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

Stop Looking for a Cofounder

dontscale.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 159 posts

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#141

Post by Douceur »

hughguiney wrote: post #113
dontscale wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you Hugh. I thought about pronoun choice when I wrote that. I was deliberating between 'her' or 'him or her'. The problem I had with the former is I always notice when male writers do it--I can tell it's deliberate. The problem with the latter is it breaks rhythm a little, I think. In my mind, the sexes are equal so him == her. It's something I feel strongly about too especially having a daughter. But nonethele…

While I appreciate your viewpoint, it is not obvious to the reader. I think it is more important to not alienate women any more than already happens in this industry, than it is to form a sentence that has a certain rhythm. I would also examine why male pronouns “sound right” while non-male ones “don’t”. And I agree with @sidawson that gender-neutral pronouns maintain the same rhythm besides. Edit: And thank you for…

Girls aren't that fragile either ;)

I probably feel this way because I'm so used with male pronouns to the point that it's become gender-neutral - but this might just be me. Weirdly enough, it annoys me to see female pronouns alongside male because it reminds me that gender does matter (Disclaimer: I am female).

I agree with you though, definitely more women is needed in this industry, but I personally can't see how adjusting pronouns can help very much. Something that's not being addressed properly is subtle sexism: prejudice at subconscious level that we don't realise about but is painfully obvious to the other person. I have worked with colleagues who I regretfully classify as "boy's clubs", because they would automatically change their tone towards me and sometimes even ignore completely. You might say that there could be a thousand other reasons for this, like perhaps I'm not communicating very clearly, but when you share the same interests, when your dismissed suggestions gets "suggested" by themselves later on, and when all this becomes a daily occurrence ... you can't help but think of the worst.

How this problem can be tackled, I'm not sure. We all have a certain level of prejudice though, so maybe this is a "spiritual" thing rather than a cause for activism.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#142

Post by cousin_it »

rcarrigan87 wrote: post #22

Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem…

Doesn't the tech landscape change too quickly, though? If you start a lifestyle business in tech and adjust your life to fit the new income (house, kids, etc), who says it won't go out of business in the next 10 years through no fault of yours? Doesn't it make more sense to shoot for FU money instead?

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#143

Post by ericlavigne »

jchendy wrote: post #48
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #22

Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem…

Do you know of any resources to learn about tech lifestyle businesses?

"Do you know of any resources to learn about tech lifestyle businesses?"

https://unicornfree.com/

http://courses.30x500.com/

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#144

Post by allencoin »

cousin_it wrote: post #142
rcarrigan87 wrote: post #22

Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem…

Doesn't the tech landscape change too quickly, though? If you start a lifestyle business in tech and adjust your life to fit the new income (house, kids, etc), who says it won't go out of business in the next 10 years through no fault of yours? Doesn't it make more sense to shoot for FU money instead?

>If you start a lifestyle business in tech and adjust your life to fit the new income (house, kids, etc), who says it won't go out of business in the next 10 years

The key here would be to not adjust your lifestyle too much.

If you can live on $30,000 a year (perhaps necessitating a move to a cheaper part of the country/world), you only need to have about $750,000 invested intelligently in order to live off of the interest (assuming a "safe withdrawal rate" of 4%).[1]

Even if you double that cost-of-living, you only need to save and invest about $150,000 per year for 10 years in order to retire at the end of your hypothetical successful lifestyle tech business.

As the person you're responding to said, "I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs," and that is definitely in reach of a savvy lifestyle tech startup founder. In fact, I've met a few of those.

[1]http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need...

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#145

Post by GamblersFallacy »

rcarrigan87 wrote: post #22

Too many people who are new to entrepreneurship only see startups as their entry point. Part of this is media coverage, everyone is talking about funding mega rounds and the VC fueled entrepreneur world. I think many entrepreneurs are less interested in building Billion dollar companies and are more seeking freedom from suppressive corporate jobs. But when the only narrative you see is mega startups it starts to seem…

Important myths from around the world which have survived for thousands of years all share a fundamental structure, e.g. "The Hero with a Thousand Faces"

The general narrative of "entrepreneur" is singular, not plural. Entrepreneur folklore is the individual (hero) fighting against the collective (culture).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces

"The hero starts in the ordinary world, and receives a call to enter an unusual world of strange powers and events (a call to adventure). If the hero accepts the call to enter this strange world, the hero must face tasks and trials (a road of trials), and may have to face these trials alone, or may have assistance. At its most intense, the hero must survive a severe challenge, often with help earned along the journey. If the hero survives, the hero may achieve a great gift (the goal or "boon"), which often results in the discovery of important self-knowledge. The hero must then decide whether to return with this boon (the return to the ordinary world), often facing challenges on the return journey. If the hero is successful in returning, the boon or gift may be used to improve the world (the application of the boon)."

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#146

Post by timr »

nulltype wrote: post #114
timr wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, a co-founder won't save you if you don't have self-discipline. It's probably one of the top sources of co-founder conflict, actually: one founder slacks off or loses focus, and the other(s) get upset, and the whole thing falls apart. Self-discipline is a highly underrated quality. In my experience, most people can't work productively for an extended period of time on an open-ended project.

I think it's super important, but maybe should be considered a skill rather than a quality. It's definitely something that people don't get much practice on in school or most jobs. If you get some practice, you can improve self-discipline dramatically.

Agreed (I had terrible self-discipline when I was younger, but I have a fair amount now), but it's not a skill that can be dialed-up on demand. If you don't have it going into a startup, it's a serious liability. Learning self-discipline while also doing your first startup is probably impossibly hard.

Also, most people don't believe that it can be cultivated, which sort of begs the whole question: how do you cultivate self-discipline without the self-discipline to try to attain it? It seems that most people gain it by trying successively harder things over a long period of time.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#147

Post by larrys »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #119
adventured wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft did not have the "full faith and credit" of the Gates family. His family figured it would burn out and he'd return to college, per what Bill has said on the matter. They were less than thrilled with him dropping out. He received $0 funding or help from them in regards to Microsoft getting started. It was a million dollar business, completely independent of the Gates family or its connections, while it was o…

I think this was in reference to Mary Maxwell Gates, who ended up bringing (if not directly) the then nascent Micro-soft to IBM's attention.

Exactly. Also having that family meant he could take risks that others couldn't simply because he knew the family would bail him out (personally, not the company) if things didn't work out.

About his family, at least according to Phil Greenspun

http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#148

Post by jondubois »

I think if someone needs a cofounder to motivate them to keep going, then they probably aren't that passionate about the idea. Founders should have realistic expectations and give themselves a lot of time to find a market fit.

I think the less funding/marketing/hype your startup has, the longer it will take to find market fit but once you do find it, it will be rock solid. If you can find people to use your product in spite of it being completely unknown, then that is the highest form of validation that a product can receive.

If, on the other hand, people only use your product because 'every one else is using it' then that is a really weak form of validation.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#149

Post by eloff »

graeme wrote: post #124
eloff wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bootstrapped business does not have to be exclusive with larger revenue streams. Guy Kawasaki says that he's seen many more businesses die because they tried growing too fast (e.g. using VC money to scale the company) than because they grew too slow. Joel Spolsky is famously a critic of the SV VC-based model as well. He put his money where his mouth is with Stack Exchange, which only recently raised VC money. He sa…

Oh, to be clear I meant a solo bootstrapped business. I think that's what the original article was talking about. Certainly a bootstrapped business with employees can grow quite large. (You can go higher solo too of course, it's just not common)

PlentyOfFish was the biggest example I can think of, but companies like that are very rare. It's also strange. If you have a successful company, why wouldn't you try to grow it and hire employees? Maybe if you're more interested in keeping things simple than in making more money.

Re: Stop Looking for a Cofounder

#150

Post by graeme »

eloff wrote: post #149
graeme wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, to be clear I meant a solo bootstrapped business. I think that's what the original article was talking about. Certainly a bootstrapped business with employees can grow quite large. (You can go higher solo too of course, it's just not common)

PlentyOfFish was the biggest example I can think of, but companies like that are very rare. It's also strange. If you have a successful company, why wouldn't you try to grow it and hire employees? Maybe if you're more interested in keeping things simple than in making more money.

>Maybe if you're more interested in keeping things simple than in making more money.

Yup, that's exactly my own motivation. I've set mine up to run fairly automatically. Obviously it needs oversight and growth. It just doesn't need them right away.

So if I want to take a couple weeks off, I can. And I don't have to hold that many details in my head/when working I can hold more longer run details in my head.

I value that more than earning a very large amount of money.

This is a good article laying out hte mindset behind this. The four freedoms are the main consideration:

http://www.jackkinsella.ie/2014/04/24/on-passive-income.html

You can do quite a lot while keeping all four, but it has some obvious tradeoffs at higher levels of business.

Post reply on HN