6 ms·

I think this is vastly underappreciated. Even myself as a mere middle class kid never worried about what’s if this company goes under or I lose that job. Especi

I think this is vastly underappreciated. Even myself as a mere middle class kid never worried about what’s if this company goes under or I lose that job. Especially when starting to freelance this insured me from payment delays or going in over my head and needing more time get something finished. I had the confidence to believe in myself for the long run but also always knew mum and dad would have my back in the short run should anything go awry.

skookumchuck 8y ago
Gary Kildall had every opportunity to do what Gates did, and did not come from a wealthy family nor did he go to Harvard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall In fact, IBM first went to Gary Kildall for DOS. Lots of people got rich off of software in those days, hardly any of them went to Harvard.
- wslh 8y ago
  I think nobody is arguing that this happens in 100% of the cases but being wealthy and/or well connected adds "an ace under the sleeve". The 70s and 80s were also great times to start a computer related company, that's for sure.
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    The point is that Gates' background was hardly a precondition for his success. Edit: Gary Kildall could have done everything Gates did, and Tim Patterson wrote DOS, not Gates. Tons of people knew how to program and had access to computers. Computers were not invented in 1975. The lower middle class neighborhood public high school in my neighborhood in 1975 had a computer and offered programming classes. There's a reason Allen raced to show Gates the Popular Electronics issue - he knew there'd be others doing the same thing right away.
    - wslh 8y ago
      Gates and Allen background was having written a BASIC for the Altair . Allen had also previous experience in programming. Not many (and much less younger) people had this background.
      - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
        Specifically Gates and Allen were given timesharing access to a DEC-10 at school - which was an incredibly rare privilege in the early 1970s. Allen had already written an 8008 emulator on the same model of mainframe as the one at Harvard. And that made it possible to update the emulator while at Harvard and then use it as the basis of their version of BASIC.
        skookumchuck 8y ago
        Any programmer at the time could have written in 8080 emulator. They didn't have to be a kid in school. The DEC-10 was a popular computer. MIT had computers available to students, too. Gates didn't invent BASIC - it was developed by others for use by students. Edit: There were many thousands of computers at the time, and programmers to run them. The 8080 instruction set is trivial: http://pastraiser.com/cpu/i8080/i8080_opcodes.html http://pastraiser.com/cpu/i8080/i8080_opcodes.html and any semi-competent programmer can write an emulator for it in a few hours. The magic ingredient Gates and Allen had was Recognizing The Opportunity, and then Acting On It. There was no technical wizardry involved, and no resources that were not also available to thousands, and soon tens of thousands, of others. The Jobs and Wozniak story makes this even clearer. Wozniak showed his designs to HP and offered it to them. HP's engineers were utterly uninterested in it. (And remember that the Apple 1 was built with off-the-shelf parts anyone could buy.)
        wslh 8y ago
        There were few programmers at that time, so few programmers could have potentially reach the market. Compare it with now when you just need to download an open source programming language and compile it on many platforms.
- kiriakasis 8y ago
  This is completely irrelevant and misses the point. A counterexample would be someone from a poor background dropping from college to found a startup.
  - yipbub 8y ago
    If it's so easy to find a counterexample would you furnish me with one?
    - Arnt 8y ago
      Counterexamples matter a great deal when someone claims that something is a rule without exceptions. They're very nearly pointless when someone states something that has many obvious exceptions but still means something, "men are taller than women", "rich people can take risks that poor people cannot" etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox BTW.
      - yipbub 8y ago
        Which is what I was pointing out rhetorically... Also, it's not just that rich people can takes risks that poor people cannot. It's that they never risk a minimum standard of living. Poor people making decisions like that do.
  - yaseer 8y ago
    "If it's so easy to find a counterexample would you furnish me with one?" You've misinterpreted what he's saying. He's saying "that isn't a valid counterexample".
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    > someone from a poor background dropping from college to found a startup Steve Jobs Edit: Jan Koum is another
    - alehul 8y ago
- usrusr 8y ago
  Quite the opposite in my reading: Kildall's place in the history of computing is being the guy who did not become "Bill Gates" despite having all the right skills and being at the right place at the right time. One difference between Gates and Kildall at the time was pedigree, and look how it turned out. (Now I'm off to reminisce about GEM)
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    What is your evidence that "pedigree" made the difference? Edit: how rude of me to ask for evidence!
    - ataturk 8y ago
      Here's why: If Gates failed, he knew he could go back to Mom & Dad's place and be just fine. We don't all have that guarantee in life. My early years were punctuated with just how bad lower middle class life can be, my parents weren't poor, just lower middle class, but there was a ton of strife and not that great of a home or property to live on. Thus, every risk I took in my 20s had to be tempered by the "what if" game--if I fail at this, I have to move back to that shit life. Of five children, I am the only truly successful one, but I never could justify the really big risks that might propel me really far. Then again, it has long been my belief that successful entrepreneurs are selected and not simply lucky. So yes, pedigree is important, especially if that pedigree involves three-letter agencies like C-I-A, looking at you Google and Facebook.
    - throwawaymath 8y ago
      I didn’t downvote you, but to honestly answer your edit: you’re not being downvoted because you’re asking for evidence. You’re being downvoted because it seems unlikely your question is being asked in good faith. Do you actually believe there is an empirical basis for the person’s opinion that pedigree played a part, or are you just challenging it becuase you know there is no such empirical evidence for those two specific cases? Moreover it’s kind of missing the forest for the trees...yes, pedigree might not have literally been the differentiator between these two specific entrepreneurs. But do you have any meaningful critique to the basic idea that people with better than average starts in life have better than average outcomes? That is what is primarily under discussion here, not Bill Gates in particular.

skookumchuck 8y ago

Gary Kildall had every opportunity to do what Gates did, and did not come from a wealthy family nor did he go to Harvard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kildall In fact, IBM first went to Gary Kildall for DOS. Lots of people got rich off of software in those days, hardly any of them went to Harvard.

wslh 8y ago
I think nobody is arguing that this happens in 100% of the cases but being wealthy and/or well connected adds "an ace under the sleeve". The 70s and 80s were also great times to start a computer related company, that's for sure.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  The point is that Gates' background was hardly a precondition for his success. Edit: Gary Kildall could have done everything Gates did, and Tim Patterson wrote DOS, not Gates. Tons of people knew how to program and had access to computers. Computers were not invented in 1975. The lower middle class neighborhood public high school in my neighborhood in 1975 had a computer and offered programming classes. There's a reason Allen raced to show Gates the Popular Electronics issue - he knew there'd be others doing the same thing right away.
  - wslh 8y ago
    Gates and Allen background was having written a BASIC for the Altair . Allen had also previous experience in programming. Not many (and much less younger) people had this background.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      Specifically Gates and Allen were given timesharing access to a DEC-10 at school - which was an incredibly rare privilege in the early 1970s. Allen had already written an 8008 emulator on the same model of mainframe as the one at Harvard. And that made it possible to update the emulator while at Harvard and then use it as the basis of their version of BASIC.
      - skookumchuck 8y ago
        Any programmer at the time could have written in 8080 emulator. They didn't have to be a kid in school. The DEC-10 was a popular computer. MIT had computers available to students, too. Gates didn't invent BASIC - it was developed by others for use by students. Edit: There were many thousands of computers at the time, and programmers to run them. The 8080 instruction set is trivial: http://pastraiser.com/cpu/i8080/i8080_opcodes.html http://pastraiser.com/cpu/i8080/i8080_opcodes.html and any semi-competent programmer can write an emulator for it in a few hours. The magic ingredient Gates and Allen had was Recognizing The Opportunity, and then Acting On It. There was no technical wizardry involved, and no resources that were not also available to thousands, and soon tens of thousands, of others. The Jobs and Wozniak story makes this even clearer. Wozniak showed his designs to HP and offered it to them. HP's engineers were utterly uninterested in it. (And remember that the Apple 1 was built with off-the-shelf parts anyone could buy.)
        wslh 8y ago
        There were few programmers at that time, so few programmers could have potentially reach the market. Compare it with now when you just need to download an open source programming language and compile it on many platforms.
kiriakasis 8y ago
This is completely irrelevant and misses the point. A counterexample would be someone from a poor background dropping from college to found a startup.
- yipbub 8y ago
  If it's so easy to find a counterexample would you furnish me with one?
  - Arnt 8y ago
    Counterexamples matter a great deal when someone claims that something is a rule without exceptions. They're very nearly pointless when someone states something that has many obvious exceptions but still means something, "men are taller than women", "rich people can take risks that poor people cannot" etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox BTW.
    - yipbub 8y ago
      Which is what I was pointing out rhetorically... Also, it's not just that rich people can takes risks that poor people cannot. It's that they never risk a minimum standard of living. Poor people making decisions like that do.
- yaseer 8y ago
  "If it's so easy to find a counterexample would you furnish me with one?" You've misinterpreted what he's saying. He's saying "that isn't a valid counterexample".
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  > someone from a poor background dropping from college to found a startup Steve Jobs Edit: Jan Koum is another
  - alehul 8y ago
usrusr 8y ago
Quite the opposite in my reading: Kildall's place in the history of computing is being the guy who did not become "Bill Gates" despite having all the right skills and being at the right place at the right time. One difference between Gates and Kildall at the time was pedigree, and look how it turned out. (Now I'm off to reminisce about GEM)
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  What is your evidence that "pedigree" made the difference? Edit: how rude of me to ask for evidence!
  - ataturk 8y ago
    Here's why: If Gates failed, he knew he could go back to Mom & Dad's place and be just fine. We don't all have that guarantee in life. My early years were punctuated with just how bad lower middle class life can be, my parents weren't poor, just lower middle class, but there was a ton of strife and not that great of a home or property to live on. Thus, every risk I took in my 20s had to be tempered by the "what if" game--if I fail at this, I have to move back to that shit life. Of five children, I am the only truly successful one, but I never could justify the really big risks that might propel me really far. Then again, it has long been my belief that successful entrepreneurs are selected and not simply lucky. So yes, pedigree is important, especially if that pedigree involves three-letter agencies like C-I-A, looking at you Google and Facebook.
  - throwawaymath 8y ago
    I didn’t downvote you, but to honestly answer your edit: you’re not being downvoted because you’re asking for evidence. You’re being downvoted because it seems unlikely your question is being asked in good faith. Do you actually believe there is an empirical basis for the person’s opinion that pedigree played a part, or are you just challenging it becuase you know there is no such empirical evidence for those two specific cases? Moreover it’s kind of missing the forest for the trees...yes, pedigree might not have literally been the differentiator between these two specific entrepreneurs. But do you have any meaningful critique to the basic idea that people with better than average starts in life have better than average outcomes? That is what is primarily under discussion here, not Bill Gates in particular.