431–440 of 482 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He certainly started that way; his Common Lisp stuff is interesting, although I don't usually agree that it's the best approach. But as far as I know, the only technical thing he's done since selling Viaweb is ... this forum. You apply to YC for money and for contacts---exactly what dealmakers do.
He worked on this for several years after leaving YC: http://www.paulgraham.com/bel.html Not sure how that doesn't count as technical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
PG hacked the VC system so he didn't have to be a dealmaker. YC has standard terms so there's no haggling on price, pro rata, board seats, or anything else. They've automated a lot of what they do via software and their network. And because of the content they put out and the reputation they've built, founders from all over the world come to them and accept much worse terms than any normal VC would offer.
The big question is whether this leads to better overall outcomes. If the company fails, or is aquihired by the skin of its teeth, it doesn't matter which terms the various rounds offered when. YC is perceived as offering a greater chance of success, a combination of being plugged into a large network of alumni and having the halo effect which comes from getting into a cohort. As long as that perception is there, fou…
But that's exactly what a dealmaker does, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a Russian saying: Who is a wise man? The one that always seeks to occupy the smallest place/room. Nota Bene: I am not a Russian, but simply encountered this formulation several times.
That saying, combined with the euphemism "smallest room in the house", paints an interesting picture.
"Will you be clever at the expense of others, or will you be kind?" -Jeff Bezos https://www.princeton.edu/news/2010/05/30/2010-baccalaureate... "Fierce nerds" can be valuable. Sure. But the folks who truly stand out in my mind are a level higher. They're the ones at the top of their game, who know how to demand & command excellence, without being jerks about it. I'm reminded of this episode of "The Chef Show" where J…
> "Will you be clever at the expense of others, or will you be kind?" -Jeff Bezos That an interesting read, thanks. I struggle to square what Bezos is saying with what Amazon has become. He is clearly incredibly clever but appears devoid of any kindness toward his low level employees. Am I missing something?
> Most people think of nerds as quiet, diffident people. [...] In fact some nerds are quite fierce. That someone would think nerds are not competitive is, to me, the strangest thing about this article. Perhaps because I'm one, but whether it's Magic the gathering, Demoparties, rubics cube solving, chess, Counterstrike LANs, academia, or any of my tech jobs, every "nerdy" activity I've ever engaged with has always bee…
I worked with a number of brilliant people at Bell Labs through the 1980s/1990s. The most comfortably competent among them, the most productive among them, were also the least abrasive. They were also the most self deprecating. Not just one or two, but the majority of them. To the point that the aggressive geniuses stood out. And I worked for/with two abrasive ones as well, so I know the difference. The same was true…
Did you know any of them via mailing lists or Usenet, just face to face?
People's abrasiveness will come out in situations in which they think there won't be any repercussions.
I think the problem with Paul Graham's writing is that it always comes down to talking about getting rich. A lot of people - including very intelligent people - have other things they'd rather do than play such a stupid game. Unfortunately the world is pushing everyone in that direction which will create a lot of bitterness because most people necessarily lose that game.
His observation was that even if you aren't trying to do things for the money and just want to solve some problem, a lot of times the only practical option is to form a company. Maybe that isn't always true, but at least it seems plausible. He also notes that not chasing money can have advantages: craigslist isn't a charity, but they run it like one. That makes them pretty hard to compete against.
Exerpt:
> Back when I was working on spam filters I thought it would be a good idea to have a web-based email service with good spam filtering. I wasn't thinking of it as a company. I just wanted to keep people from getting spammed. But as I thought more about this project, I realized it would probably have to be a company. It would cost something to run, and it would be a pain to fund with grants and donations.
> That was a surprising realization. Companies often claim to be benevolent, but it was surprising to realize there were purely benevolent projects that had to be embodied as companies to work.
> I didn't want to start another company, so I didn't do it. But if someone had, they'd probably be quite rich now. There was a window of about two years when spam was increasing rapidly but all the big email services had terrible filters. If someone had launched a new, spam-free mail service, users would have flocked to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He worked on this for several years after leaving YC: http://www.paulgraham.com/bel.html Not sure how that doesn't count as technical.
Whatever happened to Arc?
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There are plenty of people in the tech industry who abhor any process, norm, or ideology (most often, especially if it’s not one they created). I don’t think it’s uncharitable to simply take the comment at its word, and adding an implied “excess,” “unnecessary,” or whatever constructs a different—and more ambiguous—argument to comment on.