Sam Altman talks with Mark Zuckerberg about how to build the future [video]

Post by dkarapetyan » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 2:48 AM UTC

melling wrote: post #211

dkarapetyan wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think Oculus Rift is going anywhere. They bungled that project pretty well. My question was more about your assumption about getting some kind of cash cow and then milking it to provide for "moonshots". It is one model that works but it's not the only one. Well, actually, it's debatable whether it works or not.

What you think about Oculus is irrelevant. FB has the money to see it through, along with dozens of other similar projects. Feel free to explain the other models.

Post by tedmiston » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 3:15 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #195

cookiecaper wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely correct. Zuckerberg lucked into Facebook after stealing the concept from a client. Zuck's self-esteem would be destroyed if he had this same honest evaluation of himself, so he has to tell himself that he made it due to his unusually high work ethic, intelligence, or other personal traits.

Probably the biggest thing I've learned through hard experience is that great ideas by themselves have very little value. At this point it's irrelevant whether he copied the idea from his client(s), or from Friendster or MySpace. Out of pure luck, Zuck's version appealed to the masses enough to get them to register for the site and use the contact importer. After that, skill took over - Zuck knew that if a high enoug…

Post by irq11 » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 3:22 AM UTC

ItsMattyG wrote: post #210

metaphorm wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can it? explain.

The fact that they were able to replicate their success multiple times, just like Einstein, and that they're all smart, just like Einstein, says that there's probably some aspect of talent involved in their success. If it was purely based on luck, without any talent involved, you'd expect billion dollar companies to be more evenly distributed, and not cluster among certain individuals.

Post by nickpsecurity » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 3:36 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #111

o0-0o wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He gave his own facebook stock to his own charity. If you've ever owned a corporation, you know just how cynical, contriving, and conceitful that move is.

That's a generically cynical statement that you don't seem to have any specific basis for. In such cases, for HN purposes you should practice the Principle of Charity and err on the side of giving others the benefit of the doubt. It won't affect Zuckerberg much, but it will make this community better.

Post by MichaelGG » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 3:43 AM UTC

fbdinglebore wrote: post #148

georgeglue1 wrote: post #24

I'm not sure what to think about Mark's non-answer to: "So can you tell us about some of the hardest parts in the history of the early history of Facebook?" (He basically says the hardest point was not selling for $1 billion, and that it was a non-issue months later.)

He also left out the part where investor-genius Peter Thiel was pressuring him very hard to sell Facebook to Yahoo. Peter Thiel almost cost Zuck one of the biggest mistakes in business history. Another inconvenient fact that goes unsaid.