4 ms·
Well, I don't see why a person without the requisite skills should expect to succeed. Sorry, if you're no good at basketball, don't expect to play in the NBA.
by jsankey 17y ago
Well, I don't see why a person without the requisite skills should expect to succeed. Sorry, if you're no good at basketball, don't expect to play in the NBA.
So, by all means, if you're no good at creating websites, it's not a good idea to start one. But I'm thankful that there aren't any arbitrary walls standing in the way for those people that do have what it takes.
- apsec112 17y agoFalse dichotomy. There is a linear continuum of skill, from "completely unskilled" all the way up to "world-class rockstar". In some fields, eg. medicine, if you have median skill for people in the field, you'll do pretty well. In other fields, including programming, sports, movie acting, and math, if you have median skill you'll never get anywhere. Your argument was, "If you have world-class rockstar skill, you don't need to worry about succeeding". This is, in fact, true. However, this does not apply to the 99.9999% of us who do not have world-class rockstar skill. And it does not refute my argument that, given lower capital requirements, there is going to be more competition, making it more difficult for the 99.9999% of us without world-class rockstar skill.
- jsankey 16y agoYou're putting words in my mouth. I'm not at all suggesting that you need "world-class rockstar skill" to succeed. You do need some skill (I suspect less than you think), and the more you have the more likely you are to succeed. And that's the way it should be - success determined by skill rather than your ability to raise capital. That's why I think low capital requirements are an advantage. Not because they make it easier to succeed in some theoretical sense, but because they make things more fair. I'll take the level field with more competition, as it rewards talent and effort.