12 ms·

> btw, if you think tech world is sexist and pigeonholing try watching TV ads... And the other aspects are not bad but just a normal imperfect human behavior.

> btw, if you think tech world is sexist and pigeonholing try watching TV ads... And the other aspects are not bad but just a normal imperfect human behavior. I didn't claim this. However, there's no correlation between sexist marketing and sexist work culture. On top of this, writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules. Two wrongs don't make a right. > Maybe if they did, they'd be a large national chain of bike repair shops now? Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? If so, then we're probably not going to see eye-to-eye in this discussion. I do not think that hyperbolic marketing is a necessary condition to success. > The point is there's nothing inherently bad in wanting to change the world of bikes forever. Indeed, but there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world. If 500 intelligent, aware people are all convinced that they are going to change the world then, well I'm interested in whatever kool-aid they're drinking and how. Moreover, you seem to be implying that founders actually believe their mission statements. I'm going to rebut and say no, most founders use the mission statement as another form of marketing. > And SV companies surely provide ample evidence that marketing is not the only thing they do. But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc. > Surely, some companies are just hype, and those get up, stay up for a short while, and go down to the ash heap of history, never to be spoken about again (would anybody know what Juicero was in 5 years? maybe some ubergeeks would) While this is a slightly different issue than the one discussed in the article, I'd like to reply to this. Behind each of these pure hype Silicon Valley companies are VCs who actually invested in them, who wrote them checks of $10,000+ that believed in the hype and marketing potential of these startups. This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion.

smsm42 9y ago
> writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". > Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. That requires certain mindset. Wanting to change the world highly correlates with such a mindset. Wanting to improve the cost of fidgelating type A sprockets by 0.1% does not. Of course, if humans were perfect robots, they'd always be exactly as much excited as it takes to be able to do a startup, and not one exciton over that. Imperfect humans frequently get more excited than that. > there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world There's million of traders believing they can make a profit (which is arithmetically impossible) and millions of people believing they all can win a lottery (which is even more impossible since lottery is a negative-sum game). Of course, vast majority of these people are wrong. And 499 of the 500 startup founders will be wrong too. So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. > But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc. Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? > This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion. High risk investment is in no way unique to SV. There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. They can afford it, and they are the lifeblood of innovation and invention. All power to them. I literally can't think of anything bad coming from a billionaire spending some promilles of his outsized bank account on some weird innovative project, that may or may not change the world. Some of those would be stupid, so what. You can't make innovation without doing a couple of stupid tries on the way.
- Karrot_Kream 9y ago
  > Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". It was unclear to me whether you were suggesting sexism was under the domain of "normal imperfect human behavior" or not. If you weren't, then I apologize, I misread. > I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. I agree with this premise, but I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word and are using hyperbolic rhetoric to both appeal to a cultural standard in the industry and to convince their employees to work harder for less compensation and more uncertainty. If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Admirable attempts no doubt, but changing the world they are not. > So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. Because these people employ others who are convinced by their rhetoric. Gambling laws and Ponzi Scheme laws exist to stop greedy actors from exploiting human failings. My argument here is that joining a startup is akin to gambling, and giving them a free pass is akin to taking an amoral stance on gambling. > Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? Yeah apologies I wasn't super cogent here. > There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games and other such gambling because it's widely recognized that high risk gambling can be exploitative and ruinous. I don't see any such urge in tech.
  - smsm42 9y ago
    > I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word I have no idea. How would you know? And then, who cares - if they do change the world, it doesn't matter if they really really wanted it or jus kinda, and if they don't, truly nobody cares. > If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Vast majority of startups also don't make claims about changing the world. In fact, we, on average, know absolutely nothing about vast majority of startups, because there's just too many of them. Everybody knows about Juicero, because that's in the press, but nobody knows about 10000 non-Juiceros. If you want to discuss the hyped ones - then let's not lose the focus. > Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. If people with funding make decision on whether somebody uses rhetoric or not, only, then the rhetoric is not a problem. But frankly, I don't believe it. People who professionally invest money are not stupider than you or me, if you can see it, they can see it. So I don't think "we're too honest with our rhetoric and too beautiful for this cruel world" is a real industry-wise problem. Lack of communicative or marketing skills to clearly explain the idea behind the startup may very well be, but that's a different one. > Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games Wait, so the whole problem is that there's no Big Dude from Big Government overseeing it and protecting poor investors from themselves? The the whole thing is even less substance than I expected. I think exploitation of angel investor billionaires by overhyped startups is not the problem we should be too worried about, and probably not in the first 1000 of the problems that our society faces.

smsm42 9y ago

> writing off bad behavior as "normal imperfect human behavior" is just an excuse to break rules Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". > Are you implying that the hyperbolic marketing of startups is a feature and not a bug? I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. That requires certain mindset. Wanting to change the world highly correlates with such a mindset. Wanting to improve the cost of fidgelating type A sprockets by 0.1% does not. Of course, if humans were perfect robots, they'd always be exactly as much excited as it takes to be able to do a startup, and not one exciton over that. Imperfect humans frequently get more excited than that. > there's a cognitive dissonance when 500 startup founders believe they are all changing the world There's million of traders believing they can make a profit (which is arithmetically impossible) and millions of people believing they all can win a lottery (which is even more impossible since lottery is a negative-sum game). Of course, vast majority of these people are wrong. And 499 of the 500 startup founders will be wrong too. So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. > But there are SV companies which provide ample evidence that marketing is all the do. Juicero, Yo, etc. Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? > This is a very unique aspect of tech culture, and not at all a good one in my opinion. High risk investment is in no way unique to SV. There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. They can afford it, and they are the lifeblood of innovation and invention. All power to them. I literally can't think of anything bad coming from a billionaire spending some promilles of his outsized bank account on some weird innovative project, that may or may not change the world. Some of those would be stupid, so what. You can't make innovation without doing a couple of stupid tries on the way.

Karrot_Kream 9y ago
> Which rules? There are no rules saying "you can't do marketing" or "you can't claim to change the world". It was unclear to me whether you were suggesting sexism was under the domain of "normal imperfect human behavior" or not. If you weren't, then I apologize, I misread. > I am implying it's a natural consequence of a startup being oriented on doing something new, never done before, and natural consequence of somebody being about to undertake a high-risk/high-reward activity. I agree with this premise, but I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word and are using hyperbolic rhetoric to both appeal to a cultural standard in the industry and to convince their employees to work harder for less compensation and more uncertainty. If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Admirable attempts no doubt, but changing the world they are not. > So what? Why is it "toxic"? What's your problem with them believing it? People hold much more dangerous and useless false beliefs every day than belief that you can have positive impact on the world. Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. Because these people employ others who are convinced by their rhetoric. Gambling laws and Ponzi Scheme laws exist to stop greedy actors from exploiting human failings. My argument here is that joining a startup is akin to gambling, and giving them a free pass is akin to taking an amoral stance on gambling. > Didn't I just admit there are some companies that are just hype in the very next phrase, and explained why this admission does not disprove my point? Yeah apologies I wasn't super cogent here. > There are lots of people that invest in all kinds of crazy stuff, from hipster juicers to high-stake poker games. Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games and other such gambling because it's widely recognized that high risk gambling can be exploitative and ruinous. I don't see any such urge in tech.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > I'm going to argue that the vast majority of startup founders are not interested in actually changing the word I have no idea. How would you know? And then, who cares - if they do change the world, it doesn't matter if they really really wanted it or jus kinda, and if they don't, truly nobody cares. > If I take a glance at AngelList, the vast majority of startups are trying to fix small problems in niche fields. Vast majority of startups also don't make claims about changing the world. In fact, we, on average, know absolutely nothing about vast majority of startups, because there's just too many of them. Everybody knows about Juicero, because that's in the press, but nobody knows about 10000 non-Juiceros. If you want to discuss the hyped ones - then let's not lose the focus. > Because these people make it harder for qualified people with less rhetoric to gain funding. If people with funding make decision on whether somebody uses rhetoric or not, only, then the rhetoric is not a problem. But frankly, I don't believe it. People who professionally invest money are not stupider than you or me, if you can see it, they can see it. So I don't think "we're too honest with our rhetoric and too beautiful for this cruel world" is a real industry-wise problem. Lack of communicative or marketing skills to clearly explain the idea behind the startup may very well be, but that's a different one. > Again, there's regulation around high stake poker games Wait, so the whole problem is that there's no Big Dude from Big Government overseeing it and protecting poor investors from themselves? The the whole thing is even less substance than I expected. I think exploitation of angel investor billionaires by overhyped startups is not the problem we should be too worried about, and probably not in the first 1000 of the problems that our society faces.