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

Crazy New Ideas

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 808 posts

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#681

Post by jaredsohn »

allenu wrote: post #558
munk-a wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For blogs in particular - this came after both geocities and livejournal. Folks had the ability to host their own websites with relative ease and to write a post history that other folks could subscribe and comment on. Blogging as a verb and Blogs as a noun really came into their own when folks decided that this sort of journal was a common enough task (and shared hosts like live journal lacked enough features) that…

I think you're right about the timeline. I do remember livejournal being around before Blogger, which is around when "blogging" became a term. I remember getting into a few people's web-based online diaries in the late '90s and definitely some folks used geocities to host their journals. I remember using it myself to post whatever nonsense I was doing to share with friends.

You could use the finger command on users and read their .plan files even earlier than that. Quake developers were famous for those. https://fabiensanglard.net/fd_proxy/doom3/pdfs/johnc-plan_19...

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#683

Post by samatman »

pedalpete wrote: post #631
ammar_x wrote: post #592

The main idea of the article is that when someone who is a domain expert proposes an idea that seems wrong, there is a chance that this idea is a great idea because why would a smart person proposes a stupid idea? They must've known something. He says that in history, great ideas started like that. But he didn't provide examples. I didn't find the article practical because of that. It would have been a lot more usefu…

I think there are enough examples for and against. He does give the example of Copernicus, I believe Louis Pasteur would be another good example. PG does say he is speaking mostly of maths, sciences, etc. But there are also many examples where the domain experts missed the opportunities, and somebody else stepped in. The AirBnB gang weren't domain experts in hospitality. Coinbase founder wasn't an expert in finance (…

It turns out that security was the domain where Coinbase needed expertise.

Selling something and taking a commission is not exactly the nosebleed seats of high finance. Lots of people with expertise in setting up a web site, and enough finance to run a business, could have become Bitcoin markets.

Indeed, a lot of them did. Most of them got hacked, sooner or later, because protecting billions of dollars of value from adversarial forces is very, very difficult.

Coinbase didn't. Security is the hard part.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#685

Post by suhail »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #618
suhail wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, unlike the examples above, we have permission to your data (if you give it to us) but we don't own or control any of it. We don't store it elsewhere. We don't sell it to the highest bidder. We don't mine it for some other purpose. Let me be clear: we plan to charge a subscription. That's our only business model. I think we can improve privacy and security for most users who have trouble managing it. For instanc…

I dont have an issue with this specific case, more the industry shift to rent seeking. Cars have subscriptions. Next your thin client hardware needs to pay rent to work. It is a slippery slope and claiming virtue doesnt decrease the gradient. Also, history tells us when companies say they wont be evil... they mean "not yet". It is a middle man power play pure and simple. The rest feels like classic SV/startup window…

> "Also, history tells us when companies say they wont be evil... they mean "not yet". It is a middle man power play pure and simple."

That's factually incorrect that, that always happens and I am not sure why you think we're grouped into that without any evidence or a basis of reasoning.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#686

Post by hellbannedguy »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #595
marcus_holmes wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think of this as my "Kardashian problem". I don't understand why the Kardashians are famous or wealthy. I mean I get the mechanics of it - famous legal case -> sex tape -> reality TV show. But I don't understand how this works, or why it works. This isn't their problem. They are very wealthy, famous, and they obviously totally grok how their market works. This is my problem. I should not attempt to produce a mass-m…

Luck seems to play a big role in the celebrity market

I agree.

I would like to add luck to the theatrical world too.

I look at movie stars, and it seems like a very exclusive club.

If you can read lines, have a bit of charisma, and get that ever so lucky break--it almost seems like you have to work at getting kicked out, and even if you gain a bunch of weight, and fry your liver, and kidneys with drugs; in many cases the actor just gets more opportunities.

It seems like a couple hundred actors get most of the jobs.

As to the Kardiasians I believe it was luck, and a good product. I can't believe I wrote that last sentence. I never thought I would put "good", and "Kardasians" in the same sentence.

I kinda get the success of the Kardasians though. The ladies look multiracial. They are of all ages. For so long the fair skinned starlet was the desirable one.

Now--it's changing, and I like the change.

I'm still baffled by the younger one's financial success in makeup, and what not. She is worth over a billion dollars. MBA programs should be studying her business moves.

Selling to women is an art. If you can crack the mystery you can be a billionaire too? I remember hearing someone say selling to men is easy. Give them a product they like, and they will come back. She said selling to women is more nuanced. I always have that advice in the back of my mind.

I have a very pretty sister who moved to Los Angeles. She skipped college. She felt it was a waste of time, and she was probally right? She used networking to get jobs. She then decided to make, and sell shoes. In a few years, she had multiple stores, and is very successful. (Sadly we are not close. I will always love her, but the greed got mixed in family stuff. I guess that happens a lot?)

I remember looking at her first prototypes, and didn't get it at all. I wished her well though. She got a tiny bit of financial help.

She didn't need any advice from me though. She knew what would sell. She literally started off making the shoes in her garage, with minimal materials, and tools. I was always encouraging. I knew fashion was way out of my wheel house though.

(I really don't have a point? I rambled all over the place? Looking at my writing I hope nothing is considered sexist.)

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#687

Post by lapnitnelav »

d_burfoot wrote: post #596
bestinterest wrote: post #4

Very interesting. This sounds like a response to the Mighty [0] launch which Paul Graham has been defending on twitter recently after an outcry from some of the 'hardcore' developers such as Jonathan Blow [1] and Casey [2]. [0] https://www.mightyapp.com/ [1] https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1387101172230672389 [2] https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1387645578067124224

I follow Blow's work and opinions quite closely. I am quite confident he was NOT criticizing Mighty specifically. Instead he was deploring the state of software engineering in general and web programming in particular. He is saying something like "I can't believe web engineering sucks so bad that a tool like Mighty actually makes sense". See his talk about preventing the end of civilization (!!): https://www.youtube.…

Fascinating video as always from Jonathan.

Definitely highlights something I've always felt, which is that we're really making life complicated with all those tools and processes that are less than ideal.

I get the feeling business and the need to "ship" stuff is the thing really bringing technology down, even though it looks like it's moving it forward.

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#688

Post by BrandonM »

jasode wrote: post #665
BrandonM wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello. I’m honestly loving this conversation. Thanks for engaging seriously about it. It also means a lot, dang, that you took the time to both understand my points and also to counter the narrative, all these years after I commented. As much as I appreciate your thoughtfulness, I really don’t mind the commentary. I’m long past being frustrated about being misinterpreted, and I learned a lot from it, anyway. As I’ve…

>I’m long past being frustrated about being misinterpreted, Thanks for adding to the discussion. While dang was trying to defend your character, I was emphasizing the peculiar wordsmithing of your text being an enduring magnet for memes. Are you aware of snowclones[1]? Here's a recent snowclone example[2] from HN: For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by installing an x11vnc s…

Haha, thanks for pointing me to that comment. It’s especially hilarious to me because I wrote a blog post nearly 10 years ago about exactly how to configure SSH+VNC like that[1][2]. It was even featured in the now-defunct Hacker Monthly.

I appreciate your theorizing on its staying power. It’s interesting to think about why a particular phrase sticks with people.

[1] http://shebang.mintern.net/tips-for-remote-unix-work-ssh-scr...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3364025

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#689

Post by lvs »

dang wrote: post #672
lvs wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holmes was a domain expert, wasn't she? I guess con artists also happen to be domain experts sometimes. Oh no, is it possible your precious founder is confusing chance with wisdom or luck with skill?

I don't know if she was or not, nor if that idea would particularly count as crazy. It's a little silly to misread pg as saying that every such idea must be true. Also, why be so mean? It only makes things worse.

Are you sure that a community idolizing the utterances of a winning gambler isn't what makes everything worse?

Re: Crazy New Ideas

#690

Post by throwaway2037 »

geebee wrote: post #388

Lots of comments already, but I'll chime on in. I realized this very late in life, but I have a test for when it's time to pay attention to a new technology. It's when technical people look at what seems like a groundbreaking idea, seem unimpressed, and say "couldn't you just _____", were the blank is filled with something a nontechnical person doesn't understand or considers very cumbersome. The web: couldn't you ju…

That is a great list. I also felt the same about many of those technologies, but I never thought to put it so succinctly -- as you have!

For years, I never understood the point of Twitter. It felt like nano-blogging -- Why not just use a regular blog platform?. Later, I realised it is a single global open forum of "random" chats that are interlinked via @person and #idea links. So if a bunch of random people who don't know each other are nano-blogging about #idea, it's like they are part of a chat room called #idea. And, of course, you can cross-post to multiple @people and #ideas in same Tweet. And there is no gate-keeping: You don't need to ask to join an #idea and I don't think it is possible to block other people referencing your @name. Other social media platforms seem to integrate with the @people and #idea thing -- no sure if that actually came from Twitter.

Technology and concept aside, I still think most of Twitter is garbage content. /Once in a while/, I see a Twitter thread from an economist or hedge fund manager that is referenced by FT Alphaville (https://ftalphaville.ft.com/). And to be fair: A lot of interesting discussion about racial injustice in last five years originated as complaints or short stories on Twitter... then blew-up in more traditional media. Else... it seems like noise.

Related to your list: One thing I have never understood: Brand names create social media precense, like Coca Cola on Facebook. And people subscribe. Why? That is so weird. Coca Cola... really? I dunno... maybe they have fun photos on their Instagram. I assumed social media was for human-to-human contact, not business-to-human contact. I was wrong! Some of those brand names have massive social media following. Campbell's Soup! Tide Detergent!

Post reply on HN