21–30 of 89 posts
I am not sure how relevant the view of these billionaires when: - they did it exactly once - we know from studies that these people are nondeterministicly getting rich[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-...
I'm surprised he's still considered relevant given how spectacularly his cellulosic ethanol companies failed, taking probably hundred of $M's in investor and government money with them. http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-clean-tech edit: fixed the link
I'm surprised he's still considered relevant given how spectacularly his cellulosic ethanol companies failed, taking probably hundred of $M's in investor and government money with them. http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-clean-tech edit: fixed the link
More to the point, everything Vinod said was fairly reasonable, some of it even contrarian (i.e. 'most VC's don't add value) which is useful given that most VC's wouldn't even dare say such a thing ... it allows for a conversation wherein one would not normally be possible.
Sam, for all of his influence and insight, doesn't yet have the clout/standing/safety to make such public statements about his own industry without severely risking his neck (and YC reputation as well). Very few people do, in any industry. I always like to hear someone taking 'their own' to task.
I am not sure how relevant the view of these billionaires when: - they did it exactly once - we know from studies that these people are nondeterministicly getting rich[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-...
In regards to that article: >If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich? Turns out it’s just chance. Someone in the industry, someone with considerable influence, someone active on this very forum, once told me when asked what their secret was "I worry it's been more luck than skill". At the time my immediate thought was "bullshit, you had to have busted your ass but your background also had to have had great influence…
I'm surprised he's still considered relevant given how spectacularly his cellulosic ethanol companies failed, taking probably hundred of $M's in investor and government money with them. http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-clean-tech edit: fixed the link
Why? Anyone who makes investments in new technologies can expect some of them to work out poorly.
I'm surprised he's still considered relevant given how spectacularly his cellulosic ethanol companies failed, taking probably hundred of $M's in investor and government money with them. http://fortune.com/kior-vinod-khosla-clean-tech edit: fixed the link
80% of VC investments are essentially failures, it doesn't mean they were bad bets, or even wasted time. More to the point, everything Vinod said was fairly reasonable, some of it even contrarian (i.e. 'most VC's don't add value) which is useful given that most VC's wouldn't even dare say such a thing ... it allows for a conversation wherein one would not normally be possible. Sam, for all of his influence and insigh…
He was promising he could beat gasoline at $1.80/gallon by misstating the yield of ethanol per ton of wood chips.
From the Fortune article I posted:
> The Securities and Exchange Commission has been examining whether the company made false statements, including on a critical point: the yield of its biofuel (the amount that can be made per ton of wood chips). Two KiOR executives and Khosla himself are also facing a class action suit alleging that company executives misled investors about production volumes and yield.
...
> During investor calls in 2012, CEO Cannon said KiOR expected to achieve 72 gallons at a larger commercial production facility in the future and would aim to reach 92.
> The problem was that the company wasn’t regularly producing anything close to 67, much less 92. In the summer of 2011, after the company’s IPO, its new chief operating officer, Bill Coates, told management that it appeared that the company had grossly overstated its yields, according to a KiOR consultant who spoke with him and was quoted in the state’s court papers.
I am not sure how relevant the view of these billionaires when: - they did it exactly once - we know from studies that these people are nondeterministicly getting rich[1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-...
Yeah, might as well never listen to anyone then.
Let me give you examples.
Elon Musk in Windows (I disagree with him, even in 2000, Linux kernel version 2.2.12-20, RedHat version 6.1 --old versioning--)
"In the year of 2000, Windows is considered much better than good old Unix platform. Musk wanted to move all technologies from UNIX to Windows platform. But, Unix zealots like Max Levchian (Co-founder of Confinity[1]) and his team disagreed with Elon. A holy war started, and Elon Musk lost the battle. The board fired Elon in October 2000, and appointed Peter Thiel as new CEO. Elon officially left the company's day to day operations by 2001, though he stayed on in an advisory role and as the largest shareholder."
Jeff Bezos Mandate, internal APIs (I agree with him 80% of his points, not because he is billionaire but because his argument is reasonable for the size of company he was running at the time)
" 1) All teams will henceforth expose their data and functionality through service interfaces.
2) Teams must communicate with each other through these interfaces.
3) There will be no other form of interprocess communication allowed: no direct linking, no direct reads of another team's data store, no shared-memory model, no back-doors whatsoever. The only communication allowed is via service interface calls over the network.
4) It doesn't matter what technology they use. HTTP, Corba, Pubsub, custom protocols -- doesn't matter. Bezos doesn't care.
5) All service interfaces, without exception, must be designed from the ground up to be externalizable. That is to say, the team must plan and design to be able to expose the interface to developers in the outside world. No exceptions. "
And so on. After working with many millionaires and billionaires I just realised that it does not matter what they say without a good argument, I have seen CEOs fired just like Elon Musk over decisions similar to move the company stack to Windows and I also have seen CEOs listening to staff and making an intelligent decision that moved the company forward. I definitely like to listen to people with reasonable arguments, especially if the things they are suggesting works.