6 ms·
He's in the extremely privileged position to fund ten thousand people's potentially world-changing dreams. Instead, he's going to squander it podcasting in his
by staunch 10y ago
He's in the extremely privileged position to fund ten thousand people's potentially world-changing dreams. Instead, he's going to squander it podcasting in his pajamas.
We need someone with the ambition Paul Graham had when he launched Y Combinator.
Silicon Valley is still not a meritocracy. There are still tens of thousands of ambitious people not receiving funding. There's still no way for the early users of massive products to buy equity and lift themselves from the lower class.
There is no greater lever in the world than technology, no better way to create technology than startups, and no more sure way to create great startups than by funding them.
- nolanbrown23 10y agoNo, he's not squandering anything. He's placing a higher value on time with his kids and wife than on time with an "ambitious" founder. No one deserves anything or is required to do anything.
- staunch 10y agoYes, of course it's his right to do whatever he wants. I'm just suggesting there's a moral imperative to do something when you can. "With great power comes great responsibility." "To whom much is given, much is required." That kind of thing. It's amazing how few people in Silicon Valley make a billion dollars and then go on to do anything useful with it at all. This criticism applies to the ten thousand people, like Sacca, that made a fortune off Silicon Valley and then "called in rich." What would you think of Bill Gates had he not put his fortune to good use?
- Danihan 10y agoSacca seems to thinks he's putting his fortune to good use by complaining about politics.
- jonknee 10y agoWho's to say VC is putting a fortune to good use?
- sbuttgereit 10y agoFrom what primary facts does such a moral imperative arise? I would suggest that there is no such moral imperative at all and no one should accept that there is until the foundation of such an imperative is clearly and rationally stated. Many make the presumptive leap that morality must necessarily be altruistic with little rational basis for that leap. I disagree that genuine altruism is a moral necessity and will do so until I see substantial, rational arguments as to why altruist moral systems are superior to egoist moral systems. (note that benevolence != altruistic and exists comfortably within egoist moral systems).
- kohanz 10y ago> He's in the extremely privileged position... When you achieve a position by working very hard and risking nearly everything you have, I wouldn't consider that a "privilege". He earned the right to do whatever he wants.
- staunch 10y agoI think privilege is still the correct word, whether you earn it or not. I know it has some bad connotations but that's not what I mean.
- s73ver 10y agoI can easily find a dozen or so people who work just as hard, and are nowhere near as successful. While I won't discount what he achieved, privilege is definitely the right word.
- kohanz 10y agoI think "fortunate" is a more appropriate description. Of course part of his journey was luck and those other people have not been as fortunate. "Privelege" is generally something that is granted to you by another entity.