5 ms·

Its sometimes interpreted as cheating if you leverage any other thing you may have developed. Like an audience or previous product.

x0x0 10y ago
Not cheating -- no-one is making a moral claim here -- but to leave running Fandalism out of your description of your success feels like you're eliding crucial information. Like possessing a great marketing channel. And good for Pud for building it and using it! I read these sort of success threads as basically case studies, and that marketing channel is probably relevant.
visakanv 10y ago
^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. I'm reminded of @pmarca's advice for startup founders who want to meet VCs: > The best way to develop contacts with VCs, in my opinion, is to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > If you can't get hired by a venture-backed startup right now, work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > And if you can't get hired by a well-regarded large tech company, go get a bachelor's or master's degree at a major research university from which well-regarded large tech companies regularly recruit, then work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > I sound like I'm joking, but I'm completely serious -- this is the path taken by many venture-backed entrepreneurs I know. – http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part3.html http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part3.html
- taneq 10y ago
  > ^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. The weird thing is how someone who does this is lauded for it, but if it's a family rather than an individual that compounds earlier wins, suddenly it's 'wealth inequality' and terribly unfair.
  - mvp 10y ago
    Maybe because most virtues make sense from an individual perspective rather than a group.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Because it demotivates people. The thing about capitalism, which I feel is not widely understood, it's that as a participant, you're meant to compete, but you're not meant to win. The need for money to sustain your lifestyle is what drives people to productive work; competition is what drives companies to optimize. But the moment someone wins - a person becomes rich, a company becomes a monopoly - they actually become a problem. At best, they're no longer working and optimizing. At worst, they can disrupt lives of a lot of people. The promise of great wealth is phony by design.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      You are supposed to win, but then adjust your goals, i.e. aim higher. This is a different thing.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        No; in designing a robust system, you can't rely on what people are "supposed to do" out of their own initiative. As it is on the market, the moment you win and the external incentives pushing you to "aim higher" disappear, you become a wildcard - i.e. a problem.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > out of their own initiative aiming higher is human nature. The system is based on this evolutionary fact (sometimes called 'greed', or self-interest), not on directing human behaviour. The market is also based on mutual self-interest. There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
floodyberry- 10y ago
When you're self reporting how you think you accomplished something and you leave information out, it's not cheating, it's leaving information out. It doesn't mean it's intentional, but not being intentional doesn't make the left out information irrelevant.

x0x0 10y ago

Not cheating -- no-one is making a moral claim here -- but to leave running Fandalism out of your description of your success feels like you're eliding crucial information. Like possessing a great marketing channel. And good for Pud for building it and using it! I read these sort of success threads as basically case studies, and that marketing channel is probably relevant.

visakanv 10y ago

^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. I'm reminded of @pmarca's advice for startup founders who want to meet VCs: > The best way to develop contacts with VCs, in my opinion, is to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > If you can't get hired by a venture-backed startup right now, work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > And if you can't get hired by a well-regarded large tech company, go get a bachelor's or master's degree at a major research university from which well-regarded large tech companies regularly recruit, then work at a well-regarded large tech company that employs a lot of people like Google or Apple, gain experience, and then go to work at a venture-backed startup, kick butt, get promoted, and network the whole way. > I sound like I'm joking, but I'm completely serious -- this is the path taken by many venture-backed entrepreneurs I know. – http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part3.html http://pmarchive.com/guide_to_startups_part3.html

taneq 10y ago
> ^ This is always amusing to me, because people who get really successful do it by compounding earlier wins over decades. The weird thing is how someone who does this is lauded for it, but if it's a family rather than an individual that compounds earlier wins, suddenly it's 'wealth inequality' and terribly unfair.
- mvp 10y ago
  Maybe because most virtues make sense from an individual perspective rather than a group.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  Because it demotivates people. The thing about capitalism, which I feel is not widely understood, it's that as a participant, you're meant to compete, but you're not meant to win. The need for money to sustain your lifestyle is what drives people to productive work; competition is what drives companies to optimize. But the moment someone wins - a person becomes rich, a company becomes a monopoly - they actually become a problem. At best, they're no longer working and optimizing. At worst, they can disrupt lives of a lot of people. The promise of great wealth is phony by design.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    You are supposed to win, but then adjust your goals, i.e. aim higher. This is a different thing.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      No; in designing a robust system, you can't rely on what people are "supposed to do" out of their own initiative. As it is on the market, the moment you win and the external incentives pushing you to "aim higher" disappear, you become a wildcard - i.e. a problem.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > out of their own initiative aiming higher is human nature. The system is based on this evolutionary fact (sometimes called 'greed', or self-interest), not on directing human behaviour. The market is also based on mutual self-interest. There are no 'external incentives' other than access to higher/more expensive goals.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago

floodyberry- 10y ago

When you're self reporting how you think you accomplished something and you leave information out, it's not cheating, it's leaving information out. It doesn't mean it's intentional, but not being intentional doesn't make the left out information irrelevant.