21–30 of 168 posts
Ah yes, "innovation" in skirting regulations as AirBnb does. Harming local communities and extracting wealth in the name of "tech disruption".
Disrupting and extracting value from NIMBYs would definitely be on my personal “request for startups” list.
There's a reason it's not in their backyard. It's their backyard.
The people who were willing to work for a risky startup with a vast vision are willing to work for another risky startup with a vast vision again. The reverse causation seems like a compelling explanation: innovators built Uber and AirBnB, rather than Uber and AirBnB built innovators (as the title implies).
The advantage of ex-Uber, ex-Airbnb folks is not that they are more innovative—it's that they have experience in solving the organizational problems of doubling the size of a company over and over and over again within a very short time frame. If you only get people who are good at making innovative small-scale projects then they'll hit a wall when the organizational challenges of hypergrowth suck all the productivity and alignment out of the team. If you get people who only have experience operating at huge scale they won't be able to prioritize short term goals needed to get and maintain traction.
Ah yes, "innovation" in skirting regulations as AirBnb does. Harming local communities and extracting wealth in the name of "tech disruption".
Disrupting and extracting value from NIMBYs would definitely be on my personal “request for startups” list.
Perfectly encapsulated in this tweet: 18: Go to Harvard or Stanford for CS. 22: Work at FAANG companies. 25: Quit and raise millions for your startup. 26: Sell your company to a FAANG company/IPO 28: Join a VC firm, invest in people like you, and make predictions on Twitter all day. https://twitter.com/TheLexTimes/status/1105131411411886081
I don't get it. Should highly capable people not pursue a lucrative career path?
I hold no ill will against all of these people getting rich this way. Let's just not pretend like they're innovators, though.
The people who were willing to work for a risky startup with a vast vision are willing to work for another risky startup with a vast vision again. The reverse causation seems like a compelling explanation: innovators built Uber and AirBnB, rather than Uber and AirBnB built innovators (as the title implies).
Perfectly encapsulated in this tweet: 18: Go to Harvard or Stanford for CS. 22: Work at FAANG companies. 25: Quit and raise millions for your startup. 26: Sell your company to a FAANG company/IPO 28: Join a VC firm, invest in people like you, and make predictions on Twitter all day. https://twitter.com/TheLexTimes/status/1105131411411886081
I don't get it. Should highly capable people not pursue a lucrative career path?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. Should highly capable people not pursue a lucrative career path?
People can do whatever they want, but if they're truly "highly capable" maybe they should try something a little more challenging than following the herd? I hold no ill will against all of these people getting rich this way. Let's just not pretend like they're innovators, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand this is off topic but does Netflix ever actually acquire startups? They are a very different company to Facebook, Apple, Amazon or Google, I feel like they are bundled in mainly to make a cooler acronym.
I don’t get why Microsoft isn’t one of the letters. I get that it needs to be easy to say but still.