (with ZERO investor money).

Lastly the joke that existed back and forever was someone saying 'find a good lawyer' as if doing so is a matter of knowing you had to do it not the specifics of how to do it.

Re: How to Start Google

#139

Post by jameshart »

The blindness to privilege that’s tied up in the part about why you ‘need’ to go to a good (by which he means highly selective) school…

> if you want to start a startup you should try to get into the best university you can, because that's where the best cofounders are...

> The empirical evidence is clear on this. If you look at where the largest numbers of successful startups come from, it's pretty much the same as the list of the most selective universities.

Is it at all possible that the people who are able to take a gamble on founding a startup rather than getting a job are also disproportionately drawn from the wealthy class that is also able to afford the privileges necessary to get their kids over the admissions humps needed to get into highly selective schools?

Because in spite of the suggestion that getting into these schools is a matter of ‘doing well in your classes’, Graham knows and acknowledges in his footnote that he knows full well that’s actually not what these schools are selecting for anyway:

> US admissions departments make applicants jump through a lot of arbitrary hoops that have little to do with their intellectual ability. But the more arbitrary a test, the more it becomes a test of mere determination and resourcefulness.

‘Mere determination and resourcefulness’? Or the background, finances and support and time necessary to make the grade in terms of non academic achievements, volunteer work, experience, extracurriculars, etc?

But even if you get in through academics plus determination and resourcefulness… will you also have the resources to take a risk on turning a project into a startup?

This is cargo cultism. Yes, successful founders are disproportionately drawn from high end selective schools, because they are disproportionately drawn from the community of people who come from a background of privilege, and are academically bright. Such people naturally tend to end up at Stanford or MIT or wherever.

But getting in to Stanford or MIT doesn’t magically make you into a member of that privileged class.

Re: How to Start Google

#140

Post by bananapub »

duggan wrote: post #76
eddieroger wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was sad to search for the word "luck" and come up empty. You can do everything right and still fail. You can do everything wrong and win. Sometimes you're just in the right place at the right time, and that external factor is completely out of your control and can be the difference you need.

I don't disagree that luck is a factor, but what can you do with that information other than console yourself when it doesn't work out?

you can do a lot!

- discount the useless advice you get from people who got lucky and are unaware of this fact

- target trying to be in the right place at the right time and have a plan B if you don't get lucky, rather than waking up at 0400 every day to eat raw eggs or whatever

- respect yourself and your employees more

- be more generous with what luck brings you

etc etc etc

a much better question is why do YC and co not talk about luck and connections more? why do they pretend it's all some imaginary meritocracy rather than hugely dependent on going to the right school / being born into the right social class, and then hugely advantaged by having YC's name recognition and tame lendors attached?

Post reply on HN