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

Billionaires Build

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 957 posts

Re: Billionaires Build

#61

Post by detaro »

MattGaiser wrote: post #38
bob33212 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, Bezos didn't set out to bankrupt as many small businesses as he could. He started with providing a wider range of books to people over the internet. For the person who wanted a specific book and was only able to get it on Amazon this is a "good" thing. For the local bookstore who is now bankrupt that is a "bad" thing. I've come to the conclusion that to be a CEO you have to wear these blinders and have faith t…

Small businesses are dying because of small business refusal to use technology. They would rather grumble about how "millennials won't pick up the phone anymore" to order things. In the case of small bookstores, they think it is enough to toss books on the shelf and wait for people to come browsing. Well, I can now browse from bed.

That's very simplified, many small book stores take online or email orders. That doesn't magically put them in the same position as Amazon & co.

Re: Billionaires Build

#62

Post by specialist »

SQueeeeeL wrote: post #37
bob33212 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, Bezos didn't set out to bankrupt as many small businesses as he could. He started with providing a wider range of books to people over the internet. For the person who wanted a specific book and was only able to get it on Amazon this is a "good" thing. For the local bookstore who is now bankrupt that is a "bad" thing. I've come to the conclusion that to be a CEO you have to wear these blinders and have faith t…

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Yes, and: Everyone's the hero of their own story.

Re: Billionaires Build

#64

Post by postingpals »

grenoire wrote: post #49
Traster wrote: post #28

For a clearly smart guy it's so frustrating to see PG bring in a topic like the Billionaires being exploitative, and then taking such a thoroughly blinkered view. It's a massive blind spot that PG fails to address is that it's the exact same sense of mission that he sees in start ups that creates the permission structure to exploit people. It's not that people set out to exploit people and as a result they become bil…

I think he should have kept the essays separate instead of trying to tie them in with shoddy argumentation. That way we could have taken his good YC advice and tear down that blindness he has fostered separately.

This is exactly right. You would think a scientist wouldn't sloppily throw out weak arguments like this. I guess he hasn't been a scientist for many decades, though.

Re: Billionaires Build

#65

Post by waterhouse »

CPLX wrote: post #34
Traster wrote: post #28

For a clearly smart guy it's so frustrating to see PG bring in a topic like the Billionaires being exploitative, and then taking such a thoroughly blinkered view. It's a massive blind spot that PG fails to address is that it's the exact same sense of mission that he sees in start ups that creates the permission structure to exploit people. It's not that people set out to exploit people and as a result they become bil…

> It's just a bizarre primary school understanding or morality where there's a group of "Good" people and "Bad" people. I think it's even more simple than that. It's a failure to realize that everyone is the plucky hero doing things with good intentions in their story about themselves, and that others don't see him as he sees himself. So despite there being a world where the society is becoming increasingly unequal,…

> His only fault, perhaps, is being a massive beneficiary of a system that is profoundly and deeply unfair and getting more that way every day, and he's not able to see that as something he's at fault for.

If some unfair system exists, and you didn't do anything to create it (it existed before you were born), and you don't do anything to make it worse (and maybe occasionally try to make it a little better)... and the system massively benefits you... are you at fault? Why?

Re: Billionaires Build

#66

Post by postingpals »

Traster wrote: post #28

For a clearly smart guy it's so frustrating to see PG bring in a topic like the Billionaires being exploitative, and then taking such a thoroughly blinkered view. It's a massive blind spot that PG fails to address is that it's the exact same sense of mission that he sees in start ups that creates the permission structure to exploit people. It's not that people set out to exploit people and as a result they become bil…

Of course you don't look for people who are exploitative to become billionaires, that's like looking for someone who has grease stains on their shirt to become a chef. Graham is way off here.

Re: Billionaires Build

#68

Post by staunch »

1. I think if PG was being honest with himself, he'd admit that they spend only 10 minutes interviewing because he personally wouldn't want to be stuck in a room with someone he doesn't like for longer. That's a weakness of someone who clearly disdains anyone he views as a lesser mind (see: "culture fit").

Making snap judgments about people seems to be one of his major personality flaws. Steve Jobs had the same flaw, so it's clearly not professionally debilitating, but it is reprehensible nonetheless.

2. YC could make the process less fickle and far more objective by having each startup get interviewed for 10 minutes by each partner, rather than in a high pressure groupthink session. It would cost no more of their time.

And of course, they could also just increase the time and interview just as many startups as they want. YC partners could treat it like a real job with hard work, rather than act like lazy VCs.

Anyone who has interviewed people knows that first impressions are often wrong, and yet YC bases their decisions entirely on first impressions, which is both funny and sad.

3. It's likely that YC's success is based on their much-more objective application process, and the interview is random noise in the process. It is probably even worse than random noise and YC might be 2-10x more successful just by eliminating the interview stage.

4. PG has no true idea how other YC partners make their decisions, it's likely to be very far from his own process, making his advice inaccurate and harmful to founders.

Re: Billionaires Build

#69

Post by thorough »

daedalus6174 wrote: post #7

One mistake pg makes here is assuming that to be an exploitative billionaire you have to be good at exploiting people or have personal manipulative qualities. You don’t. Owning a large company in a capitalist system is inherently exploitative. Simply owning a large company and taking surplus value from a large number of people is exploitation.

Hypothetical question:

I have little money but I write an amazing book and it sells to millions. Each books takes, say, $5 to print, and yet I sell it for $15. Therefore I end up wealthy from this endeavor.

Did I exploit the people who chose to buy my book? The people who printed it?

Re: Billionaires Build

#70

Post by troughway »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #56
troughway wrote: post #45

Can someone pin point what is objectively wrong or out of touch with this article? Genuinely asking because the past three+ posts from pg have been met with negativity saying pg is a wealthy Londoner who doesn’t understand the prole struggle.

I don't really think this is a new theme for pg's essays [edit: I mean, I don't think pg's style or content has changed that much], although I've also noticed this change [in responses here]. Usually, HN is the space where his essays are most heavily defended.

This is certainly a newer-ish theme.

I am not sure where the bitterness comes, and to be honest, I would like to know. We are reading the same essays.

More and more I am starting to think that people who are decrying pg's writing should come clean and say whether or not they've started a business, and if so, what was the outcome. The outcome isn't as relevant, but I bet there are very few people out there who have reached, lets call it "Fuck You" money through running their own business who would read this essay and go "Hah he's so out of touch he doesn't even see it anymore" and toss some link about Dunning-Kruger or whatever.

For people who are in the business of making money through getting shit built, I think what he's saying will resonate just fine. But then again it's one of those things where the people who need it the most are the least likely ones to take it, and vice versa. It's akin to the "It's a good problem to have" crowd when you say how you're sick of dealing with clients on the phone even though you have a 200-person company, and they look at you sideways because they have no idea why you are complaining.

He's talking about billionaires and interviews in this one, and he starts off saying how the two threads are connected. But what he's really talking about is building-a-business-by-convincing-people-you're-not-full-of-hot-air.

And unfortunately, when I see people tearing his essays apart, their ramblings strike me as nothing but hot air.

I think it's HN who is out of touch more than pg is, because I don't think the vast majority are here to build businesses whatsoever.

Post reply on HN