'Most of the “intermediate” companies, although it would take a separate long post to explain why, end up not having a big impact' This is something I can't qu

'Most of the “intermediate” companies, although it would take a separate long post to explain why, end up not having a big impact' This is something I can't quite accept at face value, though I'm open to convincing. It kind of depends on the terms you're think in, anyway. Sounds worthy of a long post. I mean, how do we class twitter or whatsapp? World Changers. On one hand, they have that hyperexponential growth in users usefulness. They have had "political scale" implications. On the other hand, we can speculate that had these specific services not been started, other would have. Do they count as toys or hyperambitious endeavours at the start? Being network effect apps, they have that need/implication for lots of users. They are also "toys" in the sense that they are relatively simple apps. I'd like to hear about the terms he's thinking in, basically. Regarding the SV hate, I think this is more about (1) not understanding low probability, high risk than exponential growth and (2) the arrogance of saying you are going to change the world while being cashed up. IE, when investors pay $100k for a 1% of a company that may be worth $10bn at some point, that's assuming an awful lot of companies that failed to become worth $10bn. People see hundreds of companies reported on (or in person). Even if they're good at picking out potential, they see that effectively all of these companies are ridiculously unlikely to ever reach anything like that. Yet, they are talking in these grandiose terms. Sounds delusional and arrogant.