12 ms·
The equation is not bad, however I have an improved version of Startup = idea + execution + product + team + luck I'd rather say: Startup = idea * ex
by kowdermeister 10y ago
The equation is not bad, however I have an improved version of
Startup = idea + execution + product + team + luck
I'd rather say:
Startup = idea * execution * product * team * connections * money
Each multiplier should be limited to 0 .. 1 range and thus the closest the left hand is to 1, the better the chances are you'll succeed.
- amelius 10y agoThere's a reason people speak of the "factors" that determine success, instead of the "terms" that determine success :)
- wlievens 10y agoIn all seriousness I've often wondered if there is anything multiplicative in the semantics of the situations where people use the word "factor".
- otoburb 10y agoIt is exactly for that reason that I often prefer the term "force multiplier"[1] when the situation requires people to understand a multiplicative factor is in play. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_multiplication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_multiplication
- chongli 10y agothus the closest the left hand is to 1, the better the chances are you'll succeed If that is the case, then shouldn't money and connections come right after idea? Tons and tons of ideas people have every day are abandoned immediately for lack of money and connections.
- kowdermeister 10y agoThe order doesn't matter :)
- chongli 10y agoIt doesn't matter mathematically but it does matter in real life. In real life you don't have all of the terms of the equation simultaneously, you acquire them in order. People generally have money and/or connections before they have a startup idea. Obviously, they also have an idea before they have a team, execution, or a product.
- kowdermeister 10y agoSure, it does matter in real life, but since it probably varies from project to project I wouldn't go that far setting a "correct" order.
- mipmap04 10y agoHe's saying the left hand side of the equation. The order of the items on the right hand side does not matter.
- mangeletti 10y agoCan an interpreter shirt curcuit a multiplication if the left side is 0? In Python, for instance, is the following: a * b * c * d computed like this?: ((a * b) * c) * d Or is it computed like this?: a * ((b * c) * d) If the former is the case, then the chongli optimization could help, right?
- palunon 10y agoIf you have IEEE compliant floats, you can't, because the right side may result in Infinity, making the complete product NaN.
- mangeletti 10y agoInteresting. We're talking integers here, though (re: Python).
- chrisseaton 10y agoShort circuiting means branching, which is likely to be slower than running operators that you know to result is zero.
- nayuki 10y agoNo, an interpreter cannot short-circuit a zero multiplication. This is because the expressions could be functions that raise exceptions. e.g. 0 * (0/0) e.g. f() * raise_some_exception()
- mangeletti 10y agoAh, of course. In hindsight, I now feel pretty silly even asking that.
- xenobioticants 10y agoNope. A large part is being at the right place in time (and location), which is pure luck.
- HeyLaughingBoy 10y agoI'm not sure this applies. Your particular idea may only be successful at the right time and place. But for any arbitrary time and place, there most likely exists a set of potentially successful ideas that you could execute on.
- fnbr 10y agoSam Altman has given a speech a few times (I heard it most recently in "How to Start a Startup") where he uses the same equation, but adds luck, where luck is a random variable going from 0-1000: Startup = idea * execution * product * team * connections * money * luck I think that's a very accurate assessment of the situation. You need to work hard, have a good team, etc., etc., but without luck, you won't be successful.
- throwawayReply 10y agoGiven it's all multiplied it doesn't matter if the luck is from 0-1000 or 0-1, it has the same effect on the outcome. a * (b * 1000) = (a * 1000) * b Sorry, I hate bad maths, I realise it is just trying to imply that luck is more important, but in that case it should be * luck^n.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ketzu 10y agoBut luck in [0,1] would even make less sense as luck^n (as it goes to 0), while as luck in [0,1000] could scale a successful startup by the factor of up to 1000.
- nawitus 10y agoIt doesn't matter if you're comparing "0.001" success to "1" success or "1" success to "1000" success.
- throwawayReply 10y agoWhat I meant by 'n' was a weighting. I wasn't clear. Let's say you have 4 factors a, b, c, d. If we are summing them then we can just sum them straight: score = a + b + c + d If we want to place more importance on some of them we weight them, with (constant) weights w, x, y, z by doing this: score = w * a + x * b + y * c + z * d. If it's a multiplicative relationship however then we multiply straight: score = a * b * c * d If we tried add weighting in the same way: score = w * a * x * b * y * c * z * d Then all we've done is scale the previous score by (w * x * y * z) which is constant, so hasn't actually affected any ranking. To weight a multiplicative relationship requires the weights to be exponents: score = a^w * b^x * c^y * d^z The scores can be in [0..1] or [1..N], the increased weights still increase relative power of the input parameter. If you take logs it's clear why. log(score) = w * log(a) + ... + z * log(d) which is our weighting when summing again, and log is monotonic (proof of which is left to the reader), log(S1) < log(S2) implies S1 < S2. Edit: Fixed formatting, it thinks * is italic.
- _RPM 10y ago+ Privilege You can't leave that variable out.
- burkaman 10y agoI think that's covered by connections and money.
- Perixoog 10y agowhere does timing fit in?
- grzm 10y agoIf you can control the timing, I'd say execution. Otherwise, luck.