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

After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

dylanhuang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 284 posts

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#201

Post by albrewer »

jefftk wrote: post #193
bigfudge wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth pointing out that something being bad for the economy, from this perspective, isn’t necessarily the same as being bad for the population. Median incomes are stagnant and quality of life is declining in the US. In part, I’d argue this is because hyper scaling and overoptimising are squeezing the humanity out of most economic life, and most people are not benefitting from these trends. There are exception: we nee…

> Median incomes are stagnant But they're not? Adjusted for inflation, median US household income is 18% higher than fifteen years ago and 32% higher than it was thirty years ago: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N You could say it was stagnant from 1999 to 2015, though.

Inflation from 15 years ago to now is 33%[0]. Inflation from 30 years to now is 107%[0]. So yeah, median incomes are dropping.

[0]: According to this calculator - https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#203

Post by realce »

palmfacehn wrote: post #196
realce wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 100m is not a sustainable model for a nation or world's economy. Everyone needs to eat, not just the single individual who runs fastest.

Value creation isn't a zero sum game. Increased productivity benefits everyone. Whether it hyperscales or not, genuinely profitable businesses add value to the economy. This in turn creates more opportunities for everyone willing to participate.

"Value creation" is not the same as the monopolistic paradigm of a winner-take-all 100m race. Hyperscaling is a system where potentially profitable businesses are destroyed because they weren't profitable ENOUGH for some singular VC investor class.

I agree with you that profitable businesses add value to everyone's lives, but there's a maximalist limit to the relationship where they start extracting value and opportunity overall.

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#204

Post by palmfacehn »

xyst wrote: post #158
dagw wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American startup culture is so weird On the one hand, sure. On the other hand this relentless focus on "hyper-scale" or bust is what has pushed the US startup scene to where it is and probably why it is so far ahead of the rest of the world. If you told most European startup founders that in 5 years you'll have plateaued at 15-20 employees, a steady income flow, and you'll be paying yourself $200-250k a year, they'd…

This is what’s wrong with this country. We are run by a ruling class that only sees a profit. Screw sustainability, I (“SV VC”) just want 100X off my $1M initial investment, bro. Either hYpErScAlE or fuck off. Taking VC money is a poison pill.

Sometimes the priority appears to be hitting all of the latest buzzwords. Customers and long term revenue may not be as important as dumping on retail with an IPO or tokens. The promise of "hyperscale" performance becomes more valuable than tangibles. Which is the same as saying, demonstrating tangible performance is undesirable, if it detracts from the narrative of "hyperscale".

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#205

Post by robertlagrant »

realce wrote: post #200
robertlagrant wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias. Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens.

> That doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias. To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have. > Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens. Where people still starve, where people are still homeless, where people still live in poverty. What's your point here?

> To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have.

That's just your own assumption. Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks? It's not really relevant.

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#206

Post by rdedev »

dagw wrote: post #124
Hendrikto wrote: post #118

> While we gained some traction with some startups, we ultimately weren't able to build a hyper-growth business. […] We then decided to pivot into a vertical B2B SaaS AI product […, but] we haven't been able to find enough traction to make us believe that we were on the right track to build a huge business. American startup culture is so weird. Not everything needs to be a hyper-scaler, not everything needs to be hug…

American startup culture is so weird On the one hand, sure. On the other hand this relentless focus on "hyper-scale" or bust is what has pushed the US startup scene to where it is and probably why it is so far ahead of the rest of the world. If you told most European startup founders that in 5 years you'll have plateaued at 15-20 employees, a steady income flow, and you'll be paying yourself $200-250k a year, they'd…

Doesn't this thinking also lead to the eventual enshittification of their product? Hyperscalar growth will eventually stop. At that point to justify your valuation you need to start screwing over customers

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#207

Post by jefftk »

albrewer wrote: post #201
jefftk wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Median incomes are stagnant But they're not? Adjusted for inflation, median US household income is 18% higher than fifteen years ago and 32% higher than it was thirty years ago: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N You could say it was stagnant from 1999 to 2015, though.

Inflation from 15 years ago to now is 33%[0]. Inflation from 30 years to now is 107%[0]. So yeah, median incomes are dropping. [0]: According to this calculator - https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

You're adjusting for inflation twice. The numbers I gave in my comment, and in the chart I linked, are after inflation adjustment.

Here's the equivalent chart without inflation adjustment, which gives the (incorrect) impression of sharply rising incomes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA646N

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#208

Post by hnben »

robertlagrant wrote: post #172
confidantlake wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue it is less healthy for the economy. Large companies are very good at extracting value, not necessarily producing it.

Unless large companies can intercept cash before it's paid to you and take some of it, they are only getting value from providing value.

I am sure you yourself can think of some specific examples, where companies earn money without providing value.

Or are you suggesting, that every single cent that every single company earns, comes from something that actually provides value to someone (excluding shareholders)?

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#209

Post by realce »

robertlagrant wrote: post #205
realce wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't seem in any way relevant to the point about survivorship bias. To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have. > Nor to the US, whose system has if anything produced far too much food for its citizens. Where people still starve, where people are still homeless, where people still live in poverty. What's your point here?

> To me, it seems exactly like the point of view that someone who wins the 100m would have. That's just your own assumption. Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks? It's not really relevant.

> Who cares what any of us imagines anyone else thinks?

Since you're responding and we're having a conversation about each other's opinions, I'd say it actually is relevant.

Re: After 3 Years, I Failed. Here's All My Startup's Code

#210

Post by palmfacehn »

realce wrote: post #203
palmfacehn wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Value creation isn't a zero sum game. Increased productivity benefits everyone. Whether it hyperscales or not, genuinely profitable businesses add value to the economy. This in turn creates more opportunities for everyone willing to participate.

"Value creation" is not the same as the monopolistic paradigm of a winner-take-all 100m race. Hyperscaling is a system where potentially profitable businesses are destroyed because they weren't profitable ENOUGH for some singular VC investor class. I agree with you that profitable businesses add value to everyone's lives, but there's a maximalist limit to the relationship where they start extracting value and opportu…

Similarly, almost all of the track and field athletes always cross the finish line, regardless of placement. If your business is genuinely profitable, you should do the same. You don't have to be gold medalist if it means compromising your vision or values. If you object to the whims of investors, it may be better to focus on things you can build without their assistance. It isn't as glamorous and it may not make you a billionaire, but it does hone your ability.

Frankly, not all of the VC sphere is focused on value creation. Much of it seems focused on buzzwords and vaporware. Success in the VC world might mean keeping the hype and promises of hyperscale performance rolling long enough to successfully dump on retail. Sure, VCs and founders profit, but is it genuine value creation?

It is a symptom of an overly financialized economy. We should distinguish these cynical scenarios from genuinely profitable value creation.

Post reply on HN