271–280 of 618 posts
I've noticed a lot of founders are building bigger and bigger things and still calling it MVP. Thoughts on how to focus the energy to more customer development than product development early on? Wasn't that the point? Focus on the high risk part?
I think you need the "always has been" meme.
It will be interesting to see how many of those companies remain "incorruptible". Your new book seems a bit like a sequel to Jim Collins's 2001 book Good to Great . Several of the "great" companies including Circuit City, Fannie Mae, and Wells Fargo later ran into serious problems. And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500. https://www.harpercollins.com/products/good-to-great-j…
> And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500. This should be kind of obvious -- if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is why the real solution is some kind of governance/regulation, because otherwise the market incentivizes being awful.
That doesn't stand as a reason at all. I think the big contrast isn't as you described. It's more about short-term versus long-term or conflict of interest between principals and shareholders.
But to be specific, Wells Fargo was mentioned, and their downfall was very much driven by doing awful things in the name of money, specifically.
I worked at Anthropic, and I wouldn't attribute much to the structure itself – so I'm wary of using it as a positive example here. I do attribute a lot to specific people. Concretely, to much of the intitial team, who they recruited on the research/infra side, and some very close personal relationships within research/infra. That dynamic, paired with their unwillingness to accede to something against their values, is…
Books like this are for tech bros what horoscopes are for sad old ladies. They are full of platitudes that sound relevant to people's problems and desires, that pretend to be based on science but have no actual basis in facts, provably do not work, and yet are still popular amongst the people they let down again and again. Anyone who could write a book with advice that worked the way this purports to would be too ric…
My friend, I know you think this is a criticism. It's pretty obvious that you haven't read the book. I'd encourage you to do so, or at least ask yourself, "Why are you commenting on a book you haven't read?" The answer must be that you're upset about a different book or about a whole class of books that have done you wrong. That's fair. I know what you're talking about. But for what it's worth, I tried really hard to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And from an investor perspective, as a group they have underperformed the S&P 500. This should be kind of obvious -- if they are avoiding doing awful things in the name of money, then they are leaving something on the table. You can't have your cake and eat it too. This is why the real solution is some kind of governance/regulation, because otherwise the market incentivizes being awful.
I want to appreciate you for this comment, even though I disagree with it, because this is a really articulate version of the conventional wisdom that I think all of us have imbibed since before we could talk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But if you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself. With respect to OP (who has a unique vantage from inside), I do agree with this on principle. When there are uncommon outcomes, there must be uncommon structure imho. A "good structure" is like oxygen, water, or peace: When it's well-maintained and well-…
The structure requires maintenance and that is done by an individual or individuals. The real reasons a good company stays good is because the leadership stays good. When the leadership begins to disengage or leaves or changes in some way then the structure will begin to break down. You can't fix it with a "better" structure. It will decay over time unless someone is actively maintaining it.
I get the sense you were feeling at odds with my framing? I wonder if it's that you're picking up that I believe "structure" is above any one person or set of people. In my conception, leadership is just part of structure, a key maintainer. Leadership are pieces of the structure, but subordinate in scale. They sometimes seek outside help in shaping structure (e.g., ppl like eries), and the structure becomes like another passive actor, not simply "leadership's doing". Leadership are key players taking care of the structure, but they are just one set of players, and in some structures, non-leadership employees play an outsized role (often because leadership knew enough to step back). Sometimes the role of leadership if "fucking right off" in certain domains. Regardless, the structure then guides behaviour of all within it, and hopefully the structure also maintains us, at least as much as we maintain it.
I'm stating the above as if it's universally true, but it's just my take. I'd be curious to know if any parts give you strong YES or NO feelings, if you are open to share your gut reaction. Blunt responses welcome
(Fwiw I lean heavily on the ideas of Christopher Alexander -- the Pattern Language guy -- in regards to my beliefs on "structure": https://dorian.substack.com/p/at-any-given-moment-in-a-proce... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent comment didn’t say anything about size or wall street. It said leadership is what has preserved it. Which it doesn’t seem you have refuted in any meaningful way. You just restated what the parent comment is responding to with no further reasoning as to why leadership doesn’t account for it.
I honestly don't understand your comment, so let me try and recapitulate what I think you're saying and what I think I was saying, and then you can tell me where I missed the mark. What I hear you saying is that the original comment simply said that leadership by itself is enough to preserve the Costco ethos. It didn't say anything about size or Wall Street or anything else. Is that right? The reason I responded the…
I worked at Anthropic, and I wouldn't attribute much to the structure itself – so I'm wary of using it as a positive example here. I do attribute a lot to specific people. Concretely, to much of the intitial team, who they recruited on the research/infra side, and some very close personal relationships within research/infra. That dynamic, paired with their unwillingness to accede to something against their values, is…
Were those upright people abducted by aliens when you started working with Palantir and the "DoW"?
Regardless, it's still atypical in the context of an American company, and it can help explain the differences between Anthropic and its peers. That doesn't mean I agree with their decisions or that they're "the right" decisions, but I think it's a helpful framing in which to understand them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you think that the courage that Dario has regularly shown would be possible with a conventional "best practices" structure, I think you're kidding yourself. Is there something that happened which you don't think would have come to pass with a standard PBC/C-Corp (without the LTBT)? I'm trying to think of one, but nothing is coming to mind. I think the structure attracted many people to Anthropic (e.g. an RSP tha…
Do you think their dispute with the Department of Defense would have gone the same way? We didn't see that at OpenAI or Google. (Although it does remind me a bit of Google pulling out of China back in the day.)
Unfortunately there doesn't really seem to be a cure for institutional decay. Once unethical people get in power, they hire other unethical people, and then you're just stuck in Game of Thrones. You have to go quit and found another company, and single-mindedly keep all those people away, kinda like Anthropic did when they left OpenAI.